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

Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#11

Post by flipgimble »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #3

I'm not very sympathetic to some who are hyperventilating over this. Yes, Net Neutrality is important. But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone. So now Team Coke is going to be running things, an…

your cynicism and the oh so impressive "I've seen it all attitude" adds nothing constructive to the conversation. You try to belittle valid concern over corporate lobbyists taking over the agencies that are supposed to keep them in check. If I were a corporation trying to control the message on social media I would use pretty much the same language.

Resistance to the slowly creeping dismantling of consumer rights and freedoms will require frequent hyperventilation and the ability to be outraged. Having grown up in a totalitarian state, it all felt banal and common place. I'm not saying this one piece of news indicates that's the future in the US, but we will get there with hundreds of compromises like it.

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#13

Post by mixedCase »

flipgimble wrote: post #11
MrZongle2 wrote: post #3

I'm not very sympathetic to some who are hyperventilating over this. Yes, Net Neutrality is important. But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone. So now Team Coke is going to be running things, an…

your cynicism and the oh so impressive "I've seen it all attitude" adds nothing constructive to the conversation. You try to belittle valid concern over corporate lobbyists taking over the agencies that are supposed to keep them in check. If I were a corporation trying to control the message on social media I would use pretty much the same language. Resistance to the slowly creeping dismantling of consumer rights and…

The solution has been, is and will be to free the market for smaller ISPs to compete without being regulated to death; and this will not change until economies are no longer a thing due to human extinction and/or reaching the singularity; certainly it will not be because AT&T, Comcast et al grew a conscience.

During 8 years of Obama the only thing in the table was more regulation. Now your only hope is for a Trump administration that pushes for more competition; which given his policy on healthcare I'd say that's a battle worth fighting for.

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#14

Post by eli_gottlieb »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #9
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Campaign to get obstructionist members of Congress replaced. That's a pretty unsatisfying answer, but that's the only legal means to do it right. The problem is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered as fuck , making it quite often impossible to have a genuine two-party contest within electoral politics. I mean, are you suggesting Team Pepsi run in Team Coke's Congressional primaries as moderates rather than…

"The problem is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered as fuck, making it quite often impossible to have a genuine two-party contest within electoral politics. I mean, are you suggesting Team Pepsi run in Team Coke's Congressional primaries as moderates rather than contesting a general election they basically can't win?" Congressional districts are ultimately decided by the individual states, (theoretically)…

>Congressional districts are ultimately decided by the individual states, (theoretically) based upon Census data as I understand it. (A correction is welcome if I've misunderstood)

Theoretically based on Census data, but ultimately at the near-unrestricted discretion of whoever holds the state legislature at the time.

>Trouble is, when a party wins (and thus is in the best position to fix the issue), this isn't seen as a problem worth addressing. That change, too, needs to come from within.

Yep. It's taken lawsuits in some places: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89402. This case could end up before the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court then votes their own partisan preferences, which they often do these days, it will be... fucked-up.

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#15

Post by throwaway4891a »

mixedCase wrote: post #13
flipgimble wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your cynicism and the oh so impressive "I've seen it all attitude" adds nothing constructive to the conversation. You try to belittle valid concern over corporate lobbyists taking over the agencies that are supposed to keep them in check. If I were a corporation trying to control the message on social media I would use pretty much the same language. Resistance to the slowly creeping dismantling of consumer rights and…

The solution has been, is and will be to free the market for smaller ISPs to compete without being regulated to death; and this will not change until economies are no longer a thing due to human extinction and/or reaching the singularity; certainly it will not be because AT&T, Comcast et al grew a conscience. During 8 years of Obama the only thing in the table was more regulation . Now your only hope is for a Trump a…

"If all men were angels, no government (regulation) would be necessary."

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#16

Post by throwaway4891a »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #6
MrZongle2 wrote: post #3

I'm not very sympathetic to some who are hyperventilating over this. Yes, Net Neutrality is important. But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone. So now Team Coke is going to be running things, an…

>But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone. You've got a very valid point, and one we should extend. Part of the very point of democracy is to cultivate a loyal opposition whose rule you can live…

Robert Reich would agree per John Kenneth Galbraith at a higher level of abstraction. Strong, nearly equal-strength parties is better for democracy than a lopsided near-monopoly.

"The Disease of American Democracy" 2014

http://robertreich.org/post/95109113190

In an ideal world, a parliamentary/coalition system maybe better because it promotes greater socio-political evolution and forces parties/leaders to put forth better platforms. There are other pros/cons as well.

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#17

Post by mixedCase »

throwaway4891a wrote: post #15
mixedCase wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution has been, is and will be to free the market for smaller ISPs to compete without being regulated to death; and this will not change until economies are no longer a thing due to human extinction and/or reaching the singularity; certainly it will not be because AT&T, Comcast et al grew a conscience. During 8 years of Obama the only thing in the table was more regulation . Now your only hope is for a Trump a…

"If all men were angels, no government (regulation) would be necessary."

I'm certainly not blind to the necessity of government and the need for some regulation to exist. The problem is that when regulation gets handed out like candy instead of being heavily looked at and discarded if its purpose is not clear or doesn't align with the interests of the population at large; then you have left the door open for oligarchy to come in and shit all over.

Re: Trump Picks Staunch Opponents of Net Neutrality to Oversee FCC

#18

Post by MrZongle2 »

flipgimble wrote: post #11
MrZongle2 wrote: post #3

I'm not very sympathetic to some who are hyperventilating over this. Yes, Net Neutrality is important. But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone. So now Team Coke is going to be running things, an…

your cynicism and the oh so impressive "I've seen it all attitude" adds nothing constructive to the conversation. You try to belittle valid concern over corporate lobbyists taking over the agencies that are supposed to keep them in check. If I were a corporation trying to control the message on social media I would use pretty much the same language. Resistance to the slowly creeping dismantling of consumer rights and…

"your cynicism and the oh so impressive "I've seen it all attitude" adds nothing constructive to the conversation."

As opposed to....your comment?

Hyperventilation is navel-gazing without the self-reflection. It is a step below hysteria. If you truly grew up in a totalitarian state, then you should be in favor of doing things right, by the law, rather than allowing a single person or small group of people circumvent (or pervert) it.

And that is the problem here. Executive Orders and appointees during both the Obama and Bush administrations have allowed the executive branch to do what they want, when they want. It's technically legal, but it's as permanent as smoke. And those who are upset that the smoke bridge to a better future is falling apart are fools.

Post reply on HN