11 ms·

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the per

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantaged,etc) and did not really mention any of the regulations. Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. *edited: I see the down votes. The pro-NN astro-turfing is high here. This is just my opinion. If there is nothing to fear, you shouldn't be trying to silence it.

pyrophane 12y ago
Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published so people could see how bad it was going to be - without success. Also add in the fact the FCC is supposed to be a independent office, and Obama has been meddling them since he got into office: http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/ http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-n... Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality.
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    This is what scares me, what was there to hide?
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"
      - ForHackernews 12y ago
        I don't even think it's HN users. There's a bunch of zero-day accounts in here parroting anti-NN talking points.
      - TallGuyShort 12y ago
        Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.
        ForHackernews 12y ago
        The full regulations should be published within the next few days. They won't go into effect immediately, and the public (and Congress) will certainly get to comment, and suggest revisions.
        TallGuyShort 12y ago
        Holy hell - why the down votes? "Everything is public" made it sound like the regulations had been published. I just wanted to know where. What's wrong with asking for a citation?
        supergeek133 12y ago
        I'm with you, it's like asking for the ability to read something is blasphemous. Never did either of us say we were against it, but the flood of downvotes. Oh my.
      - at-fates-hands 12y ago
        So this doesn't scare you at all? The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet. http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-ob...
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    > Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - ForHackernews 12y ago
        In many states, power-production has been decoupled from power-delivery. For example, in Illinois[0], customers can choose which company to buy their power from but maintaining the lines and delivering that power is still the responsibility of Commonwealth Edison, the old monopoly utility. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and it's not that dissimilar from Comcast delivering my packets, while I choose to buy my content from Netflix or Hulu or Amazon. [0] http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx
    - paulhauggis 12y ago
      Yes, but both electricity and water don't really require innovation in the future. I can't remember the last time I wanted higher speed water in my house.
      - ForHackernews 12y ago
        You almost couldn't be more wrong about that. Providing electricity and water are both massively complex undertakings, and ongoing innovation[0] is crucial to providing service for a growing population, and meeting the ecological challenges of tomorrow. California is in the middle of an epochal drought[1], and you're saying we don't need innovation in water? [0] http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-g... [1] http://ca.gov/drought/ http://ca.gov/drought/
      - FireBeyond 12y ago
        Right. We have zero issues with water availability in the world. I guess those billions being poured into desalination, water recycling and alternatives are all, forgive the pun, money down the drain? And you're absolutely right - we have zero need for alternative energy sources (although on that, it's kinda true - I've no particular issue with nuclear fission per se, though we need to figure out something better in regards to storage, and nuclear fusion is something that merits a huge deal of research into commercial viability).
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published There is no bill. And, under the normal regulatory process, there is nothing to be published until the authority responsible for regulation approves something -- its true that the FCC could have delayed action and issued another NPRM. But regulations are published fairly quickly once adopted by the issuing authority, not generally effective immediately, and subject to revision by the issuing authority or overriding by Congress once they are published, so the idea that this will go into effect without people knowing what is in it is incorrect, as is the idea that there is anything unusual about the process here. Having failed to drum up opposition to the general idea of regulation, opponents have attempted to paint the process as unusual and nefarious, but that just isn't an argument that has a grounding in reality. > Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine Even the worst possible regulation of the internet isn't even in the top 50% of the worst things I can imagine.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published? If the past experience on similar FCC actions (including, e.g., the last Open Internet Report and Order) is a good guide, they'll be published in the next several days, and the biggest delay in getting them published will be the opposing commissioners getting finished writing up their dissenting views, which will be published alongside what is adopted.
  - dd36 12y ago
    *Comcast getting finished writing their dissenting views...
paulhauggis 12y ago
In addition to this, Chairman Wheeler refused to testify before congress about Net Neutrality. I would just like more transparency. With all of the Snowden leaks, why aren't we demanding transparency? Do we really just want to give our rights away like this?
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.
  - Eric_WVGG 12y ago
