The 5 most ridiculous things the FCC says in its new net neutrality propaganda | Hacker News Reader

The 5 most ridiculous things the FCC says in its new net neutrality propaganda

theverge.com

164 pointspulisse45 comments

I think the biggest tragedy is that media outlets are not discussing the misdirection of this whole thing.

The new "leaders" are billing this as "restoring internet freedom" by repealing "Obama Era" regulation as if things are being put back to some prior status quo that never actually existed. FCC enforced this rules prior, Verizon challenged on overreach and won, and the adjustments were made to bring enforcement within their reach. This article does a pretty good job of covering some of the history: http://fortune.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-ve... .

The rest of the details are kinda moot IMHO when the foundation of their argument, that this is going back to some more free internet(free for ISPs) that never existed, is dishonest.

This is just another example of the American political discourse. You have two sides that don't even accept the same facts or reality. Most people don't bother to understand the issues but still passionately defend the talking points of "their side". See climate change or health care or guns. Impossible to have any kind of discussion.

> You have two sides that don't even accept the same facts or reality.

That is equivocation.

I mean, if one side is accepting reality and the other delusional, that statement holds. I don't think the grandparent was implying both sides held incompatible delusional ideas.

I meant that most people don't bother understanding issues but just vigorously repeat talking from points from "their side".

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Perhaps they meant false equivalence? Although it’s not quite that either.

Thanks, I used this opportunity to actually look up equivocation and it wasn't quite what I meant. I'm not sure what the exact word should be. False equivalence is close.

My point is that while they disagree, these two sides are not equivalent in their approach to logic and fact. They are only being made to seem equivalent.

Media companies have a comfortable, decades-long business relationship with cable companies.

Well, big media outlets kind of have an incentive to destroy the internet.

This article is on The Verge, which is probably interested in the net staying around.

The Verge isn't a big media outlet.

What do you mean by "interested in the net staying around"?

What makes you think that the verge is interested in that?

Does the verge support censoring certain opinions on the internet? If so, which ones?

> What do you mean by "interested in the net staying around"? > What makes you think that the verge is interested in that?

I'd guess because they make their money by having a presence on the Internet. If it went away, or became unviable, their business might fold.

> Does the verge support censoring certain opinions on the internet? If so, which ones?

I don't know, but I don't see how this is relevant?

I'm afraid that debating issues like this with anti-neutrality conservatives is getting lost in the weeds.

Something they probably will respond to, if you can hammer it into their heads through all the propaganda they've been fed, is that a free market for ISPs doesn't exist, can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free market even under ideal conditions), and won't exist under Pai's plan. A free market for internet providers probably doesn't even exist in Pai's dreams, unless he's as dumb as the propaganda the FCC is putting out.

Then ask them if they really think it's a good idea, in a low-competition market that's not free, to let ISPs do nearly whatever they want.

This is pretty much the playbook I tried with my father last night, to no avail.

You see, it’s not about rational arguments - and if you try to fight it on those grounds, you’ll have Brexit all over your hands, and it’s a nightmare to clean up.

No - last night I explained how the proposed legislation would directly hurt him, how it would take away freedoms he currently enjoys. Everything looped back to “but Obama crippled the internet in 2015” and “but I want internet freedom”.

When those didn’t fit, it turned into generational crap. “My generation invented the internet. Yours just uses it for smartphones and twitter and facebook. We wouldn’t even be having this argument if it weren’t for millennials messing up the internet.”

He’s not stupid - he’s just suspending the rational thought he’s amply capable of in favour of comforting lies. No, he’s broken, without hope.

The content, the detail, the logic, the impact - all irrelevant. What is relevant is picking at the feeling of trapped failure that pervades much of society, and providing the population with a facile solution to their complex problems. “Vote for internet freedom, imagine the flag flying in the breeze against a clear blue sky and an eagle flies by, just like the good old days, when pop would put you on his shoulders to see the marching band”.

Problem is, when you try to argue either the immediate argument or the broader emotional trap they’re in, they dig in deeper - nobody wants to be the fool who fell in a trap.

It’s very nearly if not actually checkmate politics - I cannot see an out that doesn’t require going through hell, and I’ll be delightfully surprised if this doesn’t pass into law with roaring popular support.

I’ve convinced several die-hard no-global-warming enthusiasts that not only is there global warming, but that’s it anthropogenically caused. All such discussions start by listening. What you need to do is engage your father’s critical thinking by having him clearly articulate all of his ideas & logical deductions—and not arguing, or even discussing your opinion! Normally, people hold opinions rooted emotionally. Once you have them clearly think about what they’re feeling, you can then discover how to address their logic.

