12 ms·

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading comment threads, a person new to the issue might get the impression as if the US government just nationalized comcast. I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.

travie7273 12y ago
Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.
- Selfcommit 12y ago
  Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?
  - CzechsMix 12y ago
    That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line. There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.
      - CzechsMix 12y ago
        I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?
        wpietri 12y ago
        If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion. And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.
        CzechsMix 12y ago
        it's actually kind of odd, I spoke out against the ad hom precisely because I wanted a useful discussion. Notice how when it was revealed that my account is several days old, not several minutes, a second factor, karma had to be brought in to dismiss my opinion. Sorry for the confusion that was caused by the fact that elsewhere in the thread, it was revealed that I was anti-NN. Also sorry for getting back to you, thanks to the heaping spoonfuls of negative karma I got, I wasn't allowed to post until recently.
      - baddox 12y ago
        > But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Not really. You're not taking the idea of ad hominem far enough. When somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentence and no citations or evidence, you ought to reject the validity of that argument regardless of who is presenting the argument. That argument is unsubstantiated, period, whether it's posted by a brand new throwaway account or a renowned expert in the area of discussion.
    - stellar678 12y ago
      Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.
      - CzechsMix 12y ago
        My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. I just think it's weak. If being anti-NN is so incredibly stupid, shouldn't refuting the points they make be trivial? why not just do it, and safe yourself the trouble of being accused of sitting one-step up on the debate pyramid from "Name-calling"?
        dang 12y ago
        > My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are not ok, but personal attacks such as this are not allowed on Hacker News either. Please review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
      - meragrin 12y ago
        How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.
        unethical_ban 12y ago
        This is a politically charged topic with powerful, malicious actors. The thread an unusually large number of green members posting mostly against what HN has been mostly for. It's an odd pattern, and the parent above saying it's "vile" to call it what it looks like is overblowing it.
        meragrin 12y ago
        I'm not seeing that pattern. I've seen a total of 7 green members on this topic. That to me isn't all that unusual. The vast majority of green I saw was for NN. Are you saying HN is against NN? I thought HN was for NN.
    - eropple 12y ago
      Not for nothing, but: user: CzechsMix created: 11 days ago karma: 0 People wouldn't be going "hmm, there's a lot of green names and they're all conveniently anti-NN" if there weren't. Like, y'know...you, yourself, elsewhere in this thread.
      - CzechsMix 12y ago
        Yes, I happen to be anti-NN, no, I do not think that the way things currently are works. No I do not think the cable companies operate fairly in a free market. Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slightest idea you know what you're talking about, if all you can do is spout people's account age and karma ratings? if being anti-NN is so trivially stupid, shouldn't you be able to point this out quite simply?
        wpietri 12y ago
        The way I know that eropple knows what he's talking about is that I've been reading his comments for years, and so have a sense of his competence, interest, and manner of thinking. They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identity rather than concealing it while lashing out at others.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Indeed. The one thing I love about HN is that it's small enough that after time, you simply get to know other commenters and you learn their areas of competence.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    That's a pretty good karma rate! I think my account was probably weeks old before I got to 6.
- mudil 12y ago
  Precisely. Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    > Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornography laws are a limitation I worry about a bit, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone is pushing for using utility regulation to limit pornography, and we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
    - tsax 12y ago
      If content regulations happen, they'll come in with the new flavor of the month, i.e. 'social justice.' There will be vague statutes against 'harassment' I'm guessing, and anyone decrying their vagueness or broadness will be decried a racist, sexist shitlord. You won't get 80's style 'Christian moralism' language in 2020.
      - copsarebastards 12y ago
        > Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy? Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen. However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
        tsax 12y ago
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.
  - strictnein 12y ago
    What bill?
  - travie7273 12y ago
    Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?
    - copsarebastards 12y ago
      > Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right? Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing. All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it. Also: user: travie7273 created: 30 minutes ago Astroturf potential: high.
      - serge2k 12y ago
        Great argument, next time call him 12 years old.
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      It's not a "bill", it's FCC regulations, and this has already been explained in about 10 comments throughout this thread. Are you a real user, or a paid astroturfer?
  - tertius 12y ago
    * The FCC cannot pass bills, they're generally referred to as rules/regulations.
- smtddr 12y ago
  http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-nears-1424819532 http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neut... """Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal.""" I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that as damaging for Google. The only thing I can think of is the typical pattern of a company becoming hugely successful then begin seeking to change the laws that allowed them to grow so nobody else can follow the path. Kinda like cutting the bridge after you've crossed it. I hope that's not what E.Schmidt is thinking...
  - unprepare 12y ago
    I think you are on the right track If you are google with billions in the bank, what does it matter to you if Comcast wants to charge you a little bit more? The real effect is that entrenched powers get further entrenched because of less access to alternatives. Lets say Comcast wanted to charge search providers 500million dollars. Thats not a lot of money from Googles search engine profits. But how much is 500 million of Bings budget? Yahoos? DuckDuckGo? I would be surprised if every search provider was willing and able to pay fees like this.
- badsock 12y ago
  Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.
    - algorias 12y ago
      Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.
        throwaway150219 12y ago
        I see, I didn't realize consumer ISPs were providing free internet access to Google and Amazon.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      And I think dumb pipes open for everyone is best. After all ... it would be inconvenient if your utility company told you what can you use your electricity for.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  user: travie7273 created: 27 minutes ago
