Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hgsigala | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

hgsigala

This is great news. Over a years worth of fighting on this one.

View on HN

More than that - since the Napster days.

Key provisions (only four pages, take the time): http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015...

So you've read all the new regulations? Which one is the best?

Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.

You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet regulations and not mess things up?

I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons, especially in regards to technical issues.

The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net Neutrality for everyone!" bit.

What leads you to believe that it's a fairly simple change?

The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact.

EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

The Affordable Healthcare Act was ... created by morons

Really? I thought it was drafted by very clever, largely self-interested people.

I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

Good luck with that. Sounds like a great way to eventually find yourself banned.

The morons part was just me being facetious. Since I edited my comment I went from -3 to 0, so apparently people agree. I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned, or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days and I've been a member for over 600 days. I've never actually heard of banning here.

I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned

You didn't do that. You wrote snark about downvotes.

or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days

What, you think they charge for accounts around here, or something? Why in the world would you think I haven't used other accounts before? If you made it to 600 days and haven't heard of the slow-down (whatever it's called) or hell-banning, then you haven't been paying much attention.

Not being in the USA, could you summarise the Affordable Healthcare Act and the problems with it?

Unfortunately, not really. You might know it better as Obamacare, though. It created health insurance exchanges that are subsidized for low income people and reformed other aspects of medical reimbursement and regulations governing health insurance. The aspects you think are problematic will depend on whether you're criticizing it from the right (it increased government involvement, and the complexity of the healthcare system, etc.) or the left (that it gave private insurance companies too much power, wasn't universal, and didn't fundamentally address some of the problems driving cost increases, etc.). Either way, the data shows that healthcare costs are growing more slowly after implementation and that more people are insured than were in the past.

Thanks. Where does the subsidisation come from?

You're referring to HN as though it's one person.

There's wide disagreement over net neutrality.

There's wide disagreement over allowing the FCC to pass a large framework for regulating the Internet without allowing the public to see what's in it.

It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it. Recognizing that fact, is not cynical.

> It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it.

Are you outraged at every FCC regulation? They're pretty much all passed before publication.

Yes, I find any government regulations that pass in a clandestine fashion without allowing the public to first have an opportunity to know what is being passed, to be truly vile. Who wouldn't be bothered by that approach to government? It's the kind of mentality that leads to laws like the Patriot Act.

It's the: we have to pass the bill, before we can know what's in it, form of government authoritarianism.

When it comes to not publishing what they're doing, I'm outraged in proportion to the scale or impact of the action. This was an extraordinarily large regulatory action, impacting the best vehicle for free speech that has ever existed.

The same government that has spent the last decade massively abusing Americans when it comes to privacy, just got handed regulatory keys to the Internet, without the right of the public to first review the new regulations.

How could a person not be outraged by that?

It's for this reason that I cannot follow this debate anymore. Every time this debate comes up buzzwords get thrown around and people take sides but the issues keep moving.

From what I read in the comments, these rules make all packets equal in terms of prioritization. If that's the case, then Net Neutrality has won, right? Can we start a new debate to work on the other problems?

These are not the rules the FCC has adopted; these are sections of Title II that could be applied to ISPs if classified as Title II Common Carriers. Keep in mind that DSL was considered Title II until it was reclassified in 2005. It's not like broadband was never regulated under Title II. It used to be, we tried things without it and things went to shit, so we're trying it again.

I like this one:

47 U.S.C. Section 202

(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

This one is pretty good, too:

47 U.S.C. Section 208

(a) Any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition which shall briefly state the facts, whereupon a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time to be specified by the Commission. If such common carrier within the time specified shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been caused, the common carrier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation of law thus complained of. If such carrier or carriers shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper. No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.

This one is pretty great:

47 U.S.C. Section 251

(a) GENERAL DUTY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.--Each telecommunications carrier has the duty-- (1) to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers; and (2) not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to section 255 or 256.

255 is with regard to the use of telephones by those with disabilities, so it will very likely undergo forbearance.

256 is fairly long, so I won't reproduce it here. The title is pretty important though: "Coordination for interconnectivity." The full text is available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/256

time will tell

Reply on news.ycombinator.com