> Two of the dissenting commissioners attempted to get the bill published

There is no bill. And, under the normal regulatory process, there is nothing to be published until the authority responsible for regulation approves something -- its true that the FCC could have delayed action and issued another NPRM. But regulations are published fairly quickly once adopted by the issuing authority, not generally effective immediately, and subject to revision by the issuing authority or overriding by Congress once they are published, so the idea that this will go into effect without people knowing what is in it is incorrect, as is the idea that there is anything unusual about the process here.

Having failed to drum up opposition to the general idea of regulation, opponents have attempted to paint the process as unusual and nefarious, but that just isn't an argument that has a grounding in reality.

> Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine

Even the worst possible regulation of the internet isn't even in the top 50% of the worst things I can imagine.

> Regulating the internet like a utility is quite possibly the worst thing you can imagine, and now its come to reality.

Why? My electricity and water work a hell of a lot better than my cable internet.

You do know that television is also regulated like a utility, right? How did innovation in that sector turn out when the FCC took control?

It grew to be our primary form of news and entertainment nationwide. The internet has now mostly replaced it for news and appears to be replacing it for entertainment.

Yes, but both electricity and water don't really require innovation in the future. I can't remember the last time I wanted higher speed water in my house.

You almost couldn't be more wrong about that. Providing electricity and water are both massively complex undertakings, and ongoing innovation[0] is crucial to providing service for a growing population, and meeting the ecological challenges of tomorrow. California is in the middle of an epochal drought[1], and you're saying we don't need innovation in water?

[0] http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-g...

[1] http://ca.gov/drought/

Right. We have zero issues with water availability in the world. I guess those billions being poured into desalination, water recycling and alternatives are all, forgive the pun, money down the drain?

And you're absolutely right - we have zero need for alternative energy sources (although on that, it's kinda true - I've no particular issue with nuclear fission per se, though we need to figure out something better in regards to storage, and nuclear fusion is something that merits a huge deal of research into commercial viability).

In many states, power-production has been decoupled from power-delivery. For example, in Illinois[0], customers can choose which company to buy their power from but maintaining the lines and delivering that power is still the responsibility of Commonwealth Edison, the old monopoly utility. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and it's not that dissimilar from Comcast delivering my packets, while I choose to buy my content from Netflix or Hulu or Amazon.

[0] http://www.pluginillinois.org/default.aspx

This is what scares me, what was there to hide?

There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period.

This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"

So this doesn't scare you at all?

The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-ob...

Doesn't scare me a bit, because I know the secret formula. Every night after I brush my teeth, I stand in front of the mirror and yell "LIBERAL FARTBONGO OBUMMER" five times; that magic incantation keeps the black helicopters from coming to force me to use the internet the way they want me to, and also protects my guns and repeals the entire income tax code.

Good, maybe comcast will finally update those oversaturated interconnects that they engineered to force netflix to pay them for access to their customers.

I don't even think it's HN users. There's a bunch of zero-day accounts in here parroting anti-NN talking points.

Social media personas

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/fe...

http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html

Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.

Holy hell - why the down votes? "Everything is public" made it sound like the regulations had been published. I just wanted to know where. What's wrong with asking for a citation?

I'm with you, it's like asking for the ability to read something is blasphemous. Never did either of us say we were against it, but the flood of downvotes. Oh my.

The full regulations should be published within the next few days. They won't go into effect immediately, and the public (and Congress) will certainly get to comment, and suggest revisions.