  - bmelton 12y ago
    This really isn't helpful. If you'd read his comment, it would be clear that his last account was banned, which would all but necessitate that any new accounts would be, y'know, new. Further, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.
    - copsarebastards 12y ago
      As someone else pointed out, a lot of new accounts were posting ISP talking points, which looks a whole lot like astroturfing. Obviously the insightfulness of comments shouldn't be judged by how long someone has been a member of a website, but how long they've been a member of a website may be a good indicator of their motivations.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. If you are referring to Google's concerns voiced after early outlines of the Title II approach, they objected to something that was discussed earlier as part of the approach -- identifying a "service" provided to edge providers by ISPs distinct from that provided to retail customers, and classifying that newly-identified service under Title II -- because it might create a basis for ISP to edge provider charges. This provision, from subsequent outlines provided, is not part of the final package, which only addresses retail broadband service as a Title II service and addresses ISP to edge provider relations in terms of the impact they have on retail customers.
- dang 12y ago
  > My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations HN accounts get banned for breaking the HN guidelines, not for being against regulations. For example, a jab such as "people like you" in a comment breaks the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
chucksmash 12y ago
The ratio of negative comments vs positive ones is indeed odd.
rayiner 12y ago
> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF only came out in favor of reclassification in June of last year, in a very measured and deliberate release: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-way-forward https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality.... And some reasonably, technologically savvy people are opposed to net neutrality period: http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-faults-silicon-valley-groupthink-says-fcc-broadband-rule-a-mistake.html http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-faults-... ("Mark Cuban faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake") [1] Conservatives don't like it because it allows the FCC to do things like rate-setting, even if this administration chooses not to use that power. Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content. PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic.
- cratermoon 12y ago
  > Up until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option." As far back as the 90s, when Mosaic was still the most advanced browser out there, I was noting that Title II common carrier rules for ISPs were the best choice to balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry -- and protect ISPs from liability for their users' communications. It's only taken two decades for the industry to realize the same.
  - tertius 12y ago
    > balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry Unless it's not deemed "legal." And I'm not talking about torrenting.
    - cratermoon 12y ago
covzzire 12y ago
Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. It's completely unnecessary and will do more harm than good.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  > Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.
  - tertius 12y ago
    > because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites Elaborate on this plan. > and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design. * A bunch of new accounts arguing the opposite as well.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      The major consumer isps have been crystal clear (unless you don't wish to understand): they look at large consumer-facing internet companies and want a piece of the action. eg the recent action by Verizon to charge Netflix money to deliver Netflix to Verizon's paying customers. So if we don't want pay-to-play internet companies, we need net neutrality. Particularly given the widespread monopoly structure of home internet access.
      - tertius 12y ago
        TitleII is not the solution for this problem.
baddox 12y ago
I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic. I consider my views reasonable, although I guess an unreasonable person would consider their own unreasonable views to be reasonable. I'm definitely not astro-turfing, although if I get a check from the Ministry of Truth I will refrain from cashing it and let you know.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  > I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. It seems like we don't have enough information to say it's a bad thing either, but that's not stopping these < 1 hour old accounts from saying it.
  - baddox 12y ago
    To be fair, I can identify with the desire to place the burden of proof on the supporters of new regulations.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  > My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic. I would say that's more strongly the case in competitive industries where there's some consumer choice in play to keep bad companies in check. But there are very few people who choose Comcast from between multiple broadband providers. And then they shot themselves in the foot in the public discourse with their constant stream of customer abuse and terrible support stories. I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic about this, but I should read up more on what parts of Title II are being applied to what parts of the network here. In particular, does this have any effect on Comcast saying "Netflix needs to pay us or we won't install sufficient peering to meet our customers' demand for Netflix connections"? Having a second ISP choice where Netflix works properly would fix that pretty quickly, but I'm not clear on whether Title II does. But the FCC also just overruled state laws blocking municipal broadband networks, so that's going to be another option to keep an eye on.
ForHackernews 12y ago
Agreed. This thread is super strange and contrary to what I would have assumed the natural HN biases to be. Edit: http://www.vice.com/read/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-fake-consumer-support-to-end-net-neutrality http://www.vice.com/read/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-f...
paulhauggis 12y ago
"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates" It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? "and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US." Tell me how more regulation will lead to more competition and a better Internet for the consumer. "I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD." Most people were afraid to talk about it because the HN community typically down votes everyone to hell that has opposing opinions. I gave up awhile back because nobody would listen, but I'm not giving up today. "This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD." It seems you won't even listen to the opposition and are trying to discredit anyone that is against this government regulation as "FUD". It sounds like you are the astro-turfing one. What happened to open and honest discussions?
- cratermoon 12y ago
  > We haven't been able to see one of them How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    It's not. Things need to change.
    - warfangle 12y ago
      Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP. Its actually pretty much all regulatory bodies -- its just there is no formal "vote" in regular executive branch hierarchies before a regulatory action is adopted. But they still don't publish the internal drafts that are considered before they are adopted (they do sometimes publish NPRMs before final rules, but the FCC did that in this case, too.)