    This. There was widespread belief that Wheeler was a cable industry stooge. Wheeler and Obama deserve some credit for making this happen in an obstructionist environment. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a-former-lobbyist-at-the-f-c-c http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a...
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    This is a poor excuse for a lack of transparency and is unacceptable.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      Congressional testimony is not the same thing as transparency. In my experience, it's just the opposite.
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    Transparency shouldn't be dictated based on which party controls congress. Not to mention it's not just the GOP that's full of old people that have zero technology grasp.
  - travie7273 12y ago
api 12y ago
Almost nobody in Washington reads anything. They just rubber stamp stuff written for them by bureaucrats, think tanks, and lobbyists. Question is who wrote this stuff: telecoms, Google, the NSA, ???
- Zancarius 12y ago
  How about all of the above? I'm willing to bet there are provisions in there for further NSA-related cruft. I'm also suspicious that this will set the stage for increasing the tax burden on consumers, but that remains to be seen.
- walexander 12y ago
  Don't forget the MPAA and RIAA.
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    You know, it's funny you mention this... I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental. Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.
    - api 12y ago
      Even if such a thing were included, it is utterly unenforceable without breaking encryption and rendering all e-commerce and other secure uses of the Internet compromised.
- sbov 12y ago
  Also the free press and new america's open technology institute. Google and the 2 of them offered a revision in language to close a loophole, which would imply all 3 had access to it.
- deelowe 12y ago
Zancarius 12y ago
Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them. So there's also a chance for further revisions to take place, but I'm not overly optimistic given the 300+ pages of regulations for what should have been a fairly simple issue. I suspect if the rules are too far-reaching, they'll be mired in litigation for years. Hopefully the regulations will be released to the public so we can start disseminating them today or tomorrow. Although the FCC doesn't commonly release rules it's voting on prior to a vote, I do think this illustrates a dysfunction of government agencies and transparency. Maybe that's something we should change.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Congress can also slap them down I believe.
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    Also true. But then you run into the problem of Congress actually doing something. And even if they do, the President can still veto it. I suppose they could try to defund the FCC, but I guarantee that would never happen.
    - thanksgiving 12y ago
      If the FCC had no funds to enforce regulations, what's to stop me from squatting prime spectrum property that Verizon spent so much money on?
      - Zancarius 12y ago
        Honestly, I wasn't outright suggesting the FCC should be defunded (that blurb was sarcasm; I should have labeled it as such). That would be a bad thing. ;) However, I can say with a straight face that I know plenty of people who might make that sort of suggestion...
unprepare 12y ago
The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little control over the FCC and how it chooses to enforce regulations. That is understandably making many people nervous. I look forward to the regulations being published and sincerely hope that it works out as many people hoped it would a few months ago, but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet (one only has to look to England to see how real that possibility is) I don't really know anymore, I'm more unsure about all of this than ever - i really hope nothing nasty surfaces because of this decision, but what can we do at this point but sit and wait and then try to change it all again if we object.
- supergeek133 12y ago
  Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.
  - unprepare 12y ago
    I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly if there are any major objectionable pieces of these new regulations
    - supergeek133 12y ago
      Agreed. It's safe to say public pressure got this into place, so hopefully we come back around when we see the rest.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)
- cratermoon 12y ago
  That spin, "Obama's secret plan to control the Internet!" has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chambers in more or less blunt forms since the FCC first proposed the rules. The spin doctors consistently fail to mention your point: the new rules went through the exact same process as all the previous rule-making.
guelo 12y ago
So when ex-Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with government control and then blamed Obama, that wasn't playing on emotion?
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  "replacing Internet freedom with government control" This is what is happening. The government is now regulating the Internet. Where is the emotion? "then blamed Obama" He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied and now we have Internet regulation (exactly what Obama wanted). Again, these are facts, not emotion. I also think it's funny that you mention one line of potential emotion when the pro-regulation speeches were almost all emotion.
  - innguest 12y ago
    It boils down to that much: emotive people that can't reason without reacting are the majority, and they are easily swayed by politicians who are swayed by professional talkers (lobbyists) that know how to appeal to politicians' emotions. We will never convince emotive people to think, because they are so overwhelmed by fear. To think for oneself means to shed cultural ties and to stop identifying oneself with a group. We are all individuals and that's the only identity we all share in the world. The minority that realizes this will forever be prisoner to the irrational mob majority that act like tribesmen and incessantly demand group privileges.
