14 ms·

FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote

184 points by NetBeck 3y ago

dantheman 3y ago
[flagged]
- crest 3y ago
  Did you read the article?
  - msla 3y ago
    Yeah, but they're betting nobody else did.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Federal agencies are empowered to make rules. That's how it works in the USA. If we depended on congress to make rules, nothing would ever get done.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    This might be changing in a recent SCOTUS case [0]. The Court may indeed rule that agencies must defer to Congress (although usually they state that such cases aren't meant to be changing precedent as a whole and just rule in the particulars of one case). [0] https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-decide-case-on-power-of-regulatory-agencies https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...
a2tech 3y ago
Fantastic is all I can say.
- talent_deprived 3y ago
  > the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. It's good? Did you catch the part about "give the FCC more authority"?
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    I caught that. Yes, that's a good thing.
  - eganist 3y ago
    > Did you catch the part about "give the FCC more authority"? The FCC ceded authority as a way to get around having to make a damning call not to assert net neutrality under the last administration. Unless I'm misreading, this is just a return to form.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    Be careful about how short you cut quotes. "give the FCC more authority" is irrelevant in a vacuum. "more authority to protect national security" is worrying, but to me comes off as performative nonsense and overstepping authority on Commissioner Rosenworcel's part. The FCC does not have authority to censor speech. And the FCC does not control surveillance by ISPs. (The NSA [1] does, and the FBI takes advantage of it [2].) What the FCC does need is the authority to restore net neutrality laws, which it can't have without reclassifying ISPs back to Title II. Admittedly, Congress would do well to pass legislation declaring ISPs utilities and giving the FCC the authority to enforce net neutrality without invoking Title II. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Contentious_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Conte...
98codes 3y ago
> Title II regulation isn't just about net neutrality, Rosenworcel said, arguing that the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. "When we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in the United States, that action did not extend to broadband services, thanks to the retreat from Title II. This is a national security loophole that needs to be addressed," she said. I know I'm far too cynical these days, but this smells like the beginning of the Great American Firewall.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  >this smells like the beginning of the Great American Firewall. That implies routing control. I would expect the NTIA (Dept of Commerce) to be tasked with that, closely advised by CISA. The FCC's purview is more tied to licensing and regulation.
- tmaly 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hn8305823 3y ago
  There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors. The quoted segment sounds like they want to extend that to residential ISP's which makes sense to me. Using network hardware from an adversary nation is very risky. Especially when it's China which has an extensive record of state involvement in it's tech companies. Fortunately there is no indication yet that regulators in the US want to get involved with routing, or anything resembling a great firewall. The closest thing to that right now is "age verification to visit porn sites" laws that some states have enacted.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors. That ISP not be fulfilling that requirement due to insufficient funding. https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/-rip-and-replace-lobbying-grows-louder https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/-rip-and-re...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
intsunny 3y ago
[flagged]
pyuser583 3y ago
Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?
- malfist 3y ago
  Did you upgrade your cell phone plan so you could have 1080p video on YouTube? That's an example of non-neutral net
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    No, I did not. My cell data plan has never preferred one bit over the other.
    - malfist 3y ago
      Lucky you, you must not be on Verizon, AT&T or TMobile
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      If you are in the US, there is always a ranking of bits on a mobile network. Perhaps not by your plan specifically, but by the network operator. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_level_explained_2022_march_lower_qci_is_better/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_leve... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier
    - mmanfrin 3y ago
      Every major plan I've seen has traffic shaping or throttling for streaming, even Google Fi itself for Youtube, their own property.
      - Longlius 3y ago
TheCaptain4815 3y ago
[flagged]
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  Which mass censorship campaigns?
wslh 3y ago
Is data portability being treated by any government group? The last time I tried LinkedIn denied my access to their API, it seems it is "arbitrarily open".
- hn_acker 3y ago
  I don't know, but that has nothing to do with the FCC. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate what online companies do. Data portability is something Congress has yet to pass laws on. If Congress passes such a law, then it would probably place the responsibility of enforcing data portability onto the FTC.
jahabrewer 3y ago
