> Anyone who thinks the FCC is going to change course under this administration based on public comments can buy the bridge I am selling in NYC.
I disagree.
I don't think Trump would change his opinion based on what Democrats or people he view as the opposition says. He probably figures they'll attack him no matter what. (And I'm not sure he'd be wrong.)
However, if his core base is expresses concern, I do believe his attitude will change.
In fact, I would argue that's one of the best hopes we have.
Net Neutrality isn't partisan. Or rather, it doesn't need to be. There are reasons for both Democrats & Republicans to support it.
> Net Neutrality isn't partisan. Or rather, it doesn't need to be. There are reasons for both Democrats & Republicans to support it.
I completely agree. Most techies who support Trump see that removing net neutrality could worsen partisan media. The issue hasn't been raised on r/the_donald because they can't get enough people to support Ajit Pai's proposed "Internet Freedom" policy.
The only people who seem to support it are die-hard free-market folks who don't understand the internet, or, who are already invested in a business that would benefit from such a change.
Killing net neutrality will never benefit the consumer, only the big players.
The free market argument is so frustrating to hear, and yet I do hear it from people...
You can't expect free market theory to work when you take net neutrality with one hand while giving ISPs the right to practically pen state legislation, deny access to lines and sue up and coming competitors into oblivion with the other.
You end up with the worst of both worlds: government sponsored unrestrained monopolies.
That's the underlying problem here. If most people had a reasonable amount of choice in ISPs, the large ISPs would be forced to actually provide value to compete. What we have right now, as far as Internet access goes, is not a free market; it's more along the lines of crony capitalism.
Because we have virtual monopolies/duopolies across most of the United States, customers can't get away from any sort of shady stuff their ISP pulls, meaning we have to regulate it out of existence.
This is why I oppose net neutrality on principle. In practice, however, I feel it is unfortunately necessary due to the existing regulations. The ideal solution would be to remove the existing regulations and thus remove the need for net neutrality (since new competition would finally be allowed to easily enter the market), but I simply don't forsee that happening in my lifetime.
There is misconception that "free market" means "no regulation". Actually free market theory works (perfectly) under extremely specific conditions, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
Often government regulation (not intervention) can be useful to get closer to such ideal conditions for the market to work efficiently. One example is taxes that cancel externalities. Can net neutrality also be justified in that way?
As someone who has written their Senators and Congressperson about it and gotten responses about the issue, it is sadly partisan. The Republican Congress stands behind Ajit's stance on anti-net neutrality.
His core base elected him on a platform that explicitly refused to touch entitlements. Didn't matter.
> Net Neutrality isn't partisan
Sorry, that's just wrong. This is one of the most partisan issues where actual policy is being changed. There are near zero crossover votes on either side. There are good guys and bad guys, and your refusal to actually put your support behind the good guys is absolutely infuriating to those of us who can see the truth.
The only reason it's partisan is because the previous government addressed it. Nothing else. There's nothing inherent in the values of either party to strongly side for or against net neutrality.
I think you and grandparent don't agree on the meaning of the word 'partisan', and ended up talking past each other.
Parties don't have inherent values at all. They're just factions of people who hang out at the same clubs. Their values swing as the people attending the parties change over time.
> There are near zero crossover votes on either side.
Citation? Because I don't know a single Dem or Rep who endorses removing Net Neutrality (although I think I just read the first comment to say so on HN above).
Literally every republican with a stake (i.e. the FCC board, and those responsible for nominating/confirming them) endorses this policy. It's literally the party line position.
I think this citation needs to go the other way: which republican do you know who have come out in favor of the current net neutrality regime. I honestly can't think of one.
Your original subject is "His core base", which was what I referenced. You are talking about party politicians. In this situation, we may both be correct.
I'm part of a large upcomming group on the net that has been pushed into a tiny corner that started with the original net neutrality. Many of these people supported trump, but now are joining in rallying against the FCC change.
This does not include that the new net neutrality we have now is not a true title 2. And has many loop holes inside of it. So what should be the conversation is getting a true title 2 on the books. Not a us versus them. As people I was talking about in the former do not hold the same beliefs of establishment Republicans
Yes, this won't affect a god damn thing - net neutrality is dead. I still submitted a public comment because I want the historical record to be clear, and as others have mentioned, the ferocity of the response may cause politicians to reconsider if for no other reason than to preserve their own asses.
I don't think so. You know why they don't talk about this on r/the_donald? Because their propaganda attempts to raise the issue have resulted in people speaking out against the FCC's proposed policy.
I'd argue that current techies haven't become conservative enough to consider removing net neutrality. In 10-20 years, when we have more competition among ISPs, perhaps this will come up again and we'll finally gut it. I don't look forward to that, but it's happened to all other forms of communication. Eventually, money works its way in deeper and deeper, finding new markets and new ways to sell what we already have.