forrestthewoods 12y ago
People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting. Strangely, the people that have suddenly expressed concerned about the second thing in the major media as the vote approached are the same people that were expressing opposition on the first ground until very recently (and, many of them continued to do both.) So, I don't think that is at all accurate.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    What's wrong with that? I consider myself one of those people. Broadband companies have a government sponsored monopoly. There are good, fair reasons for that. One of the rules with being gifted a government sponsored monopoly should be that you aren't allowed to abuse that monopoly power. Very reasonable. People agree in principle. Now we're adding some rules to prevent that abuse. However we don't know what they are! Just as the pendulum was much too far on one side it could easily swing much too far to the other. A great way to evaluate if it's swinging too far is by reading the rules. Which people asked to do. And they categorically refused! The only reason this vote came up is because of passionate public opinion. But now they won't let the public know what is actually being voted on? That's fucked up. I would personally like to see telecommunication companies spend 1 trillion dollars in infrastructure over the next 20 years. I want wireless gigabit internet. I'd like 10 gigabit wired connections. Maybe more. Will these rules make that harder to do? Will that be more likely or less likely than before? NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC KNOWS. To celebrate the passing of laws when you don't actually know what was passed is insane.
gregwtmtno 12y ago
If you'll notice, the lines of attack closely mirror the anti-Obamacare lines. "700 regulations and no one has even read it!" is very close to the "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009.
- itistoday2 12y ago
  > "700 regulations and no one has even read it!" Note the commenter said no one had "seen it". That's a meaningful difference worth accurately re-quoting. Also, is it "700" or "70" or "70+" or what? [citation required] > "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009 The concept of passing laws that few have read or understood is the very definition of "disconcerting".
- rhino369 12y ago
  The fact that the Obamacare bill probably contains an error that might shut down subsidies for federal exchanges sorta backs up Steel's criticism.
  - whoopdedo 12y ago
    A loophole that allows funding for health care to be cut sounds more like a "feature" to congresspersons.
  - hraedon 12y ago
    An "error" that only exists in the most tendentious possible reading of the bill isn't evidence of anything other than the intent of the people challenging the ACA.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    Not entirely. If you read the lower court ruling [0] you'll see that the argument made against allowing the subsidies is pretty tortured. You have to read the statute in the most literal and least interpretive way possible to think that the original intent of congress was to bar subsidies for states that opted not to set up exchanges. But hey who knows. SCOTUS season isn't until June. As it applies to NN, it is perhaps appropriate to note the different processes the ACA when through compared to whatever regulations the FCC ends up adopting. We shall see. [0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html
mwsherman 12y ago
This argument is the essence of ad hominem. First, that disagreement is unreasonable. Second, that those who disagree have ulterior motives.
- iterationx 12y ago
  fake outrage is a very effective tactic on public forums
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Sometimes it is, and sometimes they do. It would be unwise to dismiss the possibility out of hand, especially on an issue this contentious that has this many powerful players against it.
droopybuns 12y ago
I have looked hard at the issues & I'm not on any campaign. Paid prioritization is not a bad thing. Blocking websites is. There is a whole nascent standard called LTE direct that suddenly becomes pointless if you can't distinquish traffic priorities. There are innovations that are being cut out of the picture for entirely new m2x flows & peer to peer flows because of the desire to remove paid prioritization. It is not productive to assume that the only reason that someone disagrees with you is because of a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.
- daughart 12y ago
  At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    Not to mention that companies like Comcast have their foot in the online entertainment content game, and could very easily use paid prioritization to get an unfair advantage over competing services.
    - droopybuns 12y ago
      If you do a search for the net neutrality position of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink- you'll find plenty of material on their policy blogs on why this is a bad thing. http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thoughts-on-todays-vote/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thou... http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-th... It is extremely interesting that Comcast has made no public positions on title II neutrality.
      - wlesieutre 12y ago
        Interesting that Verizon and CenturyLink focused entirely on the fact that Title II regulations are old. I'm curious what the specific issues they have with it are; after all, there are plenty of old laws that still work fine. It's become really hard to find any actual information or discussion though. Seems like every page I find is a bunch of bullet points either saying "Regulation will stop all innovation, drive ISPs out of business, and destroy the internet" or "If we don't regulate, Comcast and TWC will stop all innovation and destroy the internet." Sheesh...
monochromatic 12y ago
> This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your evil opponents, huh. > This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Honestly, this kind of statement is what sounds like ridiculous astroturfing.
- wpietri 12y ago
  There is quite literally almost no competition in US broadband access. See the graph here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n... To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan. At 25 Mbps down, then only 2.4% of customers have three or more choices. I would rather have a robust market, and indeed I'm one of the few people who has stuck with independent ISPs even though it costs me more. But given the oligopoly we've got, I'm happen to take strong regulation to prevent abuse.
  - monochromatic 12y ago
    I meant more about what "reasonable people" agree upon.
  - neuromancer2701 12y ago
    So the better question is how did we get to this duopoly?
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      By making it public infrastructure. Remember, if not for an accident of history (cable and telephone services running over completely different kinds of wires), it wouldn't be a duopoly, it would be an outright natural monopoly -- a prime candidate for treatment as a public utility.
api 12y ago
This is America, where infrastructure is communism. I mean if we provide good infrastructure, pretty soon we'll be sending people to gulags or something like they do in Europe and Canada.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I'm an European and it's the first time I hear about us being sent to gulags for making infrastructure that actually works. BTW. In Poland, infrastructure was all fine until they started to privatize it. Now our trains barely work, and public transport companies like to compete with each other by showing which one sucks at doing their job more...
  - odiroot 12y ago