Feel pretty jaded about this after reading Ben Thompson on Title II: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ Sidebar: I was 1000% pro-Title II last time this came up in 2015 and went through https://www.battleforthenet.com/ https://www.battleforthenet.com/ , I think to email my legislators. Fortunately, I used a tagged/aliased email address. That address has apparently gotten into the Democrats' "never lose this email" bin. I regularly get emails from politicians I absolutely never wanted to hear from, all to that email. I try to unsubscribe, but they won't let me go.
- zuminator 3y ago
  Thanks for that link but I'm having trouble parsing Ben Thompson's argument.He says that he's in favor of net neutrality but against this specific regulation. Why? Because...I think...at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet? Also because regulation is bad because of..completely unrelated example of regulatory excess involving restaurants in SF? I mean, is he saying he's against any regulation of anything, now? Or just against Title II? I'm sure he can't seriously mean the former. But as to the latter, I honestly missed the part where he substantiates why Title II specifically is excessive. Seriously, I think I clearly missed a crucial step in his argument.
  - jahabrewer 3y ago
    You're right--I don't read a specific "here's the onerous parts of Title II" bit in that article. I think his argument is that: 1. The problems that supporters say net neutrality would fix are fictitious (the tweet), already handled (Comcast and bittorrent traffic), or not necessarily addressed by net neutrality (zero rating) 2. Title II classification entails much more regulation than net neutrality 3. Therefore applying Title II to ISPs will raise the barrier to entry for new entrants and not address the supposed harms > at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet? Not just "somebody"--the guy who coined the term "net neutrality" and advises the government.
    - zuminator 3y ago
rich_sasha 3y ago
Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.
- bombcar 3y ago
  In a simplistic view, net neutrality prohibits QoS bandwidth allocation. You can't prioritize video over Linux ISO downloads. In reality that would be solvable.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    This is not true at all. What it means is that an ISP can't prioritize their own video service over say, Netflix. Or their own (perhaps ad-infested) download service vs a straight ISO download from a distro's site.
    - hn_acker 3y ago
      Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from restricting internet traffic based on content, senders, and recipients [1]. It is not exclusively about restricting internet for profit reasons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
      - supertrope 3y ago
        The former Net Neutrality regulations provided exceptions for an ISP's own VoIP (phone), IPTV and other managed services.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    Indeed. There should be no need for bandwidth "allocation" because fiber would provide enough for high-bandwidth tasks (video and games) and low-bandwidth tasks (sending emails) at the same time, for everyone. If large ISPs hadn't been purposefully committing subsidy fraud instead of building fiber, they wouldn't have to rely on lies about network scarcity. (For bonus info, see another comment I wrote [1].) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949298
seanw444 3y ago
Our laws are very similar to our medicine. We take a pill that causes a side-effect, which requires a pill to fix that side-effect but causes another side effect... so on. We start with state interference of the free market in a small way, and it mangles the fair game. And then we "need" laws to "protect" us from issues caused by state interference in the first place. So sick of it all.
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I prefer my markets free as in GPL, not free as in BSD. Net Neutrality ensures the freedom of the market itself. Absence of Net Neutrality gives incumbents the freedom to lock competitors out of the market. Capitalism only works if purchasers can choose between options that are competing on their own merits. Monopolies are the opposite of a free market.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I like the metaphor, because people try different combinations of meds until they reach a tolerable state that was better than the starting condition. I think it's an incredibly succinct way of describing how libertarians look to non-libertarians "just let the free immune system decide" to hell with these medical "interventions."
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Libertarians aren't anarchists. Remember that.
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  Regulation is a response to bad behaviour, not the cause of it. We started with a free market. People acted poorly. In came regulation. Specifically: regulation that was not imposed on us as society, but of our own choosing. Not to say that regulation can't cause issues of it's own. But regulation (believe it or not) is there for a reason, even if imperfect. Actually, it's quite telling that you confused 'free market' with 'fair game'. Who says a free market is a fair market? Free market doesn't mean fair, it means free. Free to exploit people, to act monopolistically, to abuse your market power and inflict pain. It does not mean fair.
cheald 3y ago
I'm still broadly convinced that the whole net neutrality outcry back in 2017 was due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how peering works and misplaced anger due to the peering dispute between Cogent and Comcast (and Verizon, and I'm sure plenty of others). None of the promised apocalypse materialized, because the marketing materials used to make the case for it were fundamentally wrong.