Ask HN: Is Title II the Only Way to Achieve Net Neutrality? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is Title II the Only Way to Achieve Net Neutrality?

6 pointsjndsn40210 comments

Seems like Title II is a double-edged sword, granting the FCC power to stop internet fast lanes, but also potentially giving them power to impose all kinds of other controls. Thoughts?

View on HN

Of course Title II isn't the only option. There's tons of other things the government could do, including writing completely new legislation - or, for that matter, doing absolutely nothing at all.

I know many disagree, but I don't think Comcast messing with p2p downloads and a few carriers throttling Netflix speeds justifies getting the federal government involved, with all the oh-so-hilarious unintended consequences that usually come with it.

The above goes double when you consider the executive branch's first instincts here - instead of crafting something specific, let's just throw Title II at it. Have you read Title II? It's horrifying! But don't worry, they'll use 'forbearance' to just not apply the horrifying parts. We can trust them, after all - who has more restraint and self-control than the federal government?

My Google-Fu failed me earlier. Could you link me to Title II and maybe something explaining it?

Here's the Communications Act of 1934, which contains Title II: http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Here's the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which modifies Title II: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104pub...

Got to warn you, it's not light reading.

I haven't been able to find something that explains Title II in a relatively neutral fashion. In short, proponents of classifying broadband as a Title II utility say "the FCC can ignore and not enforce the onerous portions not related to net neutrality", while opponents say "the FCC can ignore and not enforce the onerous portions not related to net neutrality, but there's no guarantee that they will, and that's a lot of power to hand over to the government for the indefinite future."

Thanks. Now to find some brain power... :)

Figure out how to break the monopoly on decent broadband that these companies have. If I had a viable alternative, I'd have switched away from Comcast as soon as they made NetFlix pay extra. There's an Ars Technica article about how hard it is to start a new ISP. We could address some of the roadblocks to starting an ISP. That'd help some.

Does the conflict of interest between streaming video and cable tv have any legal effects? Maybe anti-trust laws?

Ultimately, power given to the government is seldom taken back. I prefer the dangers of our current system to giving the government more power.

I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO all of these proposed legislative efforts are band-aids. The real problem is that the market isn't even remotely competitive or healthy.

I don't think I would mind a universe where there are lots of providers, some of whom are net-neutral and some of whom aren't.

On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it).

Why would any site agree to pay for faster connections when there are competitors that don't force them to pay? Just make a note on your site saying that ISP A slows us down because we won't pay them their ransom. Then the user would go find a better provider.

Basically, a decent market would make the whole issue go away.

> On the other hand, that kind of universe presents some troubling social issues (only those who can afford a neutral internet will have access to it).

Um, if you want the best service, you pay for it. That's reality. Internet service is not unlimited. Anything that isn't unlimited is subject to supply and demand. That's why costs vary. So, I don't think that scenario qualifies as a social issue.

I think you make some interesting points. But a clarification re the last one:

The reason I think it's potentially a social issue is: In that situation you have a small group of people effectively curating the internet (deciding which sites are useable and which sites are not) for a large portion of the population.

More to the point, you're potentially giving a private business' stakeholders the right to decide which media outlets are accessible for certain people, which news sites are useable, etc. Is it possible that this power will be used in a completely benign fashion? Sure, it's possible. But I think it's also worth considering the possibility that these decisions would end up amounting to censorship of certain views.

Your argument about market-choice is a fair one, except that cost is a limiting factor for large portions of the population. We're NOT talking about even-handed limitation of supply in accordance with your ability to pay. We're NOT talking about cost as the outcome of supply and demand; we're talking about choice and access to unfiltered information as the outcome of whether or not you can happen to be rich or poor. If that's not a social issue, I don't know what is.

A decent market simply might not exist, and if TWC+Comcast becomes a thing the statement becomes a lot stronger.

Since the courts have basically explicitly said that anything that doesn't fall well short of neutrality fails without the FCC making a common carrier determination, yes, basically it is the only regulatory route to neutrality. The other alternative would be explicit pro-neutrality legislation from Congress that bypasses Title II, but that's realistically not happening with this or the next Congress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com