    Unfortunately I have to agree in full. I no longer live in Poland but that was my last impression of the country. Especially the trains went down the drain after privatization and split into multiple companies.
  - morsch 12y ago
    Relax -- the grandparent was being facetious.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Ummm, I thought Europeans were supposed to be better than us poor simple Americans at dry wit and irony? It sounds as if you might want to reinstate your previous system.
    - scottmcf 12y ago
      It's not always easy to pick up sarcasm in a second language.
LandoCalrissian 12y ago
This is pretty typical for HN. You get a lot of techno libertarians who think any form of regulation is the worst thing ever. To say that the new classification is somehow going to be worse I think is a bit of a stretch.
- shit_parade 12y ago
  Because recent government conduct has been stellar, I really want more government regulation, government always knows best, government does an amazing job, is very fair, is very open and transparent, government is democratic and responsive to citizen concerns. What typical myopic bullshit.
  - scarmig 12y ago
    Isn't this argument basically, "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we should go ahead and give away the farm to Comcast"?
    - shit_parade 12y ago
      It is much cheaper to purchase legislation mandating people buy a product or mandating legal barriers to protect a business from competition than it is to convince people to willing purchase and engage with a business. Why are people so afraid of each other? Why are people so afraid of allowing their fellow humans to choose the services and products and businesses they want to choose? Why are people so quick to call upon the government to implement through force the ideas they think are best? Especially when they are faced with the reality that their government continually flaunts their own laws when it suits them? So many intelligent people so quickly willing to give away their rights to a government they criticize on one hand but call upon to protect them with the other.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - novalis78 12y ago
      Wouldn't it be: "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we rather allow companies to compete with each other freely in an open market and let consumers make the choice"
natmaster 12y ago
Astroturfing? Your account is only 771 days old.
mason240 12y ago
Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a paid shill is pure FUD in itself.
mason240 12y ago
Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a paid shill is pure FUD in itself.
supergeek133 12y ago
Nah. I like it in general, I just want to see all of the regulations/impacts before making a final judgement.
gojomo 12y ago
"virtually no competition"? Title II was designed for phone-line utilities in the 1930s, where there really was a total monopoly: you either got service from your single phone company, or not at all. For broadband, most Americans had not one but zero options 20 years ago. Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. Some have extra fiber, cable, or DSL options. Some have other wireless options in the unlicensed spectrum. (Most people have more broadband options than smart-phone OS options; should the iOS/Android be federally-regulated as a software utility?) There are certainly places where the options are too few and too expensive. But that's a local issue, often created by correctable local government errors. To say there's "virtually no competition… for most" is a false claim lacking perspective. Based on that false impression, Title II puts every ISP, even where there is competition, under federal-review rules designed for the single-provider telephone monopoly of the mid-20th century. Utility-style regulation tends to lock-in incumbents: it doesn't expand competition or options, but rather gives up on competition, and just tells the presumed-permanent "monopolist" what to do.
- wwweston 12y ago
  > Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. If this is the counterargument to the idea that we have a captured market and should regulate it like one, then it's essentially a concession: wireless is a non-starter because of inherent limits, and saying "oh, there's always one alternative" isn't exactly describing a vibrant competitive market in the land of tethered connections. But the thing is, that's pretty much a red herring. The net neutrality debate isn't about competition among carriers at all. It's about competition between people offering services over the network, and most specifically whether those offering/receiving those services have to pay by source/destination. It's arguable that the new rules address more than that, but if the carriers didn't want us to land here, maybe they shouldn't have fired the first shot by threatening the neutral model.
eli 12y ago
This sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally wrong. As if alternate viewpoints can only be explained by a literal conspiracy theory designed to mess with people like you. It's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging that alternate viewpoints even exist, let alone considering whether they have merit. (But then again, that's just what I would say if I wanted to prolong the conspiracy.)
- Shivetya 12y ago
  but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate and/or stupidity. I just want to know, what takes so many pages as to describe these rule changes? Why was it so important to pass changes without public review? What part of transparency don't people get?
  - dntrkv 12y ago
    And now you are doing the same by making this a left/right issue. It's not. Both sides use this same tactic. It's a part of politics. You support abortion? Baby murderer! Healthcare reform? Socialist! Higher taxes on rich? Communist! Marijuana legalization? Lazy pothead!
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Unfortunately, "hate and stupidity" are often correlated with the issues. The political position opposite of granting, say, LGBT's the same rights as everyone else has literally no other basis than hate and stupidity. There may be valid arguments to be made against net neutrality, but I have yet to see one that doesn't start with putting more money in the pockets of the telcos.
woah 12y ago
Really? That's all you've got? If someone disagrees with you it's "astroturfing"? I bet you really have some compelling arguments.
orblivion 12y ago
It very well could be that Comcast or someone else hired a bunch of people to flood comments (though it's strange timing to do it afterwards rather than before). But can you acknowledge that at least some of us have honest disagreements with you on the issue? Or should this opinion really be anathema to this community?
dang 12y ago
> Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign HN users need to stop accusing their opponents in arguments of being astroturfers. Astroturfing may or may not exist, but sincere disagreement is common. It degrades the discourse badly when sincere disagreers are accused of being shills. It's not that astroturfing isn't a problem. It's that the collateral damage of firing off such accusations indiscriminately is too great for that to be ok without evidence. People disagreeing with you isn't evidence. If you suspect astroturfing in an HN thread, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com. Cracking down on that is part of our job. We will take your suspicions seriously. But we will do so by looking at actual data—something that isn't an option in the HN threads themselves and would mostly be off-topic there. Within the threads, the HN guidelines and Principle of Charity [1] require you to assume that disagreers are arguing in good faith, and to deal with them not by calling names but by making better arguments. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  True, else it degenerates into Slashdot with the word "shill" being thrown around everywhere.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