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > None of the promised apocalypse materialized, because the marketing materials used to make the case for it were fundamentally wrong. Keep in mind that states passed net neutrality laws [1], and large ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon tried to ban states from doing so [2]. Even so, the reclassification of broadband from Title II to Title I formally removed much of the FCC's authority to regulate ISPs at all [3]: > A big part of the FCC’s plan involves rolling back the FCC’s tailor-made authority over broadband providers, then shoveling all remaining government oversight to an FTC ill-equipped to handle it. > Why is that a problem? The FTC has no rule-making ability, and can only move to protect consumers after a violation has occurred. And that action can only occur if it’s painfully clear that an ISP engaged in “unfair and deceptive” behavior, something that’s easy for an ISP to dodge in the net neutrality era, where anti-competitive behavior is often buried under faux-technical jargon and claims that it was done only for the health and safety of the network. Federal net neutrality rules were significant but nonetheless were a fraction of the broadband consumer protection debate. You are correct that an apocalypse didn't happen. Rather, the US already was mired in monopolization, fraud, and regulatory capture. These are problems net neutrality can provide only a bandage for. The FCC couldn't begin to help with the larger issues without restoring at least some of its Title II authority (regardless of whether the FCC would actually acknowledge the monopolization in the first place [4]). [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/28/courts-again-shoot-down-telecom-lobbys-attempt-to-kill-state-level-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/28/courts-again-shoot-down-... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2017/11/06/comcast-urges-fcc-to-ban-states-protecting-broadband-privacy-net-neutrality/ https://www.techdirt.com/2017/11/06/comcast-urges-fcc-to-ban... [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw5d5g/net-neutrality-big-telecom-broadband-deregulation https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw5d5g/net-neutrality-big-te... [4] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/net-neutralitys-dead-time-to-focus-on-the-real-issue-telecom-monopolization/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/net-neutralitys-dead-tim...
RankingMember 3y ago
This is exactly the kind of thing I point to when disaffected people say that voting for Democrat or Republican presidents makes no difference. I'm not saying either are roses, but one has clearly different results in unsexy-but-important issues like net neutrality.
- arghnoname 3y ago
  It's not clear to me which party is more supportive of a 'free' internet. During the Trump and COVID era Democrats became much more aggressive in advocating for and explicitly pushing censorship regimes against what they consider to be misinformation. Probably any political faction on earth is going to want to control information flows to their advantage. Whoever you vote for will probably want to censor or limit the reach of the speech of their enemies. The parties don't have actual principles on this stuff--vote for whomever has the same enemies as you I guess.
  - mptest 3y ago
    Side A : repeals net neutrality Side B: Puts net neutrality in place. You: "It's not clear to me how these are different." Seriously? You have to be kidding or downright silly to be an enlightened centrist in this situation.
    - quitit 3y ago
      It's people trying their absolute best to be opaque while holding completely obvious political views.
      - mptest 3y ago
        Yeah, I know and agree, but I've had (my only) two comments flagged for being more direct in accosting enlightened centrism. Disgusting to me to see people on this forum of normally highly intelligent people comparing in any degree the side that tried to over throw democracy, denies basic science from vaccines to climate, is against voter rights like mail in ballots/accessible polling stations, against women's and gay rights, with the democrats, even with all their problems. Frankly it is straight evil, or supremely ignorant at best to do so. Enlightened centrism is indeed a fog used to hide conservatism though, just like "libertarian", "centrist", and "independent" (in the US), but you have to be careful calling out centrism on this forum.
causi 3y ago
For a relative layman like myself, can someone give examples of recent actions by providers that would be illegal under the Title II rules? Like, would null-routing websites by Tier 1 providers be made illegal?
keernan 3y ago
eff.org is where I turn on issues like this: https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
jmyeet 3y ago
What we need is to move all last mile infrastructure to municipal broadband. US ISPs have been an unmitigated disaster that have exposed everything wrong with how infrastructure is built under a capitalist organization of the economy. Monopoly franchise agreements, rent-seeking, bundling of cable channels, lobbying for laws against net neutrality, lobbying for laws against municipal broadband and lobbying for laws against "overbuilds" in general. On top of that ISPs place significant hurdles over anyone who gets permission to build. This can be as simple as the process by which cables are strung up to poles. In some places each pole may require a separate planning application and existing cables may need to be moved. The owners may have 90 days to move their cables. They will take that. They may even take longer and just pay the fine. If several need to be moved they may be done serially so it may take 1-2 years just to get permission to put a cable up on a pole that the city technically owns. We have service blackspots where ISPs are given huge sums to roll out service and simply don't. A lot of municipal broadband started because Comcat, AT&T, Spectrum or whoever simply refused to provide service or charged a ridiculous amount (eg $50k to connect). The best Internet in the US is municipal eg Chattanooga. Utilities are heavily regulated because we know what would happen if they weren't: inelastic demand would simply result in providers jacking up prices to increase profit. People would die from necessities like electricity, water and heating being withheld. I support net neutrality but it largely wouldn't be necessary if we had municipal broadband and the infrastructure for virtual network providers. Some effort would still be required for peering arrangements.
CodeNest 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