As a good way to practice this: there are actually a number great arguments for why the FCC shouldn’t be involved in regulating the internet. Discover these arguments & convince yourself they’re correct. Once you can do that, figure out why you think FCC regulation is better than those methods. Then, figure what you’re father’s argument is, and show him why FCC regulation is better than the alternative.

He's not broken. Something about your argument tugs at the very foundation of his identity. By attacking something so close (what ever it is) to his identity he percieves it as personal.

Food for thought

Would that identity be "I'm right all the time regardless of the actual facts"? I see that a lot :(

It could be! Especially as the child. The whole Protective Parent vision of oneself may well exist. Accepting the child being right would damage that.

You want more government. We don't. Get over it.

Now what are you talking about? The only thing TFA wants, assuming they favor Title II classification for ISPs, is what the FCC has been doing since 2010:

* that ISPs do not discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic

* that ISPs do not block lawful "content, applications, services or non-harmful devices"

You're not "[not] want[ing] more government", you're wanting consumer-facing ISP control and monopolistic renting over all content.

For anyone interested, this is here, section III A: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...

There size of the government won't change. So this argument must be shorthand for something else? What is that something else?

The follow up is to use conservative free market rhetoric towards maintaining a free market on the internet, and pointing out that neutral networks are the default state and are therefore NN is not burdensome legislation.

Any other ideas? I really think the most conservative position is to maintain a neutral internet.

Maybe point out that there is a competitive market for ISPs in France because of line-sharing rules:

https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me...

And if they say that's "just Europe" point out that it's similar to power utility rules in conservative states. Fiber optic lines are not that dissimilar to power lines.

But sharing is socialism! eyeroll

I don't think a lot of people speaking of free market have a deep knowledge about it. Arguing in that direction puts them in the uncomfortable situation of not having the words together to defend their side of the argument.

Try some tin foil hat argument about laying new cable being too expensive for the small guy, their internet ending controlled by "X" company CEO who may be part of "Z" cabal, and planted government moles not letting POTUS see the truth.

I'd think that would be a better follow up. Give them words for an argument then sidetrack the argument into tin foil hat theory that's easy to latch onto.

> can't exist (last mile infrastructure can't support a free market even under ideal conditions)

Could you expand on this?

Here is an article that asserts that the ascription of "natural monopoly" to many industries is due to the successful efforts by dominant players in those industries to persuade people (primarily politicians) to grant them legal monopolies, and that their arguments are not to be trusted and often demonstrably wrong. It specifically addresses the industries of electric power, cable TV, and telephones. https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

In particular if the government freed up some of the wireless spectrum we could see wireless internet competition.

ISPs have been caught blocking both before and after the net neutrality rules took effect, just in case you want to be sure the FCC is lying.

> The Federal Communications Commission put out a final proposal last week to end net neutrality. The proposal opens the door for internet service providers to create fast and slow lanes, to block websites, and to prioritize their own content. This isn’t speculation. It’s all there in the text.

Great. Payola. Thanks Verizon!

Does the FTC have the agreement information needed to hear the anti-trust cases that are sure to result from what are now complaints to the FCC (an organization with network management expertise) being redirected to the FTC?

Title II is the appropriate policy set for ISPs; regardless of how lucrative horizontal integration with content producers seems.

After Tom Wheeler (whom I thought was a shill at first), it's obvious how much of a skunk this guy is.

ISP blocking would be the single best thing to happen to Internet privacy in the last 3 decades.

Since it became commonplace for ISPs to trace every single DNS query, HTTP and SMTP header, etc. and then record, analyze and data mine this information in perpetuity, and then leverage said analysis to inject advertising, and then provide real-time tracking information on this analysis, and then....

Basically 99% of the incredibly invasive shit that ISPs do today is legal, and remained legal under the "net neutrality" legislation we had. In fact, several laws require ISPs to keep and provide this information on request, and often without a warrant.

So please bring on the blocking, bring on the fast and slow lanes, bring on the directly visible infringements of our privacy while using the so-called "dump pipes". Because only then will people be motivated to maybe seek out and utilize the myriad technologies available to prevent ISPs from deploying their prioritization and blocking and tracking schemes, and we will all be better off for it.

And while the ILECs continue to burn themselves to the ground, SpaceX can launch their ~10,000 satellites and I'll happily pay them $200/mo for better service in a competitive market unencumbered by regulations which increasingly don't apply to the majority of consumer internet usage (i.e. mobile) anyway.

IMO, the right angle to fight any change in "net neutrality" legislation is a quid pro quo which lifts network management and QoS restrictions on the ISPs in return for federal mandate that localities are guaranteed the right to provide their own local muni-service following a local election majority vote, as well as establishing a Federal fund for low-interest financing of those deployments.

