Hacker News Reader

I have no faith in the general public anymore. I've seen so many Twitter hash tag campaigns started on false information and lies (and even the mainstream media picks up on it and continues to spread it around as truth) that I can't expect the opposite to happen when it comes to really important things such as regulating the Internet. Anyone with a little bit of social power can convince more people to vote their way.

It's a good example of why we have representatives representing the people and we don't have a traditional democracy.

> It's a good example of why we have representatives representing the people and we don't have a traditional democracy.

Exactly. It's worrisome to me that nearly all political campaigns have been driven by emotional rubbish without any regard for possible repercussions. Yet, you're decried and rebuked for daring to suggest that we probably ought to stop and think very cautiously about what it is we're asking for!

On the other hand, our representatives are paid for by lobbyists and seldom appeal to their constituents even if it's in the latter's best interests.

I can only hope at this point that these regulations are not so overbearing and damaging that it harms innovation. But with 700+ regulations on the books now, I'm feeling somewhat pessimistic. I rather wish the FCC focused exclusively on what it was so-called "net neutrality" was originally intended to do. But now I'm afraid that if their language is too broad, Mark Cuban may be right, and it might affect QoS and related protocols. (I don't think that would happen--and I feel Mr. Cuban may be a touch paranoid--but politicians aren't exactly known for their technological prowess either.)

I'm truly sorry for my pessimism. I just don't have much faith.

Except the ISPs were never actually throttling content (well, other than BitTorrent, which the FCC promptly told them to stop doing), and the title II regulations passed today would have had no impact on the entire Netflix vs. Comcast/Verizon dispute. That boiled down to a dispute over settlement-free peering contracts, which the FCC does now have some oversight, though based on past comments I doubt their decisions would go the way most people would hope.

One positive about this is that it will give the FCC some oversight over the pricing of interconnect deals. But interconnect deals will still happen, and they won't be free - these rule changes effectively codified them into law. So Netflix will still have to pay Comcast/Verizon to send lots of traffic to their users, only the FCC now has the ability to regulate the pricing terms of such deals.

> Except the ISPs were never actually throttling content (well, other than BitTorrent, which the FCC promptly told them to stop doing)

Yeah, but Comcast took that FCC order -- made without any advance regulation -- to the courts, which struck it down on the basis that the FCC could not issue such an order under its ancillary authority. Comcast v. FCC, 600 F. 3d 642, D.C. Cir. (2010).

As this specific order to Comcast being struck down was one the things motivating the FCC's initial Open Internet Report and Order which applied nonblocking of lawful applications as a generally-applicable regulation (and which itself was later struck down as being a common carrier regulation which could not be applied without Title II reclassification), its pretty odd to use the existence of the Comcast Order as a way to dismiss the need for generally applicable regulation to prevent blocking (or even, given the history of the subsequent order, to dismiss the need for specifically Title II regulation to prevent blocking.)

I'm not saying it was unnecessary to clarify the issue -- it was. But I'm saying it won't have a significant impact on the behavior of ISPs because they weren't really doing it with those methods anymore anyway. Things like data caps and direct interconnect agreements are still allowed; so "fast lanes" will still exist (and are actually now codified into law).

> On the other hand, it's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.

No, the usual process is NPRM, comment period, Final Rule. The NPRM was last spring, the comment period took up much of last year, and the Final Rule is now.

> I suspect if the rules are too far-reaching, they'll be mired in litigation for years.

There'll be litigation for years in any case (whether the rules will be blocked while it proceeds is less certain.)

> Hopefully the regulations will be released to the public so we can start disseminating them today or tomorrow.

They won't be published until all the commissioners have finished their commentary (particularly, the opposing commissioners). That will almost certainly take more than a day or two.

Good points, thanks for the corrections!

It's long passed time that I can add edits to my original comments (so obviously, there's no point), but I've included what I've found, and why I was incorrect here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9116126

So it looks like the timeframe we're expecting is 30+ days or so to allow for a) the commentary you mentioned and b) the reconsideration period to come to an end for parties wishing to file petitions against the rules.

Thanks!

It's my understanding that the FCC will enter a period of public comments after voting on the rules but prior to enacting them.

That was all done last year. Now the rules are out.

I'm aware of that.

The problem is that I had been "corrected" (incorrectly) in a discussion elsewhere when I mentioned there was only the one comment period by someone who stated that there would, in fact be a period after the rules were voted on where there would be a second period to accept comments from the public. I should have looked it up myself, rather than taking the correction at face value.

In fairness to the individual who attempted to correct me, I think he/she was confusing the reconsideration period with a second round of comments. It's a fair and reasonable mistake to make, so with that in mind, I suppose you could correct my initial post to make mention of the reconsideration period in lieu of what I wrote.

One of the issues I take with some of the pro-net neutrality crowd is that they're willing to vehemently hyper-correct everything, including statements that were not wrong, and due to the insistence of some of the comments I read, I made the mistake of presuming my initial understanding was wrong.

Go figure. It's too late for me to correct my original post, but feel free to use this as an addendum to it. :)

For what it's worth, since no one's bothered to post a link to the actual rule making process, I'll share what I've stumbled on:

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rulemaking-process-fcc

As dragonwriter wrote in reply to me--and as you can read above--there's at least 30 days after the rule vote before they become available to allow for analysis and for dissenting petitions to be filed during the reconsideration period.

It should be interesting to see what happens at this point.

>Funny how something intended to prevent ISPs from throttling content turned into a debate about helping out the disadvantaged, etc

Isn't that just politics in general?

Yep.

It's like everything else in the last 20+ years. Someone drafts a bill that sounds like a good idea, then before you know it, it balloons to thousands of pages of rhetoric drafted by every lobbyist in Washington.

I don't know what the answer is. I can think of a few solutions, but they're impractical and would never happen.

Limit the length of bills and require them to be read out loud into public record in their entirety before passage.

Telecom is peculiarly mired in it. By and large, here is the mainstream positions of the two major parties on telecom:

Republicans: Want the government out of it. Democrats: Only care about it to the extent that it's a nexus of class/race warfare.

> Republicans: Want the government out of it.

Only when it benefits big business. Republicans are more than happy to stick the government into your religion, your health decisions, your recreational drug use, etc.

I can imagine a lot of ways the regulations might have been screwed up and subverted. "One size fits all" doesn't apply to any of them. In fact, it sounds to me like a good thing; we don't want to start down the road of carving out exemptions and exceptions for non-neutral behavior that should be treated as completely intolerable.

Congress can also slap them down I believe.

Also true. But then you run into the problem of Congress actually doing something. And even if they do, the President can still veto it.

I suppose they could try to defund the FCC, but I guarantee that would never happen.

If the FCC had no funds to enforce regulations, what's to stop me from squatting prime spectrum property that Verizon spent so much money on?

Honestly, I wasn't outright suggesting the FCC should be defunded (that blurb was sarcasm; I should have labeled it as such). That would be a bad thing. ;)

However, I can say with a straight face that I know plenty of people who might make that sort of suggestion...