184 points by NetBeck 3y ago

dantheman 3y ago

[flagged]

crest 3y ago
Did you read the article?
- msla 3y ago
  Yeah, but they're betting nobody else did.
intrasight 3y ago
Federal agencies are empowered to make rules. That's how it works in the USA. If we depended on congress to make rules, nothing would ever get done.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  This might be changing in a recent SCOTUS case [0]. The Court may indeed rule that agencies must defer to Congress (although usually they state that such cases aren't meant to be changing precedent as a whole and just rule in the particulars of one case). [0] https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-decide-case-on-power-of-regulatory-agencies https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...

a2tech 3y ago

Fantastic is all I can say.

talent_deprived 3y ago
> the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. It's good? Did you catch the part about "give the FCC more authority"?
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I caught that. Yes, that's a good thing.
- eganist 3y ago
  > Did you catch the part about "give the FCC more authority"? The FCC ceded authority as a way to get around having to make a damning call not to assert net neutrality under the last administration. Unless I'm misreading, this is just a return to form.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  Be careful about how short you cut quotes. "give the FCC more authority" is irrelevant in a vacuum. "more authority to protect national security" is worrying, but to me comes off as performative nonsense and overstepping authority on Commissioner Rosenworcel's part. The FCC does not have authority to censor speech. And the FCC does not control surveillance by ISPs. (The NSA [1] does, and the FBI takes advantage of it [2].) What the FCC does need is the authority to restore net neutrality laws, which it can't have without reclassifying ISPs back to Title II. Admittedly, Congress would do well to pass legislation declaring ISPs utilities and giving the FCC the authority to enforce net neutrality without invoking Title II. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Contentious_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Conte...

