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

Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 242 posts

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#191

Post by frockington »

psychometry wrote: post #16
Lionsion wrote: post #3

Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…

So you're a single-issue voter, basically? How do you feel about all of the other things the GOP has been doing to this country?

Not the poster but I'm normally a single issue voter and am registered just to vote no for 90% of the things the city wants to do. From a macro-perspective, in the last two years I've seen my taxes go down and unemployment drop. That's all that has personally affected me and I can say that the economic optimism in my city has sky rocket. Overall I'm pretty happy with how things are going.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#192

Post by frockington »

pasbesoin wrote: post #47

My Comcast bill, over the course of two consecutive months since the beginning of this year -- and since the apparent, "inevitable" coming end of net neutrality, increased about 25%. My Congressmen are going to hear about this. About how, for the better part of 20 years, Ameritech/SBC/ATT refused to upgrade my neighborhood trunk line, that doesn't even support DSL. In a high-density suburban neighborhood in the home/…

State reps seem much more willing to help out/listen to their constituents. Every time I've reached out with a state representative they have helped me out. One even drafted a bill and politely told the city to f* off

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#193

Post by dnadler »

naasking wrote: post #184
smsm42 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?

> You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? I'm not sure you've thought this through. Consider: 1. Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average. However, some representatives will actually have the technical knowledge needed to vote properly, so the majority would probably fall in NN's favour. What do…

> Representatives voting in complete ignorance would vote 50/50, on average

I suspect that there would be a strong status quo bias in ignorant votes, so 50/50 is not a realistic assumption in my opinion. Not that this is even a realistic starting point to begin with because interested parties will alway try to disseminate information to law makers (directly, or indirectly).

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#194

Post by Faark »

tzs wrote: post #90
ComputerGuru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm presuming purple (being red + blue) means a district that could either way? Lucky you. Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established.

> Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established. All that means is that the general election doesn't matter, and so you need to move your vote to whatever comes before the general election in your district to make it matter. 1. Register for the party that the redistricting and gerrymandering favors. 2. Vote in that part…

Couldn't the opposite work as well... choose a candidate so extreme even voters of his own party don't want to support him? Isn't that what happened with Roy Moore and Alabama? The US voting system just seems incredible bad.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#195

Post by duwease »

fma wrote: post #120
tzs wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established. All that means is that the general election doesn't matter, and so you need to move your vote to whatever comes before the general election in your district to make it matter. 1. Register for the party that the redistricting and gerrymandering favors. 2. Vote in that part…

I did that - then I researched all the candidates and they are trying to one up each other on who is more conservative. The guy trailing behind for government just started a "Deportation Bus" and driving it around for publicity. It's amusingly sad.

You're in my state then. There is the one guy that's.. somewhat centrist, but he's pretty well back in the polling. SO now I'm figuring out what's the lesser of 3 evils that are competitively polling.

We really need Ranked Choice Voting, I really think these polls affect the actual vote tallies at the end of the day.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#196

Post by pawn »

smsm42 wrote: post #151
fwsgonzo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its not an issue about order of priorities at all. Not to mention some of the responses I've seen basically said "we know better." 80% of americans supported NN at some point, and so any one politician who votes against it is basically voting for himself.

I have hard time to believe response said "we know better". Could you quote one? I am seeing that legitimate "we have different priorities" (which is always the case - it is not humanly possible to accommodate all preferences of all voters in a way that satisfies everybody) interpreted as "bond villain" so I am suspecting there's a bunch of distortion going on here.

I've received a "we know better" answer before, in 2014 regarding Net Neutrality from Roy Blunt.

Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality.

As you know, in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established rules to regulate the Internet. The FCC claimed it could regulate the Internet under the authority of its traditional telephone regulations developed during the monopoly-era. A DC Circuit Court recently struck down certain parts of these rules and decided the FCC does not have jurisdiction over broadband providers to implement regulations in this manner.

The Internet should certainly be free and open to those who legally provide content to consumers. This principle does not necessitate additional government regulation, particularly given the innovative and highly competitive broadband marketplace. Attempts to preemptively implement industry-wide regulations may inadvertently harm consumers by stifling competition and innovation. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I intend to remain fully engaged on this issue to ensure the rules governing broadband service providers maintain the flexibility needed to evolve as rapidly as the technology they provide.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt United States Senator

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#197

Post by mac01021 »

dhimes wrote: post #188
swebs wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcas…

3. Require all meetings with lobbyists to be public- with video and transcript documentation. Mandatory jail time for those who don't comply.

What constitutes a lobbyist? Must a congressman record every discussion he has with every person he meets, just in case the topic of conversation turns to public policy?

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#198

Post by codedokode »

chocolatebunny wrote: post #98
poulsbohemian wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds exactly like what I got from Cathy mcmorris Rodgers in eastern Washington as well

I wonder if there's a "Letter's from my Congressman" website where random people post letters they got from their congressman.

So bots can post fake letters there.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#199

Post by fanalin »

hasahmed wrote: post #119
chocolatebunny wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a "Letter's from my Congressman" website where random people post letters they got from their congressman.

Time to make it happen

We have something like this in Germany. It's called Abgeordnetenwatch (www.abgeordnetenwatch.de - Agbeordneter is, in this context, a member of the German parliament). You can find out who your local representatives are and ask them questions, which are hopefully publicly answered.

Re: Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

#200

Post by rkuykendall-com »

smsm42 wrote: post #144
arbie wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it was a non-issue for them, and that they deal with dozens of "real problems" that their constituents face every day.

How is this "straight up bond villain"? This sounds like a legitimate disagreement about the order of priorities.

You're replying to a different person. The person who said "straight up bond villain" isn't the person you responded to.
Post reply on HN