Hacker News Reader

Comment by tehwalrus | Hacker News Reader

Surely the best thing here is for broadband providers to be reclassified as "common carriers"? That would be a fitting end to Verizon's campaign.

The FCC is free to make this choice (right?[1]), and it means they can regulate broadband companies the same way as they do phone companies now - it will have some penalty (which is why they've avoided doing it up to now), but hopefully they will have the guts to fight back.

(note, I'm in the UK, so this doesn't affect my home internet speed, although it could affect any of you 'mericans trying to read my rather obscure blog.)

[1] I don't actually know, so by all means correct me.

View on HN

I'm not sure how you think this wouldn't affect you. If a website can't survive because the fees to "carry it" are too high, and they are frozen out of the market, we all lose. It's only one internet, after all.

but you miss the point - if they don't pay, it doesn't affect my ability to visit them (unless Verizon et al are part of the backbone network on the route between their server host and my house).

I'm not saying it's a good thing - it's a very bad thing to have no NN law! - just that my browsing will be largely unaffected.

I'm saying the chilling effect means you won't have an option at all. American content creators/web app makers aren't going to start with a global product; they simply don't have the capital to bootstrap something globally. They would normally stick to just an American market, but now they can't because the barriers to entry are now too high. So it dies in its infancy.

So yeah, creators in other parts of the world will be largely unaffected, but -- not to be xenophobic -- how much of the internet is created by Americans?

I don't know who you think will stop publishing content online, just because their website loads slower? Most websites aren't businesses, (I have about 8, none of which are) and as long as cheap/free hosting (e.g. outside the US) still exists, Americans will continue to publish blogs and hobby sites, even not-for-profits like wikipedia will still work. It'll load slower in the US, but it will still exist (and, if they host it outside the US, the global community will still be able to contibute normally - unless I've misunderstood IP routing, which is not a subject I know very much about.)

"Loading slower" is an absolute 100% deal breaker for a Youtube competitor or streaming music service or VoIP or many other applications.

> if they don't pay, it doesn't affect my ability to visit them

Obviously, without net neutrality this is not guaranteed. That's the entire point to all of this.

Sure you can visit them but from my understanding they will go very slowly unless they pay for preference. Is this not the case?

Wouldn't VPN companies be affected as well? That would greatly affect my browsing.

If this crap goes through, you can bet it'll hinder net neutrality discussions in the UK

NN discussion in the UK is a joke - our parliamentarians are quite happy to recommend "banning" protocols if it looks like criminals use them some of the time (notably, Dom Foster (government minister)'s position on bit torrent).

I did give a speech in opposition to it/him once[1], but unfortunately Lib Dem conferences are not the place to make a difference here (sadly).

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7CMSqxIw1E

I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers. Legislation from congress and signed by the executive will be needed.

No, that's wrong. They specifically did not call ISPs common carriers - they tried to give them the obligations of common carriers without reclassifying them, because they wanted to avoid a lengthy legal fight from the ISPs (who certainly do not want to be common carriers, because that eliminates their ability to charge troll tolls.)

I don't think that's right. The ruling is that the FCC was regulating broadband companies as common carriers even though they're not classified as common carriers. But the FCC is the one who has the authority to classify them as common carriers. I don't really understand why the FCC didn't do that from the start.

> I think the gist of it is that the FCC exceeded it's authority in deeming ISPs Common Carriers.

No, the ruling specifically found that the problem is that the FCC has: 1) declared that broadband providers provide an "information service" (on which common carrier requirements can not be imposed) rather than a "telecommunication service" (on which they can be imposed), and 2) imposed the kind of regulations that are essential to treatment of common carriers.

I.e., that the FCC has both declared that ISPs are not common carriers but than regulated them (in some respects) as if they were.

There's obviously two ways to resolve this contradiction.

But the article implies that the only reason the regulations are invalid is that they didn't designate them CCs. At least, that's how I read it.

I'm trying to find it. but my point is, the FCC did not have the authority to designate them as Common Carriers. as Common Carrier status is defined by the Communications Act of 1930 something and Telecommunications act of 1996.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com