98codes 3y ago

> Title II regulation isn't just about net neutrality, Rosenworcel said, arguing that the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. "When we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in the United States, that action did not extend to broadband services, thanks to the retreat from Title II. This is a national security loophole that needs to be addressed," she said. I know I'm far too cynical these days, but this smells like the beginning of the Great American Firewall.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
>this smells like the beginning of the Great American Firewall. That implies routing control. I would expect the NTIA (Dept of Commerce) to be tasked with that, closely advised by CISA. The FCC's purview is more tied to licensing and regulation.
tmaly 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hn8305823 3y ago
There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors. The quoted segment sounds like they want to extend that to residential ISP's which makes sense to me. Using network hardware from an adversary nation is very risky. Especially when it's China which has an extensive record of state involvement in it's tech companies. Fortunately there is no indication yet that regulators in the US want to get involved with routing, or anything resembling a great firewall. The closest thing to that right now is "age verification to visit porn sites" laws that some states have enacted.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors. That ISP not be fulfilling that requirement due to insufficient funding. https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/-rip-and-replace-lobbying-grows-louder https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/-rip-and-re...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

intsunny 3y ago

[flagged]

pyuser583 3y ago

Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?

malfist 3y ago
Did you upgrade your cell phone plan so you could have 1080p video on YouTube? That's an example of non-neutral net
- pyuser583 3y ago
  No, I did not. My cell data plan has never preferred one bit over the other.
  - malfist 3y ago
    Lucky you, you must not be on Verizon, AT&T or TMobile
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    If you are in the US, there is always a ranking of bits on a mobile network. Perhaps not by your plan specifically, but by the network operator. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_level_explained_2022_march_lower_qci_is_better/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_leve... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier
  - mmanfrin 3y ago
    Every major plan I've seen has traffic shaping or throttling for streaming, even Google Fi itself for Youtube, their own property.
    - Longlius 3y ago

TheCaptain4815 3y ago

[flagged]

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
Which mass censorship campaigns?

wslh 3y ago

Is data portability being treated by any government group? The last time I tried LinkedIn denied my access to their API, it seems it is "arbitrarily open".

hn_acker 3y ago
I don't know, but that has nothing to do with the FCC. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate what online companies do. Data portability is something Congress has yet to pass laws on. If Congress passes such a law, then it would probably place the responsibility of enforcing data portability onto the FTC.

jahabrewer 3y ago

Feel pretty jaded about this after reading Ben Thompson on Title II: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ Sidebar: I was 1000% pro-Title II last time this came up in 2015 and went through https://www.battleforthenet.com/ https://www.battleforthenet.com/ , I think to email my legislators. Fortunately, I used a tagged/aliased email address. That address has apparently gotten into the Democrats' "never lose this email" bin. I regularly get emails from politicians I absolutely never wanted to hear from, all to that email. I try to unsubscribe, but they won't let me go.

zuminator 3y ago
Thanks for that link but I'm having trouble parsing Ben Thompson's argument.He says that he's in favor of net neutrality but against this specific regulation. Why? Because...I think...at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet? Also because regulation is bad because of..completely unrelated example of regulatory excess involving restaurants in SF? I mean, is he saying he's against any regulation of anything, now? Or just against Title II? I'm sure he can't seriously mean the former. But as to the latter, I honestly missed the part where he substantiates why Title II specifically is excessive. Seriously, I think I clearly missed a crucial step in his argument.
- jahabrewer 3y ago
  You're right--I don't read a specific "here's the onerous parts of Title II" bit in that article. I think his argument is that: 1. The problems that supporters say net neutrality would fix are fictitious (the tweet), already handled (Comcast and bittorrent traffic), or not necessarily addressed by net neutrality (zero rating) 2. Title II classification entails much more regulation than net neutrality 3. Therefore applying Title II to ISPs will raise the barrier to entry for new entrants and not address the supposed harms > at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet? Not just "somebody"--the guy who coined the term "net neutrality" and advises the government.
  - zuminator 3y ago

rich_sasha 3y ago

Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.