  - toyg 12y ago
    > The government is now regulating the Internet. No, the government is regulating carriers. When talking about "the Internet", people usually mean both actual wires (carrier infrastructure) and websites (content). If anything, with Title II the FCC is actually forcing companies to keep content less regulated, preventing commercially-motivated censorship. > He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied Obama tried long and hard to stay out of this mess, but Verizon's and Comcast's actions have been more and more outrageous every year. I have a lot of complaints about the Obama administration, but everyone knows this is just the result of some carriers' continuous brinkmanship.
lmg643 12y ago
Tom Wheeler was a career lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. I assume those firms are getting what they want, sort of like how Obamacare is good for insurance companies (they are only "allowed" to sell expensive plans, with government subsidies for those who can't afford them). I liked this stat from Wheeler's bio: "Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame. He is the only member of both halls of fame."
- supergeek133 12y ago
  I remember when this guy was appointed, everyone flipped out because of his history and called it a bad move. Now this happens and he's the messiah! Haha.
  - TheHypnotist 12y ago
    Teraflop just posted this above your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 So while you are right, you are muddying who you consider to be "everyone".
    - supergeek133 12y ago
      It's a figure of speech, and I believe it was top news on here at the time.
- teraflop 12y ago
  According to a recent comment, the truth about Wheeler's lobbying activities is more complex than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657
- daeken 12y ago
  Tom Wheeler was a cable lobbyist when cable TV was unheard of -- 1976-1984. He fought for the underdogs there, whether or not you like where cable has gone. It's much the same with his record in cell lobbying, though he was there for a bit more of the maturing of the tech -- 1992-2004. He helped promote two nascent industries; how is this a bad thing?
innguest 12y ago
> the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another side that makes factual arguments. This simple heuristics is inaccessible to over half the population, who are collectivists. Also notice, most of those collectivists do not believe they should oversee their representatives (corollary from the fact that they don't). They believe politicians are a "set and forget" thing that you input tax-money/votes and without oversight, out comes exactly what was asked for. There's only one solution that I can see. People who want to be led and believe in godonearth, I mean, government, should be allowed to live their communist fantasy; but they should not be allowed to demand that others do so too - this much is fascism. As soon as that schism is feasible, you will see the progressive dwindling of brainless taxpayers and the fattening of the free side; but as long as everyone is forced to participate in this immorality, no change will come.
- Agustus 12y ago
  I have no idea why this is being downvoted, this is a legitimate comment. If there were ever a point that the emotional argument will try and force others out, this demonstrated it.
  - adricnet 12y ago
    Not a downvote, but the idea that an issue only has "two sides" is itself a fallacy, a bad argument sometimes used to confuse. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
  - djur 12y ago
    You don't think "godonearth, I mean, government" and calling half the population "collectivist", "communist", "fascist", and "brainless" might be a little bit emotional? I downvoted it because it was a content-free screed full of political shibboleths and mantras.
    - innguest 12y ago
rayiner 12y ago
The final rule won't be materially different from what was in the NPRM: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393. And the whole proceeding has been documented publicly in Docket 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28. The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the whole notice-and-comment dog and pony show, also makes it pretty easy to overturn regulations if the final regulation isn't adequately foreshadowed by the NPRM. And this will be heavily litigated, so you can bet the FCC is trying to do this by-the-book. One might make the argument that there should be public comment on the final text, but that would be intractable. It's taken 9 months just to do one round of notice and comment.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28. There it is! I found the docket number but didn't know the right website to find the filings. Thanks for the link. 99 pages tho.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
copsarebastards 12y ago
> What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. This is a huge problem. It is literally impossible for lawmakers and regulators to read everything they put into law, as many bills are hundreds of pages long. Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? The only attempt to solve this problem that I know of was in early 18th Century England, when they set a limit on the word count of laws. But this was widely criticized (including being lampooned in Gulliver's Travels) and didn't last long. It seems like this is a pretty intractible problem.
- trose 12y ago
  The guy you're replying to is scare mongering. We're at the step now where the FCC is opening the regulations up for public comment. Obviously they aren't going to release their footnotes before they've iterated on the regulations internally. All of the negative comments on here are essentially "why haven't we seen this yet?!?!?!" on the day they decided its ready for people to see. It's all quite childish bickering bordering on obvious public opinion manipulation.