travie7273 12y ago

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

Selfcommit 12y ago
Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?
- CzechsMix 12y ago
  That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line. There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.
    - CzechsMix 12y ago
      I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?
      - wpietri 12y ago
        If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion. And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.
        CzechsMix 12y ago
        it's actually kind of odd, I spoke out against the ad hom precisely because I wanted a useful discussion. Notice how when it was revealed that my account is several days old, not several minutes, a second factor, karma had to be brought in to dismiss my opinion. Sorry for the confusion that was caused by the fact that elsewhere in the thread, it was revealed that I was anti-NN. Also sorry for getting back to you, thanks to the heaping spoonfuls of negative karma I got, I wasn't allowed to post until recently.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Not really. You're not taking the idea of ad hominem far enough. When somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentence and no citations or evidence, you ought to reject the validity of that argument regardless of who is presenting the argument. That argument is unsubstantiated, period, whether it's posted by a brand new throwaway account or a renowned expert in the area of discussion.
  - stellar678 12y ago
    Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.
    - CzechsMix 12y ago
      My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. I just think it's weak. If being anti-NN is so incredibly stupid, shouldn't refuting the points they make be trivial? why not just do it, and safe yourself the trouble of being accused of sitting one-step up on the debate pyramid from "Name-calling"?
      - dang 12y ago
        > My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are not ok, but personal attacks such as this are not allowed on Hacker News either. Please review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
    - meragrin 12y ago
      How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.
      - unethical_ban 12y ago
        This is a politically charged topic with powerful, malicious actors. The thread an unusually large number of green members posting mostly against what HN has been mostly for. It's an odd pattern, and the parent above saying it's "vile" to call it what it looks like is overblowing it.
        meragrin 12y ago
        I'm not seeing that pattern. I've seen a total of 7 green members on this topic. That to me isn't all that unusual. The vast majority of green I saw was for NN. Are you saying HN is against NN? I thought HN was for NN.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Not for nothing, but: user: CzechsMix created: 11 days ago karma: 0 People wouldn't be going "hmm, there's a lot of green names and they're all conveniently anti-NN" if there weren't. Like, y'know...you, yourself, elsewhere in this thread.
    - CzechsMix 12y ago
      Yes, I happen to be anti-NN, no, I do not think that the way things currently are works. No I do not think the cable companies operate fairly in a free market. Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slightest idea you know what you're talking about, if all you can do is spout people's account age and karma ratings? if being anti-NN is so trivially stupid, shouldn't you be able to point this out quite simply?
      - wpietri 12y ago
        The way I know that eropple knows what he's talking about is that I've been reading his comments for years, and so have a sense of his competence, interest, and manner of thinking. They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identity rather than concealing it while lashing out at others.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Indeed. The one thing I love about HN is that it's small enough that after time, you simply get to know other commenters and you learn their areas of competence.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  That's a pretty good karma rate! I think my account was probably weeks old before I got to 6.
mudil 12y ago
Precisely. Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  > Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornography laws are a limitation I worry about a bit, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone is pushing for using utility regulation to limit pornography, and we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
  - tsax 12y ago
    If content regulations happen, they'll come in with the new flavor of the month, i.e. 'social justice.' There will be vague statutes against 'harassment' I'm guessing, and anyone decrying their vagueness or broadness will be decried a racist, sexist shitlord. You won't get 80's style 'Christian moralism' language in 2020.
    - copsarebastards 12y ago
      > Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy? Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen. However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
      - tsax 12y ago
copsarebastards 12y ago
Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.
- strictnein 12y ago
  What bill?
- travie7273 12y ago
  Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    > Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right? Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing. All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it. Also: user: travie7273 created: 30 minutes ago Astroturf potential: high.
    - serge2k 12y ago
      Great argument, next time call him 12 years old.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    It's not a "bill", it's FCC regulations, and this has already been explained in about 10 comments throughout this thread. Are you a real user, or a paid astroturfer?
- tertius 12y ago
  * The FCC cannot pass bills, they're generally referred to as rules/regulations.
smtddr 12y ago
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-nears-1424819532 http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neut... """Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal.""" I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that as damaging for Google. The only thing I can think of is the typical pattern of a company becoming hugely successful then begin seeking to change the laws that allowed them to grow so nobody else can follow the path. Kinda like cutting the bridge after you've crossed it. I hope that's not what E.Schmidt is thinking...
- unprepare 12y ago
  I think you are on the right track If you are google with billions in the bank, what does it matter to you if Comcast wants to charge you a little bit more? The real effect is that entrenched powers get further entrenched because of less access to alternatives. Lets say Comcast wanted to charge search providers 500million dollars. Thats not a lot of money from Googles search engine profits. But how much is 500 million of Bings budget? Yahoos? DuckDuckGo? I would be surprised if every search provider was willing and able to pay fees like this.
badsock 12y ago
Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.
- rayiner 12y ago
  And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.
  - algorias 12y ago
    Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.
      - throwaway150219 12y ago
        I see, I didn't realize consumer ISPs were providing free internet access to Google and Amazon.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    And I think dumb pipes open for everyone is best. After all ... it would be inconvenient if your utility company told you what can you use your electricity for.
copsarebastards 12y ago
user: travie7273 created: 27 minutes ago
- bmelton 12y ago
  This really isn't helpful. If you'd read his comment, it would be clear that his last account was banned, which would all but necessitate that any new accounts would be, y'know, new. Further, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    As someone else pointed out, a lot of new accounts were posting ISP talking points, which looks a whole lot like astroturfing. Obviously the insightfulness of comments shouldn't be judged by how long someone has been a member of a website, but how long they've been a member of a website may be a good indicator of their motivations.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. If you are referring to Google's concerns voiced after early outlines of the Title II approach, they objected to something that was discussed earlier as part of the approach -- identifying a "service" provided to edge providers by ISPs distinct from that provided to retail customers, and classifying that newly-identified service under Title II -- because it might create a basis for ISP to edge provider charges. This provision, from subsequent outlines provided, is not part of the final package, which only addresses retail broadband service as a Title II service and addresses ISP to edge provider relations in terms of the impact they have on retail customers.
dang 12y ago
> My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations HN accounts get banned for breaking the HN guidelines, not for being against regulations. For example, a jab such as "people like you" in a comment breaks the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

chucksmash 12y ago

The ratio of negative comments vs positive ones is indeed odd.