bombcar 3y ago
In a simplistic view, net neutrality prohibits QoS bandwidth allocation. You can't prioritize video over Linux ISO downloads. In reality that would be solvable.
- r00fus 3y ago
  This is not true at all. What it means is that an ISP can't prioritize their own video service over say, Netflix. Or their own (perhaps ad-infested) download service vs a straight ISO download from a distro's site.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    Net neutrality prohibits ISPs from restricting internet traffic based on content, senders, and recipients [1]. It is not exclusively about restricting internet for profit reasons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
    - supertrope 3y ago
      The former Net Neutrality regulations provided exceptions for an ISP's own VoIP (phone), IPTV and other managed services.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  Indeed. There should be no need for bandwidth "allocation" because fiber would provide enough for high-bandwidth tasks (video and games) and low-bandwidth tasks (sending emails) at the same time, for everyone. If large ISPs hadn't been purposefully committing subsidy fraud instead of building fiber, they wouldn't have to rely on lies about network scarcity. (For bonus info, see another comment I wrote [1].) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949298

seanw444 3y ago

Our laws are very similar to our medicine. We take a pill that causes a side-effect, which requires a pill to fix that side-effect but causes another side effect... so on. We start with state interference of the free market in a small way, and it mangles the fair game. And then we "need" laws to "protect" us from issues caused by state interference in the first place. So sick of it all.

gaganyaan 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
kstrauser 3y ago
I prefer my markets free as in GPL, not free as in BSD. Net Neutrality ensures the freedom of the market itself. Absence of Net Neutrality gives incumbents the freedom to lock competitors out of the market. Capitalism only works if purchasers can choose between options that are competing on their own merits. Monopolies are the opposite of a free market.
Spivak 3y ago
I like the metaphor, because people try different combinations of meds until they reach a tolerable state that was better than the starting condition. I think it's an incredibly succinct way of describing how libertarians look to non-libertarians "just let the free immune system decide" to hell with these medical "interventions."
- seanw444 3y ago
  Libertarians aren't anarchists. Remember that.
jpalawaga 3y ago
Regulation is a response to bad behaviour, not the cause of it. We started with a free market. People acted poorly. In came regulation. Specifically: regulation that was not imposed on us as society, but of our own choosing. Not to say that regulation can't cause issues of it's own. But regulation (believe it or not) is there for a reason, even if imperfect. Actually, it's quite telling that you confused 'free market' with 'fair game'. Who says a free market is a fair market? Free market doesn't mean fair, it means free. Free to exploit people, to act monopolistically, to abuse your market power and inflict pain. It does not mean fair.

cheald 3y ago

I'm still broadly convinced that the whole net neutrality outcry back in 2017 was due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how peering works and misplaced anger due to the peering dispute between Cogent and Comcast (and Verizon, and I'm sure plenty of others). None of the promised apocalypse materialized, because the marketing materials used to make the case for it were fundamentally wrong.

hn_acker 3y ago
> None of the promised apocalypse materialized, because the marketing materials used to make the case for it were fundamentally wrong. Keep in mind that states passed net neutrality laws [1], and large ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon tried to ban states from doing so [2]. Even so, the reclassification of broadband from Title II to Title I formally removed much of the FCC's authority to regulate ISPs at all [3]: > A big part of the FCC’s plan involves rolling back the FCC’s tailor-made authority over broadband providers, then shoveling all remaining government oversight to an FTC ill-equipped to handle it. > Why is that a problem? The FTC has no rule-making ability, and can only move to protect consumers after a violation has occurred. And that action can only occur if it’s painfully clear that an ISP engaged in “unfair and deceptive” behavior, something that’s easy for an ISP to dodge in the net neutrality era, where anti-competitive behavior is often buried under faux-technical jargon and claims that it was done only for the health and safety of the network. Federal net neutrality rules were significant but nonetheless were a fraction of the broadband consumer protection debate. You are correct that an apocalypse didn't happen. Rather, the US already was mired in monopolization, fraud, and regulatory capture. These are problems net neutrality can provide only a bandage for. The FCC couldn't begin to help with the larger issues without restoring at least some of its Title II authority (regardless of whether the FCC would actually acknowledge the monopolization in the first place [4]). [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/28/courts-again-shoot-down-telecom-lobbys-attempt-to-kill-state-level-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/28/courts-again-shoot-down-... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2017/11/06/comcast-urges-fcc-to-ban-states-protecting-broadband-privacy-net-neutrality/ https://www.techdirt.com/2017/11/06/comcast-urges-fcc-to-ban... [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw5d5g/net-neutrality-big-telecom-broadband-deregulation https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw5d5g/net-neutrality-big-te... [4] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/net-neutralitys-dead-time-to-focus-on-the-real-issue-telecom-monopolization/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/net-neutralitys-dead-tim...