- bmelton 12y ago
  > Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? Lawmakers could either abstain or vote No until they've read and understood the legislation. The problem is that votes aren't generally cast on understanding, or even how the law will affect the welfare of the populace, but on party lines, with not enough exceptions. On the cure for that, I am equally clueless.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments. The commissioners and their staff then look over the comments they have received, draft an order that responds to the important points raised in the comments, vote on it, and then make it public as a binding rule. Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some, and maybe it's not the best way to make rules. But there is nothing at all abnormal about it -- this is simply the process that we call "notice-and-comment rulemaking" which Congress enshrined in law almost 100 years ago when it passed the Administrative Procedures Act. Anyone who tells you that this is weird, or that the Commission is trying to pull a fast one by waiting to publish the rules, is either misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead you. As for the meeting itself: of course it's theater. The real policy work doesn't happen in the meeting, it happens in the formal notice and comment proceeding that has been happening on paper for many many months. The meeting is primarily a political opportunity.
- tertius 12y ago
  Rather than being out of the ordinary it needs to pause applause until we know what the rules are. I can't make a solid determination if I agree until I have seen the rules. From what I know already I'm not in favor. I.e. the trepidation felt vs. those who are pro-titleII.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  "the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments" As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. "Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some" This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives.
TallGuyShort 12y ago
>> But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. Sadly, yes. I recently purchased a home and was shocked at the logical inconsistency in the contract and the inability of ANYONE at the mortgage company to explain some of the clauses. And I often broken links in terms of service that sites make you accept. It's quite sad. What's the point of any of it?
tzs 12y ago
> I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. You were told this was wrong yesterday, and I know you saw that because you responded. Why are you still repeating it? Once again, we will all have plenty of time to read these regulations before they are enacted. Here is how this works, and how it has worked for well over 50 years, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, at most or all agencies, not just the FCC. 1. Someone at the agency decides to propose rules. 2. They circulate those rules within the agency for discussion, and they may modify them based on that discussion. 3. When they feel that the rules are ready for consideration as an official proposal, they bring them to a vote among before the Commissioners. (Well, for the FCC it is the Commissioners. I have not idea what the corresponding group at, say, the FAA, is called. It would be cool if they were the Aviators, but it is probably something lame). 4. If the rules pass this vote, the agency then publishes them in the Federal Register as a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" (NPRM). A public commentary period, normally 60 days, begins. 5. People then comment on the rules. They comment on other people's comments. 6. If there are a lot of comments, the agency might extend the commentary period. 7. When the commentary period ends, the agency considers the comments, and decides if it is going to go ahead and enact the rules, or start over, or not regulate at all at this time. We just finished step #3 and #4 is starting. The published proposal has to include the objections raised by the Commissioners who voted against them, with responses to those objections by those who supported the proposal, so there will be a short delay before publication and the start of the comment period.
- Zebra20 12y ago
  1. This is the news release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-ru... on the last page, you can see the docket number, which is 14-28. 2. This is the docket page for 14-28. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 3. In the FCC filings section, you can see that the NPRM was filed May 2014. This sets the comment period to July 2014, and the comment reply period to September 2014. 4. There is an order issued in July 2014 that denies extension of the comment period. 5. I conclude that we are in fact, on step #7, and are just waiting on the Report and Order to be filed, at which time the regulations are enacted. 6. Furthermore, Wheeler's statement talks about an 'Order'. http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2 http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2 Am I wrong in my reasoning? Aren't these rules, whatever they are, about to become active?
pyrocat 12y ago
"Pro-NN astro-turfing" hahaha ok dude, sure. Which side of this issue is more likely to have hired giant PR firms to hire astroturfers? And which side is more likely to actually have grassroots support? I'll give you a hint, the pro-consumer side is probably not the one with the giant PR firm.
hgsigala 12y ago
take the time to read this http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... Order forbears 27 provisions of title II and over 700 associated regulations. Will not impose rate regulation, tariffs, burdensome administrative filing requirement or network sharing requirements. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.

