231–240 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to dumb your questions down to terms "everybody" can understand, or else they won't know what the question is. The first question most people will understand.
If it has to be dumbed down and leading that much, the result of the survey is meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By "properly", you mean "agreeing with me", right? I mean in the interests of their constituents. > You implying everybody that has technical knowledge supports NN, and only reason to oppose it is ignorance. This is wrong and incredibly condescending. I imply nothing of the sort, but the majority of people certainly favour NN. > Yes it does. Why would we need any Congress at all then? We could replace them with a c…
> I mean in the interests of their constituents. Constituents have different interests. Sometimes diametrically different. > but the majority of people certainly favour NN. The majority of the people favor a vague description of NN in the form of "do you want to access sites for free". The majority of the people has no opinion about the specific NN regulations being discussed since they don't have a slightest idea wh…
Please point to all the polls or surveys that framed the question this way.
> The majority of the people has no opinion about the specific NN regulations being discussed since they don't have a slightest idea what these regulations are and how they work and what exactly changed in 2015 and 2018.
And the same can be said for our elected representatives who, on the whole, are just as technologically illiterate as these other citizens you seem to disdain so much.
> You "explained" that everybody who has technical knowledge would support NN
Really? Please quote the exact text where I made that claim.
Furthermore, that explanation is completely immaterial to the point I was responding to, which was about your claim of randomized bill voting. I suggest you reread this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not "rhetoric" that's how the internet has worked for decades. Group A and Group B are already paying their own bills for internet traffic via peering agreements and cash when there is unequal traffic on one side. It's not like there is competition for last mile internet service in most of the United States. If Comcast decided they wanted to charge netflix specifically more and not just charge the owner of the…
That's not how peering works, economically. When Netflix's ISP sends a movie to my ISP, is my ISP doing Netflix a favor? No, it's doing me a favor, or both of us a favor. So who should pay? Backbones who aren't either of our ISPs complicate it further. ISP should be able to charge a fair price for providing connectivity across their networks, but it's not at all obvious what a fair price is, because it's not clear ho…
The backbones charge the ISPs for traffic. That doesn't change what I said before. Instead of A and B having a peering agreement, they both have peering agreements with C. (ACB).
ISP should be able to charge a fair price for providing connectivity across their networks, but it's not at all obvious what a fair price is, because it's not clear how expensive each packet delivery is and whose packet it is. That's why capitalists/right-wingers say "free market sort it out" and socialists/left-wingers say "government should decide rules about what's fair".
Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the government deciding how much ISPs and backbone providers charge each other. Net Neutrality is about charging for each packet at the same price and with some exceptions not prioritizing one packet over the other based on origin.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/08/tiered-pricing-c...
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…
This seems like the way that this should be addressed. The case against Net Neutrality was made almost strictly as a case of regulatory overreach and overly burdensome regulations that inherited irrelevant restrictions and unenforceable provisions designed for specific telecom use cases that don't apply to ISPs. The first issue is clearly addressed by a legislative approach -- it stops being regulatory overreach when…
It's interesting the way that the Congressional Review Act operates, to require both houses and the president to sign off on overruling the decision of an executive agency. In bicameral Westminster-style systems, delegated legislation (ie. executive regulations) can usually be vetoed by either chamber. This being under the principle that if the regulation in question had been enacted as regular legislation it would h…
It's a fiction either way. There's no way to decide whether the vetoed action was in or out of scope of the original delegated authority. Maybe one chamber just changed their mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not because you say to your congressman that you are a one-issue voter that you really are. Elected officials keep lying about their promises, I don't see why this should be a one-way street.
Except that they are in this game for years, and probably can play it much better than you do. But by devaluing citizens input by injecting obvious deception into it, you make it harder for others to make a difference when it does genuinely matter for them. Because on the input side, there's no way to know the difference between somebody who genuinely passionately cares for the issue and somebody who strategically li…
And yes, voters cold-calling senators is an incredibly unreliable way to know who cares about what. I am astounded that it is still that efficient. I guess many candidates haven't figured yet that a lot of people can lie.
Personally I wouldn't say "I will vote for you if you do X or Y". Given the current political climate, I would present myself as a republican voter who has doubts "and really, this net neutrality things really makes it hard for me. I don't really see why I should go vote for either side now."
They wont believe someone who pretends they can switch on a single issue but their current fear is that their base won't come on election day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was the basic gist of the response?
My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning.
[Regarding Obama Administration]
"Then there was the 'fairness doctrine,' designed to limit opposing voices in radio and on television; 'net neutrality,' which promised to regulate the Internet so as to prevent, ultimately, individuals from frequenting Web sites that might disagree with an administration;"
- Larry Schweikart (What Would the Founders Say?)
[Endorsed by Glenn Beck and read by Tea Party supporters all over.]
I think if you just give them the correct definition of Net Neutrality and explain how it works and why they would be for it. But people frequently leave out the "how it works and why" part of an argument so it just defaults to polarized scream matches. If people took the time to explain things to people, IE: "speak truth to stupid", we would be much better off.
To be fair, Larry Schweikart is incredibly intelligent and well read on history.
"Mr 'Buckley' - well-spoken, intelligent, curious - had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He had a natural appetite for the wonders of the Universe. He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science had gotten filtered out before it reached him. Our cultural motifs, our educational system, our communications media had failed this man. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretence and confusion. It had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation. He knew nothing about how science works."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources. What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II - I don't see any mention of Title I being affected. Pai's net neutrality rollback targets the FCC's February 2015 reclassification of fixed and mobile Internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II provides the regulatory auth…
> Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources. Yes, they do. Particularly, you need to reread your own Wikipedia link, particularly the “Regulatory history” section, paying particular attention to the parts from 2004 forward. The Ars piece also doesn't contradict my post, it just doesn't cover much background. > What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II…