[98codes]

> Title II regulation isn't just about net neutrality, Rosenworcel said, arguing that the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. "When we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in the United States, that action did not extend to broadband services, thanks to the retreat from Title II. This is a national security loophole that needs to be addressed," she said.

I know I'm far too cynical these days, but this smells like the beginning of the Great American Firewall.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>this smells like the beginning of the Great American Firewall.

That implies routing control. I would expect the NTIA (Dept of Commerce) to be tasked with that, closely advised by CISA.

The FCC's purview is more tied to licensing and regulation.

[hn_acker]

My impression is that Commissioner Rosenworcel is just being performative. Let's be clear that net neutrality has only incidental relevance to national security. (At most, a rare national security issue would result from something similar to what happened when Verizon throttled emergency responders [1].) Also, in case anyone else brings the following up, net neutrality has nothing to do with government censorship of speech. Moreover, the FCC does not have authority to regulate speech on the internet (or any private speech at all, after the FCC repealed the misleadingly named Fairness Doctrine [2]).

Even if you have a problem with other parts of Title II, net neutrality is a net good for consumers. Or, it would be if the FCC believed in fighting for consumers in the first place [3]:

> And while Democratic FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks talk a good game about bridging the “digital divide” and addressing the “homework gap” (a lack of affordable broadband for kids), they generally lack the courage to even identify that concentrated monopoly power is the primary reason US broadband is spotty, slow, and expensive. It’s a political risk to do so.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttle...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[3] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/14/finally-close-to-having-...

[hn8305823]

There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors.

The quoted segment sounds like they want to extend that to residential ISP's which makes sense to me. Using network hardware from an adversary nation is very risky. Especially when it's China which has an extensive record of state involvement in it's tech companies.

Fortunately there is no indication yet that regulators in the US want to get involved with routing, or anything resembling a great firewall. The closest thing to that right now is "age verification to visit porn sites" laws that some states have enacted.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> There was at least one major (non-residential) ISP that used Huawei routers in a lot of places. Due to the previous law/rulings they were required to replace all of them with non-prohibited vendors.

That ISP not be fulfilling that requirement due to insufficient funding.

https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/-rip-and-re...

[smolder]

At any point, will any company say that they have sufficient funding, subsidies, etc.? ("You've given us enough, thank you!")

Plainly, I don't believe they need or deserve that money merely because they have lobbyists/bought politicians that say they do.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Plainly, I don't believe they need or deserve that money merely because they have lobbyists/bought politicians that say they do.

The small ISPs need sufficient money to comply with federal orders to rip & replace expensive Huawei gear.

[smolder]

Yeah, I understand the premise, but I would need to see a cost breakdown before I accept the claim that they needed significantly more money than they already got. Industry groups have a tendency to plead for handouts endlessly.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Lobbying and fund-scamming are disproportionately done by major ISPs. Small, local ISPs are far, far less likely to have the resources to - 1) pull it off and 2) insulate themselves from the consequences.

The original parent comment was referencing a local ISP.

[gary_0]

There are plenty of overt attempts at legislating surveillance and censorship, so there's no point in being paranoid in cases like this, where the government is probably just trying to prevent cheapskate companies from buying backdoored hardware from foreign countries. Legislation that accomplishes that will actually improve privacy and free speech for a change.

[axus]

Opposition to a Great American Firewall would be bi-partisan.