FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#381

Post by dntrkv » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #364

eli wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally wrong . As if alternate viewpoints can only be explained by a literal conspiracy theory designed to mess with people like you. It's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging that alternate viewpoints even exist, let alone considering whether they have merit. (But then…

but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate a…

And now you are doing the same by making this a left/right issue. It's not. Both sides use this same tactic. It's a part of politics.

You support abortion? Baby murderer!

Healthcare reform? Socialist!

Higher taxes on rich? Communist!

Marijuana legalization? Lazy pothead!

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#382

Post by meragrin » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

stellar678 wrote: post #146

CzechsMix wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.

Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.

How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#383

Post by protomyth » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

unprepare wrote: post #123

protomyth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests" Check the employment history of FCC folks after their term. It is very much like other staff members in various regulatory bodies in DC, they get high paying jobs in the industry for their work.

Couldn't this be more because politicians appoint people to the FCC? Thus an entrenched politician would appoint (or recommend) a corporate-vetted candidate. The advantage (and again i'm not claiming this to be the reality) would be that that the new FCC employee doesnt need to rely on the corporation to continue working at the FCC, Once they have left the corporation, why would they seek to push pro-corporate regula…

"I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous"

We elect people to do that. Perhaps if they were forced to do the actual rule making we would not get 1,000 page bills with all of the rule making to be done later[1]. Perhaps they would pass less bills that need regulation if they had to put them in the bill.

The staffers at various agencies are doing their apprenticeship for their big payday when they join lobbying organizations or the companies that they were supposed to be watching. It happens enough that it has been suggested multiple times that employment restrictions (basic conflict of interest) should be put in place. The DoD is famous for a lot of this (check Boeing's hiring).

"I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous"

Because those folks are their friends and future employers (again).

1) yes, I read the ACA because I needed to know the ruling on a specific situation and it was one of those rule making later. It was very frustrating but not very surprising.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#384

Post by TheHypnotist » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

supergeek133 wrote: post #59

lmg643 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Wheeler was a career lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries. I assume those firms are getting what they want, sort of like how Obamacare is good for insurance companies (they are only "allowed" to sell expensive plans, with government subsidies for those who can't afford them). I liked this stat from Wheeler's bio: "Wheeler was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003, and in 2009, as a result of h…

I remember when this guy was appointed, everyone flipped out because of his history and called it a bad move. Now this happens and he's the messiah! Haha.

Teraflop just posted this above your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8999657

So while you are right, you are muddying who you consider to be "everyone".

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#385

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #364

eli wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally wrong . As if alternate viewpoints can only be explained by a literal conspiracy theory designed to mess with people like you. It's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging that alternate viewpoints even exist, let alone considering whether they have merit. (But then…

but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate a…

Unfortunately, "hate and stupidity" are often correlated with the issues. The political position opposite of granting, say, LGBT's the same rights as everyone else has literally no other basis than hate and stupidity.

There may be valid arguments to be made against net neutrality, but I have yet to see one that doesn't start with putting more money in the pockets of the telcos.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#386

Post by orblivion » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF o…

> The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic.

Though I'm in the libertarian anti-NN legislation camp, I don't know if this is true. Previously when I tried to express my views I got voted down. I assumed from this that HN is naturally heavily pro-NN legislation. (Or maybe they just didn't like the particular argument I made. * shrugs *)

Though, I do agree that it's a bad rhetorical tactic.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#387

Post by byuu » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

gameshot911 wrote: post #110

Amazing that a change of this magnitude rests on a 5-person vote.

The 2000 presidential election was decided on a 5-4 vote.

What bothers me more are that these votes are always evenly split among party lines. It doesn't matter which side you are on, when one seat flipping means business-as-usual does a complete 180. What sensible person would want to invest in a country so polarized and with such an uncertain future?

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#388

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

droopybuns wrote: post #280

ceejayoz wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paid prioritization is not a bad thing. Blocking websites is. Paid prioritization can be effectively used to block websites at the will of the providers. "We offered that website our paid tier, but they refused our $1,000,000 demand and are now capped at a bit per second."

The thing I have hated the most about the last 20 years of the internet is how often I have been blocked access to a website due to caps. This has happened exactly 0 times.

We've already seen companies with Netflix competitors wielding caps against Netflix. It's hardly a crazy concept that Comcast could wield them against speech they don't like too.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#389

Post by derefr » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF o…

Within the US, Title II been a divisive topic.

On the global stage, though, countries that have set similar policies (e.g. the UK) have ended up with much healthier broadband ecosystems.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#390

Post by mortehu » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #324

keslag wrote: post #316

Okay, as a Canadian with no dog in this fight, this seems to be a good thing for America. So I'm having a very hard time understanding the opposition. The arguments for title II are pretty clear and logical. The arguments against include giving up personal freedoms (You live in America, you've been giving up most of your personal freedoms willing for the pack two decades) and this isn't one of them. There are some co…

It's pretty common for Americans to argue against things that are actually good for them. The dis-information campaigns funded by billions in contributions are very good at convincing people universal healthcare, etc. would actually be bad. Of course, every other developed country knows the truth.

> It's pretty common for Americans to argue against things that are actually good for them. The dis-information campaigns funded by billions in contributions are very good at convincing people universal healthcare, etc. would actually be bad.

It doesn't have to be disinformation. For example, some may think that principles are more important than results. This could mean you care more about how infrastructure and healthcare is funded than the actual cost.

I've also seen people claim that others oppose universal healthcare because it would disproportionately benefit some ethnic groups they don't like.