rayiner 12y ago

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF only came out in favor of reclassification in June of last year, in a very measured and deliberate release: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-way-forward https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality.... And some reasonably, technologically savvy people are opposed to net neutrality period: http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-faults-silicon-valley-groupthink-says-fcc-broadband-rule-a-mistake.html http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mark-cuban-faults-... ("Mark Cuban faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake") [1] Conservatives don't like it because it allows the FCC to do things like rate-setting, even if this administration chooses not to use that power. Liberals don't like the specter of FCC regulation of content. PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic.

cratermoon 12y ago
> Up until very recently, everyone considered Title II the "nuclear option." As far back as the 90s, when Mosaic was still the most advanced browser out there, I was noting that Title II common carrier rules for ISPs were the best choice to balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry -- and protect ISPs from liability for their users' communications. It's only taken two decades for the industry to realize the same.
- tertius 12y ago
  > balance free speech needs -- to prevent ISPs and Backbone providers from censoring the content they carry Unless it's not deemed "legal." And I'm not talking about torrenting.
  - cratermoon 12y ago

covzzire 12y ago

Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire. It's completely unnecessary and will do more harm than good.

ForHackernews 12y ago
> Nobody is against NN. Nobody wants the internet to be less free. Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.
- tertius 12y ago
  > because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites Elaborate on this plan. > and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design. * A bunch of new accounts arguing the opposite as well.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    The major consumer isps have been crystal clear (unless you don't wish to understand): they look at large consumer-facing internet companies and want a piece of the action. eg the recent action by Verizon to charge Netflix money to deliver Netflix to Verizon's paying customers. So if we don't want pay-to-play internet companies, we need net neutrality. Particularly given the widespread monopoly structure of home internet access.
    - tertius 12y ago
      TitleII is not the solution for this problem.

baddox 12y ago

I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic. I consider my views reasonable, although I guess an unreasonable person would consider their own unreasonable views to be reasonable. I'm definitely not astro-turfing, although if I get a check from the Ministry of Truth I will refrain from cashing it and let you know.

copsarebastards 12y ago
> I don't believe I have enough information to conclude that classifying broadband as a Title II utility will be a good thing. It seems like we don't have enough information to say it's a bad thing either, but that's not stopping these < 1 hour old accounts from saying it.
- baddox 12y ago
  To be fair, I can identify with the desire to place the burden of proof on the supporters of new regulations.
wlesieutre 12y ago
> My general impression is that more and stricter regulations in an industry is usually (though not always) a bad thing for consumers in that industry, so while I'm not vehemently against this NN bill, I certainly am not excited or optimistic. I would say that's more strongly the case in competitive industries where there's some consumer choice in play to keep bad companies in check. But there are very few people who choose Comcast from between multiple broadband providers. And then they shot themselves in the foot in the public discourse with their constant stream of customer abuse and terrible support stories. I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic about this, but I should read up more on what parts of Title II are being applied to what parts of the network here. In particular, does this have any effect on Comcast saying "Netflix needs to pay us or we won't install sufficient peering to meet our customers' demand for Netflix connections"? Having a second ISP choice where Netflix works properly would fix that pretty quickly, but I'm not clear on whether Title II does. But the FCC also just overruled state laws blocking municipal broadband networks, so that's going to be another option to keep an eye on.

ForHackernews 12y ago

Agreed. This thread is super strange and contrary to what I would have assumed the natural HN biases to be. Edit: http://www.vice.com/read/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-fake-consumer-support-to-end-net-neutrality http://www.vice.com/read/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-f...

paulhauggis 12y ago

"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates" It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? "and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US." Tell me how more regulation will lead to more competition and a better Internet for the consumer. "I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD." Most people were afraid to talk about it because the HN community typically down votes everyone to hell that has opposing opinions. I gave up awhile back because nobody would listen, but I'm not giving up today. "This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD." It seems you won't even listen to the opposition and are trying to discredit anyone that is against this government regulation as "FUD". It sounds like you are the astro-turfing one. What happened to open and honest discussions?

cratermoon 12y ago
> We haven't been able to see one of them How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  It's not. Things need to change.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP. Its actually pretty much all regulatory bodies -- its just there is no formal "vote" in regular executive branch hierarchies before a regulatory action is adopted. But they still don't publish the internal drafts that are considered before they are adopted (they do sometimes publish NPRMs before final rules, but the FCC did that in this case, too.)

forrestthewoods 12y ago

People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> People aren't worried about the main gist. People are scared of the fine details that they categorically refused to release before voting. Strangely, the people that have suddenly expressed concerned about the second thing in the major media as the vote approached are the same people that were expressing opposition on the first ground until very recently (and, many of them continued to do both.) So, I don't think that is at all accurate.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  What's wrong with that? I consider myself one of those people. Broadband companies have a government sponsored monopoly. There are good, fair reasons for that. One of the rules with being gifted a government sponsored monopoly should be that you aren't allowed to abuse that monopoly power. Very reasonable. People agree in principle. Now we're adding some rules to prevent that abuse. However we don't know what they are! Just as the pendulum was much too far on one side it could easily swing much too far to the other. A great way to evaluate if it's swinging too far is by reading the rules. Which people asked to do. And they categorically refused! The only reason this vote came up is because of passionate public opinion. But now they won't let the public know what is actually being voted on? That's fucked up. I would personally like to see telecommunication companies spend 1 trillion dollars in infrastructure over the next 20 years. I want wireless gigabit internet. I'd like 10 gigabit wired connections. Maybe more. Will these rules make that harder to do? Will that be more likely or less likely than before? NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC KNOWS. To celebrate the passing of laws when you don't actually know what was passed is insane.

