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

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#291

Post by magicalist »

Dalewyn wrote: post #141
bearjaws wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd flip it and say its what happens when Congress has been dysfunctional for over a decade. It's not even possible to get a house bill with net neutrality passed without it included 99 other things that will inevitably get the bill punted on forever. Congress could have drafted this anytime if they had seen fit, but they are "too busy" fighting ideology wars.

While I agree Congress is quite dysfunctional, the sheer difficulty with which to get a bill written, passed, and signed into law is by design. Legislation is supposed to take a large amount of deliberation, agreement, and time. Also consider that this works both ways: If something is passed into law by Congress, it's going to take monumental effort to undo it just like getting it passed was. An example of this is Ob…

> the sheer difficulty with which to get a bill written, passed, and signed into law is by design

No, the 118th Congress was not how anything was designed to operate. This is hand waving mixed with Founding Father fairytales.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#292

Post by reaperman »

geuis wrote: post #6

Here's the FCC announcement (pdf) for those interested: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-restores-net-neutrality

I'm looking for full text of the actual action / implementation. Like the document containing the text that they actually voted on, specifically.

Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40160960

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#293

Post by sophacles »

thfuran wrote: post #63
cal5k wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the new "rules" being proposed by executive agencies will be subject to court challenge, and some of them (like the FTC's non-compete "rule") will likely be subject to a preliminary injunction. The goal is to get people to think "Yeah! Taking action on non-competes is great! Darn politicized courts!", when in reality this is not something an executive agency should be doing without an act of congress, or it ma…

>This is much more democratic than attempting to craft law by executive fiat What exactly "more democratic" means is a bit unclear to me. Is an act of Congress more democratic than agency policy because more reps voted on it? Is it more democratic because the reps who voted on it were elected rather than appointed by people who were elected like over at those agencies? Or is a policy democratic based on its alignment…

Also:

Is it less democratic because unlike laws, there's an open comment period for the public to make their voice heard? (unlike laws or executive orders)

Is it less democratic because it's policy being implemented by people who spend a lot of time thinking about the policy and its effects, rather than by some blowhard trying to score culture war points on twitter than making a policy?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#294

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

feoren wrote: post #161
rootusrootus wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> half the voting population of the 50 states of the union keep making a conscious selection of bad policy Which half?

[flagged]

I’m not sure either side is invested in making sure people are suffering. I do think both sides have differing opinions on what the role of government should be in Americans lives. Neither side is wholly consistent, which is okay. Demonizing “the other” is the root issue. Everyone should stop doing that.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#295

Post by xbar »

redeeman wrote: post #266
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope! That's called doing your job with the tools you've been given.

funny, thats definitely not what it was called when trump issued executive orders, there we had to endure things like the definition of dictator which tends to include "rules by decree" etc, as proof of him being a dictator :) oh how the winds are fleeting

Every President is equivalently, and rightly, castigated by the opposition party over their executive orders.

Every executive order by every President is an abuse of power, as far as I'm concerned.

55/yr for Trump? 44/yr for Biden? No one should be proud of their side.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#296

Post by Gormo »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #274
Gormo wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proportional representation is a terrible idea, in that it entrenches the role of parties per se, but ranked-choice balloting in SMDs would be a massive improvement over the status quo.

Nope nope nope. Political parties are good . 2 incumbent political parties in a permanent grapple is what is bad. Politics is a "team sport", by which I don't mean it must a facile context practiced by west-wing-loving weirdos, but that is is a fundamentally collective effort. Americans love to think political parties are inherently bad, but seriously when are mere individuals reliable? How the hell am I supposed to…

Nah, parties are bad. They perfectly exemplify the adage about people dedicated to the ostensible mission of the organization vs. those dedicated to the organization as an end it itself. With formalized parties, we often see the strategic concerns of the party as an organization eclipse any coherent policy goals that are the ostensible reason for the party existing in the first place.

Multi-party in particular democracy has some significant pitfalls, including the tendency of marginal and extremist parties to play kingmaker. The historian Hannah Arendt made some salient points about how the multi-party structure of Weimar Germany contributed directly to the radicalization and eventual total control of the state by the Nazis.

Politics will always involve factions forming around shared interests or values, but in a situation without those factions being calcified into formal organizations, or even identities, we'd expect them to be much more fluid and ephemeral, and for politicians to be much more willing to reach across ideological divides without worrying about institutional discipline or being ostracized by the party establishment regardless of their constituents' opinions.

Ranked-choice balloting wouldn't eliminate parties per se, but it would reduce their influence in the electoral process significantly.

> How the hell am I supposed to tell who all these down-ballet no-names are and what they actually believe in?

I'd expect a reasonable voter to investigate the actual candidates on the ballot and make an informed choice, and not merely rely on party affiliation as the only criterion for casting a vote.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#297

Post by sophacles »

bedhead wrote: post #288
skyfaller wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how soci…

Remember when there was no net neutrality and everything...worked great?

That was before the people most opposed to net neutrality had started lobbying local governments to give them monopoly access and to make it illegal for local governments to try and encourage competition.

Basically I find a good rule of thumb to be: if comcast is against it, it's probably going to improve the lives of everyone via some form of competition between businesses.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#298

Post by whacko_quacko »

zoeysmithe wrote: post #221
feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

This is sort of a democrat neolib explanation that's only possible if you ignore the corrupting effects of capitalism and the unending class struggle between workers and capital, regardless of party. The GOP isn't some weird guys who can't govern, but an incredibly powerful group that works almost exclusively for the capital owning class and uses social issues to empower that class. The GOP caters a bit to the worker…

>The only real fix is [...] socialism

And that would be a first, because no one has tried "real socialism"(tm) before, right?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#299

Post by [deleted] »

bedhead wrote: post #288
skyfaller wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how soci…

Remember when there was no net neutrality and everything...worked great?

[deleted]

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#300

Post by ModernMech »

graycat wrote: post #265
ModernMech wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From all I've seen, I like Trump, but apparently a lot of people don't. I wonder where am I going wrong. Are you being sarcastic? Did you miss the part where he waged an attempted coup against the US government to remain in power? I mean... he was just found by a court to have committed rape. You don't see why people don't like him? Be for real.

> Are you being sarcastic? Did you miss the part where he waged an attempted coup against the US government to remain in power? I never understood that: I watched his speech. All I saw looked reasonable, appropriate, prudent. It seemed he was careful to advise no violence. That there was an "attempted coup" makes no sense to me. I watched his speech and saw nothing wrong. > I mean... he was just found by a court to h…

I watched your video -- it's media personalities babbling.

You should probably inform yourself about the coup, the speech wasn't it. Here is some actual info to start:

The J6 commission report: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6...

The Federal indictments: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/trump-i...

The Georgia indictments: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINA...

The Arizona indictments: https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/fa...

The finding of rape: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ... Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Post reply on HN