pyrophane 12y ago

Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published?

at-fates-hands 12y ago
Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published so people could see how bad it was going to be - without success. Also add in the fact the FCC is supposed to be a independent office, and Obama has been meddling them since he got into office: http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/ http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-n... Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality.
- supergeek133 12y ago
  This is what scares me, what was there to hide?
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      I don't even think it's HN users. There's a bunch of zero-day accounts in here parroting anti-NN talking points.
    - TallGuyShort 12y ago
      Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.
      - ForHackernews 12y ago
        The full regulations should be published within the next few days. They won't go into effect immediately, and the public (and Congress) will certainly get to comment, and suggest revisions.
      - TallGuyShort 12y ago
        Holy hell - why the down votes? "Everything is public" made it sound like the regulations had been published. I just wanted to know where. What's wrong with asking for a citation?
        supergeek133 12y ago
        I'm with you, it's like asking for the ability to read something is blasphemous. Never did either of us say we were against it, but the flood of downvotes. Oh my.
    - at-fates-hands 12y ago
      So this doesn't scare you at all? The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet. http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-ob...
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  > Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality. Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      In many states, power-production has been decoupled from power-delivery. For example, in Illinois[0], customers can choose which company to buy their power from but maintaining the lines and delivering that power is still the responsibility of Commonwealth Edison, the old monopoly utility. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and it's not that dissimilar from Comcast delivering my packets, while I choose to buy my content from Netflix or Hulu or Amazon. [0] http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    Yes, but both electricity and water don't really require innovation in the future. I can't remember the last time I wanted higher speed water in my house.
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      You almost couldn't be more wrong about that. Providing electricity and water are both massively complex undertakings, and ongoing innovation[0] is crucial to providing service for a growing population, and meeting the ecological challenges of tomorrow. California is in the middle of an epochal drought[1], and you're saying we don't need innovation in water? [0] http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-g... [1] http://ca.gov/drought/ http://ca.gov/drought/
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      Right. We have zero issues with water availability in the world. I guess those billions being poured into desalination, water recycling and alternatives are all, forgive the pun, money down the drain? And you're absolutely right - we have zero need for alternative energy sources (although on that, it's kinda true - I've no particular issue with nuclear fission per se, though we need to figure out something better in regards to storage, and nuclear fusion is something that merits a huge deal of research into commercial viability).
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published There is no bill. And, under the normal regulatory process, there is nothing to be published until the authority responsible for regulation approves something -- its true that the FCC could have delayed action and issued another NPRM. But regulations are published fairly quickly once adopted by the issuing authority, not generally effective immediately, and subject to revision by the issuing authority or overriding by Congress once they are published, so the idea that this will go into effect without people knowing what is in it is incorrect, as is the idea that there is anything unusual about the process here. Having failed to drum up opposition to the general idea of regulation, opponents have attempted to paint the process as unusual and nefarious, but that just isn't an argument that has a grounding in reality. > Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine Even the worst possible regulation of the internet isn't even in the top 50% of the worst things I can imagine.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Any idea when or how these additional 700 regulations will be published? If the past experience on similar FCC actions (including, e.g., the last Open Internet Report and Order) is a good guide, they'll be published in the next several days, and the biggest delay in getting them published will be the opposing commissioners getting finished writing up their dissenting views, which will be published alongside what is adopted.
- dd36 12y ago
  *Comcast getting finished writing their dissenting views...

paulhauggis 12y ago

In addition to this, Chairman Wheeler refused to testify before congress about Net Neutrality. I would just like more transparency. With all of the Snowden leaks, why aren't we demanding transparency? Do we really just want to give our rights away like this?

ForHackernews 12y ago
Honestly, I don't blame him. We have a GOP-controlled Congress, so testifying would just be an hours-long exercise in getting yelled at by old people who don't understand technology or believe in science, but love an opportunity for political grandstanding against an Obama-appointee.
- Eric_WVGG 12y ago
  This. There was widespread belief that Wheeler was a cable industry stooge. Wheeler and Obama deserve some credit for making this happen in an obstructionist environment. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a-former-lobbyist-at-the-f-c-c http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-bad-pick-a...
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  This is a poor excuse for a lack of transparency and is unacceptable.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Congressional testimony is not the same thing as transparency. In my experience, it's just the opposite.
- supergeek133 12y ago
  Transparency shouldn't be dictated based on which party controls congress. Not to mention it's not just the GOP that's full of old people that have zero technology grasp.
- travie7273 12y ago

api 12y ago

Almost nobody in Washington reads anything. They just rubber stamp stuff written for them by bureaucrats, think tanks, and lobbyists. Question is who wrote this stuff: telecoms, Google, the NSA, ???