Anyway, my point is, politicians don't have a job without our vote, and when people speak out en masse about an issue, they do hear you. Trump is as big a politician as anyone. He cares what other people think and doesn't want to be viewed as the bad guy. He wants to get re-elected.
I'd argue that current techies haven't become conservative enough to consider removing net neutrality.
There's an entire school of conservative thought where government's only role in the market is maintaining a competitive market. It's unfortunate that this voice has been lost.
In 10-20 years, when we have more competition among ISPs
How's that going to happen if the current duopoly reinforce their position by removing net neutrality?
> How's that going to happen if the current duopoly reinforce their position by removing net neutrality?
I have a hard time imagining that we remain stuck with the status quo for more than 20 years. Markets love to move money around. Comcast is already stale -- their customer service is crap.
I'm not saying that the change will come from markets, necessarily, or that the impetus for change comes from the government. I just think things will change and eventually we'll see more competition on the last mile, or, something that mitigates the current problems.
And, they'll change because we care and are working to do something about these issues, not because we sit back and wait for something to happen.
I lived through the tail-end of the telecom monopolies in the 1990's. I don't have much faith in the market's ability to fix things without intervention.
Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. The public comment period is mandatory, and it's not like the FCC commissioners are dying to know the public's thought process and need their input. They have already made up their minds.
The value provided by the public comment process is a) an opportunity for the public to get their comments on the record, not because it will change the outcome, but just for the historical value of having their viewpoint officially represented somewhere and b) the opportunity for FCC commissioners to be surprised by a higher-than-normal flood of replies and realize they may need to back something out for political expediency.
This is the same way it works when you call your Congresspeople or do almost any other citizen interaction with the government. It's not like your Senator actually cares about your specific opinion and may find it convincing. The proposals supported or opposed by politicians are much larger than any single person's opinion or ideology (including the representative's own).
Since Oliver did a segment on net neutrality under the Obama administration (in which he analogized cable lobbyist and then-FCC chair Tom Wheeler to a dingo hired to babysit a child), it really probably doesn't surprise them that a large volume of comments would be directed from that type of source again. It's also probably not surprising that people more likely to fill out an FCC comment form are generally pro-net neutrality.
> Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible.
It happened less than 2 years ago, on the topic of Net Neutrality. Remember? Tom Wheeler who was a known opponent of Net Neutrality? And the amazing flood of comments CHANGED HIS MIND?
Quit spouting off about how it's hopeless to change anything, and instead GO START REACHING OUT TO YOUR GOVERNMENT. (Your suggestion of calling congresspeople is a good one.)
> Tom Wheeler who was a known opponent of Net Neutrality?
Tom Wheeler was a supporter of net neutrality from his first day on the commission. The FCC majority he led didn't initially see common carrier classification as the best route to enforce neutrality after the 2010 Open Internet Order was struck down, and proposed a revised Order which sought to do that without reclassification, and on that point the comments changed his mind. But that's different than being opponent to neutrality regulations like Pai has been (and Pai was on the committee, and opposed to both the non-reclassifying and reclassifying version of the Open Internet Order, at the time of the last go around; if comments were going to change his mind, they already would have.)
Yeah the support for gutting net neutrality has been bipartisan by politicians, and the opposition has been bipartisan by the people. Anyone who supports gutting net neutrality is either a sucker or bought.
Isn't this the exact reason Americans give for having their right to bear arms? Why is there not an armed revolution against the clearly corrupt government?
Because that's ridiculous and exactly what foreign adversaries would love to see as a result of the currently tense political environment.
Plus, violent protesters almost never come out looking good. Any violence coming from the left would just entrench the powers of the right.
There are a few exceptions, like the revolutionary war. But, that's a time when American people were separated by great distance from its governing body. Revolution doesn't work when you're connected by land. Some foreign power would just take advantage of our weakness, and all Americans would lose.
People usually need to anticipate a lot of hardship/uncertainty before they're willing to get into a war. De-prioritizing Netflix traffic doesn't really fit the bill.
These issues are much more sophisticated than many people appreciate. Democrat and Republican, all FCC commissioners have a telecom industry background, which causes everyone to posit that they have a bias toward their former employers. But how can you be expected to regulate the telecom industry if you have no idea how it works? How do you establish that someone knows what they're doing if they don't have an industry background? There are a lot of complexities here.
That's why our system of checks and balances is so important; it puts clear constraints on the powers of each segment, making it so no segment can get too much control. FCC is an executive-branch enforcement body; it can only do what Congress allows it to do.
Congress is at the heart of the governmental ineffectualness in the US. Fixing Congress would take care of most of our other problems.
> the opportunity for FCC commissioners to be surprised by a higher-than-normal flood of replies and realize they may need to back something out for political expediency.
In theory they are right. Basing your decision on counting these comments is as scientific as online polls.
My guess is that they're obligated to accept comments; lobbyists from both sides have already made all the points and the decision has already been made.
