Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 423 posts

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#71

Post by inetknght »

austincheney wrote: post #24
mc32 wrote: post #4

Would someone outline the pros and cons of the FCC vs FTC overseeing regulation of the internet?

You could make the valid argument that no matter how beneficial net neutrality may be it isn't within the regulatory authority of the FCC to define or enforce such according to the agency's definition per their charter. This is perhaps the best argument for killing net neutrality. The common consideration is that killing net neutrality poses a direct and immediate harm to consumers of potential discriminatory practic…

https://www.fcc.gov/about/overview

> The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regulations.

I am real curious why people think that the Internet, which is a communication medium, is not within the regulatory authority of the FCC.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#72

Post by ytwySXpMbS »

joshmn wrote: post #6
valine wrote: post #5

It’s amazing how the FCC can go against the American people when there is such overwhelming support for net neutrality.

I think you mean it's amazing what money can buy.

At a base level, it's amazing that money counts as free speech.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#73

Post by thesmallestcat »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #70
thesmallestcat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a delightfully simplistic view of politics. You know about the Blue Dogs, right?

Yes. And?

And so you could have a single-party system and you'd end up with a split of conservatives and liberals. It's not about party, at least not about blindly voting for one party.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#74

Post by of »

netsec_burn wrote: post #43

Nick Gillespie: Your plan will, according to a write up in Politico, and I think this is accurate, it quote, "will jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so called paid internet fast lanes." Question for you, do you think fast lanes will become a thing? What is the value of a internet fast lane? Ajit Pai: The answer to the first is we're not sure. We'v…

> Fast lanes DO exist in other countries right now.

Which countries?

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#75

Post by agf »

enraged_camel wrote: post #58
coliveira wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be about the Internet, but doing online "protest" will get us nowhere. Real protest means people going to the streets and making the government afraid of real violence. Other than that I don't see any way out.

Unfortunately, Americans today are weak. Everyone is way too self-obsessed with their own pitiful, pathetic lives (family, jobs, house, creature comforts, etc.) to actually take to the streets and protest like their parents and grandparents did during the 60s to fight for their rights and those of others. The Internet, despite its tremendous potential, has proven to be a massive liability, as it gives people the illu…

While civil disobedience etc. are useful forms of protest, we haven't exhausted other avenues, like actually showing up to vote. And the parent post is talking about violence, not just civil disobedience.

The act you describe at the end of your post happened in a dictatorship where the people truly had no voice. While we may live in a flawed democracy[1] we're not in the same situation -- we do still have nonviolent ways we can turn things around.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#76

Post by jquery »

rojobuffalo wrote: post #29
RpFLCL wrote: post #16

>Reach out to the rest of the FCC now. Tell them they can’t take away internet openness without a fight. How? As this article mentions, their comment system had issues (spam and DDoS) and the only other avenue I've seen is to beg our representatives (who aren't part of the December vote) to do _something_. It was a clean and concise piece, but I was hoping that an insider would provide a new course of action. I've se…

Email: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7ev42z/justin_tr...

Thanks. Who should I email if I'm against Net Neutrality as imposed by the FCC?

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#77

Post by frogcoder »

This is how China "blocking" web site from most of the world other than China. When many sites are blocked out right, many more are accessible but painfully slow. On the other hand, if you go to any major Chinese site, it would be lightning fast. By doing this, those foreign sites are rendered almost useless.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#78

Post by protomyth »

We don't have a group that scares the hell out of politicians like the NRA. This crap comes up every year no matter what the party in power is. Until we find people with a killer instinct and skill, we will keep loosing. No one fears the EFF.

Someone with some clout needs to form a single-issue (no other politics allowed) net neutrality advocacy organization that effectively frames anyone who opposes net neutrality as an evil villain.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#79

Post by ep103 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31
ep103 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, actually. If comments are largely against what a regulatory body is proposing to do, it can be used in court against the regulatory body in court to block the action. That just very, very rarely happens. When captured, regulatory agencies tend not to try to pass measures that very obviously go against public opinion, or are too complex to arise public wrath. This is a special situation that's only happening due t…

> This is a special situation that's only happening due to arrogance of the Trump administration Pai was nominated by Obama on McConnell's recommendation [1]. Trump only elevated him to Chairman. I'm curious about his personal motivations. Is it as simple as him having served as associate general counsel at Verizon? Is it a legalistic interpretation, that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate this? Or about…

A lot of people are asking this on the various forums, but is misunderstands what actually happened.

Many of the major regulatory bodies work in the same way. At the top of the body, there is a board of political appointees. For the FCC, there are 5 commissioners.

Of these 5 Commissioners, 2 are always Democrats, and 2 are always Republicans. That last one, the chair of the committee is always the current sitting President's choice.

This is done this way, to keep some stability among the various administration heads across washington.

So during Obama's term, a Republican chair opened up on the commission when Meredith Baker resigned to lobby for NBC. That meant a Republican needed to be appointed to the commission, so Obama asked Mitch McConnell for Mitch's recommendation, and Mitch chose Ajit Pai.

When Trump took office, the sitting chair of the commission Thomas Wheeler (Obama's nominee) resigned, and Trump elevated Ajit Pai. Trump then filled Ajit Pai's Republican seat with another Republican, and now the board is majority Republican.

So Ajit Pai was not Obama's recommendation. Ajit Pai was Mitch McConnel's choice for the then open Republican Chair on the FCC Commission. Its a little strange, but this is traditionally how its always been done.

Now as to your other question: this last sentence is just conjecture, but we know from the Russia investigations that Trump had a tendency to demand loyalty pledges from his appointees, so I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised to find that Ajit Pai is marching so steadfastly towards this single policy agenda, despite all of the obvious flack and harm it is incurring on him and the nation in general.

Re: I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality

#80

Post by loteck »

luckydude wrote: post #38

I feel helpless. In this and in many things that this administration has brought on. Vote? Yeah, right. Sign a petition? Yeah, right. I feel like unless there are real ramifications to the people doing this stuff, nothing we do matters.

I suspect a lot of people feel this way.

You're right, your individual vote isn't remarkable. And yet, voting is the only legal direct action any normal person can take.

If only there was some way you could convince more people in your community to vote with you. Then you might have something.

Post reply on HN