Zancarius 12y ago
How about all of the above? I'm willing to bet there are provisions in there for further NSA-related cruft. I'm also suspicious that this will set the stage for increasing the tax burden on consumers, but that remains to be seen.
walexander 12y ago
Don't forget the MPAA and RIAA.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  You know, it's funny you mention this... I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental. Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.
  - api 12y ago
    Even if such a thing were included, it is utterly unenforceable without breaking encryption and rendering all e-commerce and other secure uses of the Internet compromised.
sbov 12y ago
Also the free press and new america's open technology institute. Google and the 2 of them offered a revision in language to close a loophole, which would imply all 3 had access to it.
deelowe 12y ago

Zancarius 12y ago

Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc. It worries me that issues like this are co-opted to turn them into a one-size-fits-all batch of regulations sidelining their original intent. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them. So there's also a chance for further revisions to take place, but I'm not overly optimistic given the 300+ pages of regulations for what should have been a fairly simple issue. I suspect if the rules are too far-reaching, they'll be mired in litigation for years. Hopefully the regulations will be released to the public so we can start disseminating them today or tomorrow. Although the FCC doesn't commonly release rules it's voting on prior to a vote, I do think this illustrates a dysfunction of government agencies and transparency. Maybe that's something we should change.

sigzero 12y ago
Congress can also slap them down I believe.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  Also true. But then you run into the problem of Congress actually doing something. And even if they do, the President can still veto it. I suppose they could try to defund the FCC, but I guarantee that would never happen.
  - thanksgiving 12y ago
    If the FCC had no funds to enforce regulations, what's to stop me from squatting prime spectrum property that Verizon spent so much money on?
    - Zancarius 12y ago
      Honestly, I wasn't outright suggesting the FCC should be defunded (that blurb was sarcasm; I should have labeled it as such). That would be a bad thing. ;) However, I can say with a straight face that I know plenty of people who might make that sort of suggestion...

unprepare 12y ago

The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little control over the FCC and how it chooses to enforce regulations. That is understandably making many people nervous. I look forward to the regulations being published and sincerely hope that it works out as many people hoped it would a few months ago, but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet (one only has to look to England to see how real that possibility is) I don't really know anymore, I'm more unsure about all of this than ever - i really hope nothing nasty surfaces because of this decision, but what can we do at this point but sit and wait and then try to change it all again if we object.

supergeek133 12y ago
Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.
- unprepare 12y ago
  I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly if there are any major objectionable pieces of these new regulations
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    Agreed. It's safe to say public pressure got this into place, so hopefully we come back around when we see the rest.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)

cratermoon 12y ago
That spin, "Obama's secret plan to control the Internet!" has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chambers in more or less blunt forms since the FCC first proposed the rules. The spin doctors consistently fail to mention your point: the new rules went through the exact same process as all the previous rule-making.

guelo 12y ago

So when ex-Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with government control and then blamed Obama, that wasn't playing on emotion?

paulhauggis 12y ago
"replacing Internet freedom with government control" This is what is happening. The government is now regulating the Internet. Where is the emotion? "then blamed Obama" He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied and now we have Internet regulation (exactly what Obama wanted). Again, these are facts, not emotion. I also think it's funny that you mention one line of potential emotion when the pro-regulation speeches were almost all emotion.
- innguest 12y ago
  It boils down to that much: emotive people that can't reason without reacting are the majority, and they are easily swayed by politicians who are swayed by professional talkers (lobbyists) that know how to appeal to politicians' emotions. We will never convince emotive people to think, because they are so overwhelmed by fear. To think for oneself means to shed cultural ties and to stop identifying oneself with a group. We are all individuals and that's the only identity we all share in the world. The minority that realizes this will forever be prisoner to the irrational mob majority that act like tribesmen and incessantly demand group privileges.
- toyg 12y ago
  > The government is now regulating the Internet. No, the government is regulating carriers. When talking about "the Internet", people usually mean both actual wires (carrier infrastructure) and websites (content). If anything, with Title II the FCC is actually forcing companies to keep content less regulated, preventing commercially-motivated censorship. > He played a clip in which Obama talked about what he wanted. The FCC complied Obama tried long and hard to stay out of this mess, but Verizon's and Comcast's actions have been more and more outrageous every year. I have a lot of complaints about the Obama administration, but everyone knows this is just the result of some carriers' continuous brinkmanship.