gregwtmtno 12y ago

If you'll notice, the lines of attack closely mirror the anti-Obamacare lines. "700 regulations and no one has even read it!" is very close to the "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009.

itistoday2 12y ago
> "700 regulations and no one has even read it!" Note the commenter said no one had "seen it". That's a meaningful difference worth accurately re-quoting. Also, is it "700" or "70" or "70+" or what? [citation required] > "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009 The concept of passing laws that few have read or understood is the very definition of "disconcerting".
rhino369 12y ago
The fact that the Obamacare bill probably contains an error that might shut down subsidies for federal exchanges sorta backs up Steel's criticism.
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  A loophole that allows funding for health care to be cut sounds more like a "feature" to congresspersons.
- hraedon 12y ago
  An "error" that only exists in the most tendentious possible reading of the bill isn't evidence of anything other than the intent of the people challenging the ACA.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  Not entirely. If you read the lower court ruling [0] you'll see that the argument made against allowing the subsidies is pretty tortured. You have to read the statute in the most literal and least interpretive way possible to think that the original intent of congress was to bar subsidies for states that opted not to set up exchanges. But hey who knows. SCOTUS season isn't until June. As it applies to NN, it is perhaps appropriate to note the different processes the ACA when through compared to whatever regulations the FCC ends up adopting. We shall see. [0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html

mwsherman 12y ago

This argument is the essence of ad hominem. First, that disagreement is unreasonable. Second, that those who disagree have ulterior motives.

iterationx 12y ago
fake outrage is a very effective tactic on public forums
Karunamon 12y ago
Sometimes it is, and sometimes they do. It would be unwise to dismiss the possibility out of hand, especially on an issue this contentious that has this many powerful players against it.

droopybuns 12y ago

I have looked hard at the issues & I'm not on any campaign. Paid prioritization is not a bad thing. Blocking websites is. There is a whole nascent standard called LTE direct that suddenly becomes pointless if you can't distinquish traffic priorities. There are innovations that are being cut out of the picture for entirely new m2x flows & peer to peer flows because of the desire to remove paid prioritization. It is not productive to assume that the only reason that someone disagrees with you is because of a coordinated campaign to spread FUD.

daughart 12y ago
At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  Not to mention that companies like Comcast have their foot in the online entertainment content game, and could very easily use paid prioritization to get an unfair advantage over competing services.
  - droopybuns 12y ago
    If you do a search for the net neutrality position of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink- you'll find plenty of material on their policy blogs on why this is a bad thing. http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://community.centurylink.com/regulatoryblog/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thoughts-on-todays-vote/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-classification/thou... http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-th... It is extremely interesting that Comcast has made no public positions on title II neutrality.
    - wlesieutre 12y ago
      Interesting that Verizon and CenturyLink focused entirely on the fact that Title II regulations are old. I'm curious what the specific issues they have with it are; after all, there are plenty of old laws that still work fine. It's become really hard to find any actual information or discussion though. Seems like every page I find is a bunch of bullet points either saying "Regulation will stop all innovation, drive ISPs out of business, and destroy the internet" or "If we don't regulate, Comcast and TWC will stop all innovation and destroy the internet." Sheesh...

monochromatic 12y ago

> This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. Anybody who disagrees with you must have been bought and paid for by your evil opponents, huh. > This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Honestly, this kind of statement is what sounds like ridiculous astroturfing.

wpietri 12y ago
There is quite literally almost no competition in US broadband access. See the graph here: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n... To have a robust market, you need a variety of players. Witha duopoly, you generally end up with approximately the same service as a monopoly, but with two slightly different price points. But the fast majority of the US has at best 2 choices even for a 4 Mbps plan. At 25 Mbps down, then only 2.4% of customers have three or more choices. I would rather have a robust market, and indeed I'm one of the few people who has stuck with independent ISPs even though it costs me more. But given the oligopoly we've got, I'm happen to take strong regulation to prevent abuse.
- monochromatic 12y ago
  I meant more about what "reasonable people" agree upon.
- neuromancer2701 12y ago
  So the better question is how did we get to this duopoly?
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    By making it public infrastructure. Remember, if not for an accident of history (cable and telephone services running over completely different kinds of wires), it wouldn't be a duopoly, it would be an outright natural monopoly -- a prime candidate for treatment as a public utility.

api 12y ago

This is America, where infrastructure is communism. I mean if we provide good infrastructure, pretty soon we'll be sending people to gulags or something like they do in Europe and Canada.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
I'm an European and it's the first time I hear about us being sent to gulags for making infrastructure that actually works. BTW. In Poland, infrastructure was all fine until they started to privatize it. Now our trains barely work, and public transport companies like to compete with each other by showing which one sucks at doing their job more...
- odiroot 12y ago
  Unfortunately I have to agree in full. I no longer live in Poland but that was my last impression of the country. Especially the trains went down the drain after privatization and split into multiple companies.
- morsch 12y ago
  Relax -- the grandparent was being facetious.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Ummm, I thought Europeans were supposed to be better than us poor simple Americans at dry wit and irony? It sounds as if you might want to reinstate your previous system.
  - scottmcf 12y ago
    It's not always easy to pick up sarcasm in a second language.