Satellite internet is not an unregulated market in the US.

The Daily Wire (i.e. Ben Shapiro) has the other side of the Net Neutrality debate.

It's interesting that the verge article does not touch on any of these points. I've seen other comments mentioning debates getting lost in the weeds. Perhaps there are some presuppositions or matters of importance that are not being understood?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality...

>"Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate against particular websites," Shapiro added.

What competition? I've got the "choice" between AT&T or Comcast. Both suck hugely, but in different ways. I'm sure both will not hesitate to force companies to cut them checks to push their bits to my computer.

> It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors.

How? My company can't afford to pay every ISP for priority access to fast lanes, but our larger, entrenched competitors can.

Maybe it's just my bias, but I only see these kinds of arguments from heavily right leaning sources, and to my mind they miss the mark every time. I don't understand how allowing ISPs to block or throttle companies that don't cut them whatever checks they ask for isn't anti-competitive, and how it could possibly promote competition in an industry full of natural monopolies.

Maybe they don't touch on those points because most of the points in that article are riddled with errors?

It appears to have been written by someone who has did not put in the effort to read all 8 pages of the actual 2015 Open Internet Order. They seem to have simply heard that it uses Title II authority, and assume that means that any rules and regulations that have ever been used on any past Title II entity are now applicable to ISPs.

The things covered in the article's points #2 and #3 all fall under that. They are things that are not applicable to ISPs. Same with point #5.

Point #4 and #6 are based on not understanding that ISPs are like transportation companies and websites (such as Facebook and YouPorn) are like places you use transportation services to go to. The article is essentially complaining that the regulations that apply to the taxi company that drives you to Walmart are different from the regulations that apply to Walmart.

"the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition"

In fact, deregulation is what created local ISP monopolies in the first place:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2558413/networking/fcc...

So yes, there are matters of importance that are not being understood...

Unless I totally misunderstand net neutrality, that article has very little to do with net neutrality. A number of the points are about the FCC's rules not net neutrality itself and there are some that don't seem to make any sense at all to me (like #6).

Let's try to make sense of Verge's points:

1. Creation of fast/slow lanes

> If you read carefully, you’ll notice the FCC isn’t even trying to debunk the creation of fast and slow lanes. It’s just trying to debunk that they “will worsen consumers’ online experience.” That’s a matter of opinion, and clearly, we all know which side the FCC lands on.

Verge says: FCC has stated an opinion and we all know what kind of people have an opinion that doesn't match ours lol.

2. ISPs will block sites

> The FCC is trying to repeal a rule that stops ISPs from blocking websites, so the commission absolutely can’t guarantee internet providers won’t do that when the rules are gone. But despite saying this “won’t” happen, the answer goes on to say, okay, maybe ISPs will block sites. But hey, people will get mad about it!

Verge says: The FCC says the free market will take care of any restrictions ISP try to place on their service. As if the free market ever worked!

3. NN repeal will protect users' privacy

> On a really technical level, the FCC is correct here.

> The commission’s privacy rules were struck down by Congress earlier this year, so there aren’t any privacy rules in place at the moment. But that happened, in part at least, thanks to the current FCC chairman’s campaign against them. Had those rules been kept in place, consumers would have been covered by much stricter privacy protections than what the Federal Trade Commission will guarantee. That’s because the FTC mostly has privacy guidelines — not strict rules — whereas the FCC was able to define specific behaviors that are unacceptable. Without net neutrality, privacy enforcement will go back to the FTC’s broader approach.

Verge says: FCC is correct. But that won't prevent us from making up some bullshit!

4. NN is hurting broadband investments

> And if you only look at the numbers cable companies give you, that would appear to be true. If you take a broader view, it’s clear that broadband investment had already been declining before net neutrality was put in place. <link to https://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadba...

Verge says: FCC is stupidly believing ISPs' own data. Here, take some data that proves them wrong. Oh btw this data is also provided by ISPs.

5. Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach certain online content.

> What the commission is arguing here is that, because something didn’t happen in the past, it therefore won’t happen in the future. But that’s not how anything works. And there’s a good argument to make that, because the FCC is explicitly giving ISPs the thumbs-up on this stuff, it’s more likely to happen than ever.

Verge says: The FCC is completely right. But fuck them for not supporting unneeded extra government regulation and oversight.

Whoa there, acknowledging that the FCC might not be purely an agent of corporate propaganda and might actually be stating what it believes is in everyone's best interest?

Watch out for the downvote brigade!

You're preaching to the choir.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com