lmg643 12y ago

Tom Wheeler was a career lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. I assume those firms are getting what they want, sort of like how Obamacare is good for insurance companies (they are only "allowed" to sell expensive plans, with government subsidies for those who can't afford them). I liked this stat from Wheeler's bio: "Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame. He is the only member of both halls of fame."

supergeek133 12y ago
I remember when this guy was appointed, everyone flipped out because of his history and called it a bad move. Now this happens and he's the messiah! Haha.
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  Teraflop just posted this above your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 So while you are right, you are muddying who you consider to be "everyone".
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    It's a figure of speech, and I believe it was top news on here at the time.
teraflop 12y ago
According to a recent comment, the truth about Wheeler's lobbying activities is more complex than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657
daeken 12y ago
Tom Wheeler was a cable lobbyist when cable TV was unheard of -- 1976-1984. He fought for the underdogs there, whether or not you like where cable has gone. It's much the same with his record in cell lobbying, though he was there for a bit more of the maturing of the tech -- 1992-2004. He helped promote two nascent industries; how is this a bad thing?

innguest 12y ago

> the pros played only on emotion [...] Facts and rationality was only brought up by the opposition. That's my rule of thumb for knowing which side is right. There's always one side that makes emotional arguments, and another side that makes factual arguments. This simple heuristics is inaccessible to over half the population, who are collectivists. Also notice, most of those collectivists do not believe they should oversee their representatives (corollary from the fact that they don't). They believe politicians are a "set and forget" thing that you input tax-money/votes and without oversight, out comes exactly what was asked for. There's only one solution that I can see. People who want to be led and believe in godonearth, I mean, government, should be allowed to live their communist fantasy; but they should not be allowed to demand that others do so too - this much is fascism. As soon as that schism is feasible, you will see the progressive dwindling of brainless taxpayers and the fattening of the free side; but as long as everyone is forced to participate in this immorality, no change will come.

Agustus 12y ago
I have no idea why this is being downvoted, this is a legitimate comment. If there were ever a point that the emotional argument will try and force others out, this demonstrated it.
- adricnet 12y ago
  Not a downvote, but the idea that an issue only has "two sides" is itself a fallacy, a bad argument sometimes used to confuse. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
- djur 12y ago
  You don't think "godonearth, I mean, government" and calling half the population "collectivist", "communist", "fascist", and "brainless" might be a little bit emotional? I downvoted it because it was a content-free screed full of political shibboleths and mantras.
  - innguest 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

The final rule won't be materially different from what was in the NPRM: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017642393. And the whole proceeding has been documented publicly in Docket 14-28: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28. The Administrative Procedure Act, which requires the whole notice-and-comment dog and pony show, also makes it pretty easy to overturn regulations if the final regulation isn't adequately foreshadowed by the NPRM. And this will be heavily litigated, so you can bet the FCC is trying to do this by-the-book. One might make the argument that there should be public comment on the final text, but that would be intractable. It's taken 9 months just to do one round of notice and comment.

forgottenpass 12y ago
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28. There it is! I found the docket number but didn't know the right website to find the filings. Thanks for the link. 99 pages tho.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

copsarebastards 12y ago

> What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. This is a huge problem. It is literally impossible for lawmakers and regulators to read everything they put into law, as many bills are hundreds of pages long. Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? The only attempt to solve this problem that I know of was in early 18th Century England, when they set a limit on the word count of laws. But this was widely criticized (including being lampooned in Gulliver's Travels) and didn't last long. It seems like this is a pretty intractible problem.