RankingMember 3y ago

This is exactly the kind of thing I point to when disaffected people say that voting for Democrat or Republican presidents makes no difference. I'm not saying either are roses, but one has clearly different results in unsexy-but-important issues like net neutrality.

arghnoname 3y ago
It's not clear to me which party is more supportive of a 'free' internet. During the Trump and COVID era Democrats became much more aggressive in advocating for and explicitly pushing censorship regimes against what they consider to be misinformation. Probably any political faction on earth is going to want to control information flows to their advantage. Whoever you vote for will probably want to censor or limit the reach of the speech of their enemies. The parties don't have actual principles on this stuff--vote for whomever has the same enemies as you I guess.
- mptest 3y ago
  Side A : repeals net neutrality Side B: Puts net neutrality in place. You: "It's not clear to me how these are different." Seriously? You have to be kidding or downright silly to be an enlightened centrist in this situation.
  - quitit 3y ago
    It's people trying their absolute best to be opaque while holding completely obvious political views.
    - mptest 3y ago
      Yeah, I know and agree, but I've had (my only) two comments flagged for being more direct in accosting enlightened centrism. Disgusting to me to see people on this forum of normally highly intelligent people comparing in any degree the side that tried to over throw democracy, denies basic science from vaccines to climate, is against voter rights like mail in ballots/accessible polling stations, against women's and gay rights, with the democrats, even with all their problems. Frankly it is straight evil, or supremely ignorant at best to do so. Enlightened centrism is indeed a fog used to hide conservatism though, just like "libertarian", "centrist", and "independent" (in the US), but you have to be careful calling out centrism on this forum.

causi 3y ago

For a relative layman like myself, can someone give examples of recent actions by providers that would be illegal under the Title II rules? Like, would null-routing websites by Tier 1 providers be made illegal?

keernan 3y ago

eff.org is where I turn on issues like this: https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

jmyeet 3y ago

What we need is to move all last mile infrastructure to municipal broadband. US ISPs have been an unmitigated disaster that have exposed everything wrong with how infrastructure is built under a capitalist organization of the economy. Monopoly franchise agreements, rent-seeking, bundling of cable channels, lobbying for laws against net neutrality, lobbying for laws against municipal broadband and lobbying for laws against "overbuilds" in general. On top of that ISPs place significant hurdles over anyone who gets permission to build. This can be as simple as the process by which cables are strung up to poles. In some places each pole may require a separate planning application and existing cables may need to be moved. The owners may have 90 days to move their cables. They will take that. They may even take longer and just pay the fine. If several need to be moved they may be done serially so it may take 1-2 years just to get permission to put a cable up on a pole that the city technically owns. We have service blackspots where ISPs are given huge sums to roll out service and simply don't. A lot of municipal broadband started because Comcat, AT&T, Spectrum or whoever simply refused to provide service or charged a ridiculous amount (eg $50k to connect). The best Internet in the US is municipal eg Chattanooga. Utilities are heavily regulated because we know what would happen if they weren't: inelastic demand would simply result in providers jacking up prices to increase profit. People would die from necessities like electricity, water and heating being withheld. I support net neutrality but it largely wouldn't be necessary if we had municipal broadband and the infrastructure for virtual network providers. Some effort would still be required for peering arrangements.

CodeNest 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]