LandoCalrissian 12y ago

This is pretty typical for HN. You get a lot of techno libertarians who think any form of regulation is the worst thing ever. To say that the new classification is somehow going to be worse I think is a bit of a stretch.

shit_parade 12y ago
Because recent government conduct has been stellar, I really want more government regulation, government always knows best, government does an amazing job, is very fair, is very open and transparent, government is democratic and responsive to citizen concerns. What typical myopic bullshit.
- scarmig 12y ago
  Isn't this argument basically, "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we should go ahead and give away the farm to Comcast"?
  - shit_parade 12y ago
    It is much cheaper to purchase legislation mandating people buy a product or mandating legal barriers to protect a business from competition than it is to convince people to willing purchase and engage with a business. Why are people so afraid of each other? Why are people so afraid of allowing their fellow humans to choose the services and products and businesses they want to choose? Why are people so quick to call upon the government to implement through force the ideas they think are best? Especially when they are faced with the reality that their government continually flaunts their own laws when it suits them? So many intelligent people so quickly willing to give away their rights to a government they criticize on one hand but call upon to protect them with the other.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - novalis78 12y ago
    Wouldn't it be: "governments are prone to being co-opted by special interests, therefore we rather allow companies to compete with each other freely in an open market and let consumers make the choice"

natmaster 12y ago

Astroturfing? Your account is only 771 days old.

mason240 12y ago

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a paid shill is pure FUD in itself.

mason240 12y ago

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a paid shill is pure FUD in itself.

supergeek133 12y ago

Nah. I like it in general, I just want to see all of the regulations/impacts before making a final judgement.

gojomo 12y ago

"virtually no competition"? Title II was designed for phone-line utilities in the 1930s, where there really was a total monopoly: you either got service from your single phone company, or not at all. For broadband, most Americans had not one but zero options 20 years ago. Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. Some have extra fiber, cable, or DSL options. Some have other wireless options in the unlicensed spectrum. (Most people have more broadband options than smart-phone OS options; should the iOS/Android be federally-regulated as a software utility?) There are certainly places where the options are too few and too expensive. But that's a local issue, often created by correctable local government errors. To say there's "virtually no competition… for most" is a false claim lacking perspective. Based on that false impression, Title II puts every ISP, even where there is competition, under federal-review rules designed for the single-provider telephone monopoly of the mid-20th century. Utility-style regulation tends to lock-in incumbents: it doesn't expand competition or options, but rather gives up on competition, and just tells the presumed-permanent "monopolist" what to do.

wwweston 12y ago
> Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. If this is the counterargument to the idea that we have a captured market and should regulate it like one, then it's essentially a concession: wireless is a non-starter because of inherent limits, and saying "oh, there's always one alternative" isn't exactly describing a vibrant competitive market in the land of tethered connections. But the thing is, that's pretty much a red herring. The net neutrality debate isn't about competition among carriers at all. It's about competition between people offering services over the network, and most specifically whether those offering/receiving those services have to pay by source/destination. It's arguable that the new rules address more than that, but if the carriers didn't want us to land here, maybe they shouldn't have fired the first shot by threatening the neutral model.

eli 12y ago

This sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally wrong. As if alternate viewpoints can only be explained by a literal conspiracy theory designed to mess with people like you. It's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging that alternate viewpoints even exist, let alone considering whether they have merit. (But then again, that's just what I would say if I wanted to prolong the conspiracy.)

Shivetya 12y ago
but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate and/or stupidity. I just want to know, what takes so many pages as to describe these rule changes? Why was it so important to pass changes without public review? What part of transparency don't people get?
- dntrkv 12y ago
  And now you are doing the same by making this a left/right issue. It's not. Both sides use this same tactic. It's a part of politics. You support abortion? Baby murderer! Healthcare reform? Socialist! Higher taxes on rich? Communist! Marijuana legalization? Lazy pothead!
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Unfortunately, "hate and stupidity" are often correlated with the issues. The political position opposite of granting, say, LGBT's the same rights as everyone else has literally no other basis than hate and stupidity. There may be valid arguments to be made against net neutrality, but I have yet to see one that doesn't start with putting more money in the pockets of the telcos.

woah 12y ago

Really? That's all you've got? If someone disagrees with you it's "astroturfing"? I bet you really have some compelling arguments.

orblivion 12y ago

It very well could be that Comcast or someone else hired a bunch of people to flood comments (though it's strange timing to do it afterwards rather than before). But can you acknowledge that at least some of us have honest disagreements with you on the issue? Or should this opinion really be anathema to this community?

dang 12y ago

> Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign HN users need to stop accusing their opponents in arguments of being astroturfers. Astroturfing may or may not exist, but sincere disagreement is common. It degrades the discourse badly when sincere disagreers are accused of being shills. It's not that astroturfing isn't a problem. It's that the collateral damage of firing off such accusations indiscriminately is too great for that to be ok without evidence. People disagreeing with you isn't evidence. If you suspect astroturfing in an HN thread, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com. Cracking down on that is part of our job. We will take your suspicions seriously. But we will do so by looking at actual data—something that isn't an option in the HN threads themselves and would mostly be off-topic there. Within the threads, the HN guidelines and Principle of Charity [1] require you to assume that disagreers are arguing in good faith, and to deal with them not by calling names but by making better arguments. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

72deluxe 12y ago
True, else it degenerates into Slashdot with the word "shill" being thrown around everywhere.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]