trose 12y ago
The guy you're replying to is scare mongering. We're at the step now where the FCC is opening the regulations up for public comment. Obviously they aren't going to release their footnotes before they've iterated on the regulations internally. All of the negative comments on here are essentially "why haven't we seen this yet?!?!?!" on the day they decided its ready for people to see. It's all quite childish bickering bordering on obvious public opinion manipulation.
bmelton 12y ago
> Does anyone have any viable solutions to this problem? Lawmakers could either abstain or vote No until they've read and understood the legislation. The problem is that votes aren't generally cast on understanding, or even how the law will affect the welfare of the populace, but on party lines, with not enough exceptions. On the cure for that, I am equally clueless.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments. The commissioners and their staff then look over the comments they have received, draft an order that responds to the important points raised in the comments, vote on it, and then make it public as a binding rule. Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some, and maybe it's not the best way to make rules. But there is nothing at all abnormal about it -- this is simply the process that we call "notice-and-comment rulemaking" which Congress enshrined in law almost 100 years ago when it passed the Administrative Procedures Act. Anyone who tells you that this is weird, or that the Commission is trying to pull a fast one by waiting to publish the rules, is either misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead you. As for the meeting itself: of course it's theater. The real policy work doesn't happen in the meeting, it happens in the formal notice and comment proceeding that has been happening on paper for many many months. The meeting is primarily a political opportunity.

tertius 12y ago
Rather than being out of the ordinary it needs to pause applause until we know what the rules are. I can't make a solid determination if I agree until I have seen the rules. From what I know already I'm not in favor. I.e. the trepidation felt vs. those who are pro-titleII.
paulhauggis 12y ago
"the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments" As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. "Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some" This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives.

TallGuyShort 12y ago

>> But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. Sadly, yes. I recently purchased a home and was shocked at the logical inconsistency in the contract and the inability of ANYONE at the mortgage company to explain some of the clauses. And I often broken links in terms of service that sites make you accept. It's quite sad. What's the point of any of it?

tzs 12y ago

> I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. You were told this was wrong yesterday, and I know you saw that because you responded. Why are you still repeating it? Once again, we will all have plenty of time to read these regulations before they are enacted. Here is how this works, and how it has worked for well over 50 years, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, at most or all agencies, not just the FCC. 1. Someone at the agency decides to propose rules. 2. They circulate those rules within the agency for discussion, and they may modify them based on that discussion. 3. When they feel that the rules are ready for consideration as an official proposal, they bring them to a vote among before the Commissioners. (Well, for the FCC it is the Commissioners. I have not idea what the corresponding group at, say, the FAA, is called. It would be cool if they were the Aviators, but it is probably something lame). 4. If the rules pass this vote, the agency then publishes them in the Federal Register as a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" (NPRM). A public commentary period, normally 60 days, begins. 5. People then comment on the rules. They comment on other people's comments. 6. If there are a lot of comments, the agency might extend the commentary period. 7. When the commentary period ends, the agency considers the comments, and decides if it is going to go ahead and enact the rules, or start over, or not regulate at all at this time. We just finished step #3 and #4 is starting. The published proposal has to include the objections raised by the Commissioners who voted against them, with responses to those objections by those who supported the proposal, so there will be a short delay before publication and the start of the comment period.

Zebra20 12y ago
1. This is the news release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-ru... on the last page, you can see the docket number, which is 14-28. 2. This is the docket page for 14-28. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28 3. In the FCC filings section, you can see that the NPRM was filed May 2014. This sets the comment period to July 2014, and the comment reply period to September 2014. 4. There is an order issued in July 2014 that denies extension of the comment period. 5. I conclude that we are in fact, on step #7, and are just waiting on the Report and Order to be filed, at which time the regulations are enacted. 6. Furthermore, Wheeler's statement talks about an 'Order'. http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2 http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2 Am I wrong in my reasoning? Aren't these rules, whatever they are, about to become active?

pyrocat 12y ago

"Pro-NN astro-turfing" hahaha ok dude, sure. Which side of this issue is more likely to have hired giant PR firms to hire astroturfers? And which side is more likely to actually have grassroots support? I'll give you a hint, the pro-consumer side is probably not the one with the giant PR firm.

hgsigala 12y ago

take the time to read this http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... Order forbears 27 provisions of title II and over 700 associated regulations. Will not impose rate regulation, tariffs, burdensome administrative filing requirement or network sharing requirements. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.