Hacker News Reader

Comment by altcognito | Hacker News Reader

I'm confused by this headline (and a bit by the proceeding).

After watching the FCC hearing, it seemed like all of the people who were "for" open internet, and spoke of it from the consumer level (including Wheeler) voted for the proposal. The commissioners that said the FCC didn't have jurisdiction to regulate and to leave the market alone, voted against the proposal.

Isn't it the case that if they had voted against this, that we would have been in the exact same boat we are in now and therefore the agreement that Netflix signed would continue unabated?

In that case, it really didn't matter what they voted.

View on HN

> I'm confused by this headline (and a bit by the proceeding).

That's because the headline is an outright lie.

> After watching the FCC hearing, it seemed like all of the people who were "for" open internet, and spoke of it from the consumer level (including Wheeler) voted for the proposal.

Exactly. After the old Open Internet order was recently struck down as exceeding the FCCs authority, there are no rules limiting paid prioritization (or any of the other anti-neutrality practices the old Open Internet order addressed.) The current NPRM is both a concrete proposal and a call for public comment on alternative approaches to restore limits on anti-neutral activities by broadband providers. It is not a proposal to allow paid prioritization -- no proposal is necessary for that, as it is currently allowed without restriction. To the extent that it addresses paid prioritization, it is a proposal to restrict it.

> The commissioners that said the FCC didn't have jurisdiction to regulate and to leave the market alone, voted against the proposal.

Right.

> Isn't it the case that if they had voted against this, that we would have been in the exact same boat we are in now

No, if they voted against it, there wouldn't be an active rulemaking aimed at limiting the practice with a defined timeline, a proposal on the table, and a request for public comments on that proposal and specific alternatives. In either case, there are no actual rules in place, since this isn't actual rules, its a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", a formal call for public comment centered around concrete proposals and specified alternatives.

The term "Open Internet" is a marketing phrase promoted by Comcast for the purpose of creating confusion.

"We are gratified by the Court's decision today to vacate the previous FCC's order [to impose rules about net neutrality]. Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want. Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.

Comcast Statement on U.S. Court of Appeals Decision on Comcast v. FCC [6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC#The_FCC.27...

> The term "Open Internet" is a marketing phrase promoted by Comcast for the purpose of creating confusion.

Its the term that the FCC adopted first for its net neutrality efforts. Comcast, the first target of an enforcement action based on those principles, attempted to subvert the term to render it meaningless.

The people at the FCC are saying the opposite of what they mean.

Yes, we are in the same boat with Netflix having to pay for bandwidth as before. However, by the FCC officially sanctioning something that would have been technically illegal before the Federal ruling, they've basically reversed course and declared open season on content providers the ISPs don't like.

> The people at the FCC are saying the opposite of what they mean.

No, net-neutrality proponents are saying the opposite of what they mean. They couch this in terms of "protecting the open internet." Except there never was an "open internet." Before the short-lived net neutrality regulations, cable companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their network. And that's true now that the regulations have been struck down. The cable companies do not need any sort of action by the FCC to be able to come to these agreements.

What net-neutrality proponents want is new regulations to keep cable companies from doing something that they currently are allowed to do, and except for a small period of time, were historically always allowed to do.

If the government blocks fair competition in a market [through controlling who can provide last mile connections by right of way], they need to provide regulation to enforce fairness on the other end [those that provide last mile connections can't pick and choose whose packets they carry and at what QoS].

There used to be counterweights involved [e.g. Comcast had to play ball fairly] which effectively forced neutrality. Netflix, for instance, wasn't a 'problem' back in 2007 for the ISPs. We didn't have the ISPs pulling QoS BS like this in the 90s because people could and would switch providers. They can't now unless they want to go back to using dialup.

Yes, the choice was between no rules and weak rules, either of which will allow the telecoms to do whatever they want to service companies (despite the meaningless "commercially reasonable" clause). The Title 2 reclassification wasn't even on the table.

This should be the main issue at this year's elections. Unfortunately, this is America, where the main issues are only those the large campaign donors care about.

This is a vote to receive comments on the proposal. IN 60 days the FCC will respond to comments and redraft a proposal. A final vote on final rules will come in about 120 days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com