Hacker News Reader

Comment by 24gttghh | Hacker News Reader

Here [0] is the actual text (i.e. hosted directly by congress.gov) which arstechnica was so thoughtful to not link to.

>“(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

Seems like what NN proponents want, isn't it?

>“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of broadband internet access service providers to offer specialized services.

>“(2) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PRACTICES.—Specialized services may not be offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section.

Ah those might be a problem...

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4682...

View on HN

I was going to ask if anyone had actually read the proposed bill. It isn't very long, and I didn't see anything about "paid" prioritization, though that might be considered a "specialized" service. From what I can tell, this bill puts give a lot of power to the FCC to determine what types of specialized services would "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service or that have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section".

So the FCC could still potentially prevent prioritization that would degrade broadband internet service.

Of course, I am not a lawyer.

And neither am I, but I could see how the paid prioritization may be considered a "specialized" service. I am leaning towards reading it as double-speak.

But even if it does end up being a paid service, the FCC still, potentially, has the power to determine that it either A) "offered or provided in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service", or B) has "been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade the purposes of this section"

So, the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details, if I understand correctly. Even if the present FCC writes sub standard details, a future FCC could re-write them.

I'd rather the FCC not be able to have leeway over it at this point, with the ability to alter their enforcement at whim every 4-8 years...

> the devil is in the details, and the FCC seems to have the power to write those details

The bill explicitly prohibits the FCC from writing rules fleshing out the details, and restricts the FCC to adjudicating specific cases (such adjudications are subject individually to review by the courts, so inasmuch as someone is empowered to define general standards, it's the course through case law, not the FCC, whose adjudications do not create binding precedent.)

The FCC is that of essentially a trial court, not a rulemakers, under this bill.

The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations. It does specify that the FCC has authority to adjudicate complaints. I don't know if that prevents them from publishing guidelines ahead of time, or if that will evolve from adjudication. And, as you point out, the courts will ultimately have oversight over the adjudication- so I suppose in the end, the Supreme Court may end up writing the rules... Of course, this is an early proposal, maybe the final bill will provide the FCC/courts with more guidance.

Why don't we provide feedback to our representatives and work with them on how the Bill can be improved by providing more guidance on rules and penalties?

> The bill only explicitly forbids them from expanding the obligations

Any rule which restricted anything not restricted by the bare law would expand obligations, and is thereby prohibited.

> Seems like ...

No the exceptions are huge. Netflix is throttled based on network they slow everything on that network down so this explicitly allows one of the known examples of throttling that actually occurred.

I figured as much but since no one was talking about the actual text of the bill I thought this was a good starting point :)

The article linked talked about the actual text of the bill. It might not have linked it, but their interpretations and the interpretations of experts interviewed are correct. It already was a good starting point.

> "in ways that threaten the meaningful availability of broadband internet access service"

"availability" here does not cover performance. Specialized services will likely subtract from the performance of communication with the rest of the internet, but this clause only cares if the impact would be a more thorough loss of connectivity. As long as the ISP continues to offer a neutral tier of service at some level of performance and price, they can devote the bulk of their bandwidth to providing non-neutral service.

I think it will depend on how it ends up being interpreted, and maybe we can work with legislators to provide more guidance there in the final Bill.

To me, if I am paying for a 50mpbs Internet access, and I am only getting 25 or 30, because the rest is devoted to "specialized services", then they are threatening the meaningful availability of the service I am paying for.

If however I am paying for 50 mbps, and getting 50-55 mbps, and my ISP is offering an over priced Voip package, I don't think it is interfering in a meaningful way (obviously this ignores latency, which is also an important factor, for simplicity of the example).

“(3) SPECIALIZED SERVICES.—The term ‘specialized services’ means services other than broadband internet access service that are offered over the same network as, and that may share network capacity with, broadband internet access service.”.

So, fast lanes/bundled packages?

As long as they don't interfere with meaningful broadband internet, I think so. It appears to be aimed primarily at Voip and IPTV services and that type of offering, but it may be possible for them to sell access over a "fast lane" service.

Normally a lurker, but I created an account specifically to reply to you.

> “(2) may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

look at the very end.

"subject to reasonable network management"

I think that is an extremely broad term to be put in place; recalling the argument ISP had for throttling was to maintain network quality.

The "reasonable network management" bit is a gaping loophole carried over from previous net neutrality regulations. So far, no serious attempt has been made to determine what technological measures are actually justifiable DDoS protections and which ones are impermissible preferential treatment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com