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

An Open Letter to the FCC

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 222 posts

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#141

Post by albinofrenchy »

saladeen wrote: post #136

Man, reddit's frontpage was almost 100% links to battleforthenet.com today. I'd like to point out something not widely mentioned: battleforthenet is ran by org called 'Fight for the Future'; they are funded by Open Society Initiative, which is George Soros's organization. As soon as I see his name involved, I assume that a) the appearance of a 'grassroot movement' is completely fake and just part of his playbook, and…

The George Soros demonization is one of the odder things I've seen lately.

This isn't some psyops nonsense. Net neutrality isn't some George Soros conspiracy meant to cripple capitalism while making him rich.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#142

Post by albinofrenchy »

perseusprime11 wrote: post #43

To play devil’s advocate, are we really ready for Internet to be regulated like a public utility? Like water, we will need to pay more the more we consume. You and I can pay but what about poor people? Will this discourage Internet usage?

Net neutrality isn't about paying more for consuming more. It is like needing to upgrade your water plan to make coffee as opposed to tea; unless you brew with starbucks or something.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#144

Post by mikestew »

IvyMike wrote: post #104
mikestew wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer and probably plans to parley his government experience into a lucrative gig at one of the big telcos I don’t care if he was a professional kitten killer, it has little relevance to actions currently being taken. I say this for two reasons: Pai has spent more time in public service than he did at Verizon, by multiples. And second, who cares what his motivation is? Does…

> And second, who cares what his motivation is? Knowing his motivations (is he simply misinformed? is he corrupt? does he believe in strict libertarianism?) has a big impact in shaping a winning strategy to oppose him.

Eh, I’m having a hard time mentally walking through how this would work. Because it would seem to me that his mind is going to be made up at this point, and we need to persuade those that think he’s right (and maybe “he’s a shill” can do that, dunno).

But that doesn’t mean I can’t upvote a reasonable POV with which I just happen to disagree.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

creaghpatr wrote: post #140
dragonwriter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs Nope, they aren't. They are all areas where the GOP has pushed at both the federal and state level in the same direction, caring about policy (excluding transgendered persons from general society, blocking abortion, and protecting individual firearms rights) not the relative balance of state/f…

They aren't mutually exclusive of course. Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. My original point is still that they haven't shifted away from that strategic view of states rights since the election because they still hold those advantages. When Democrats dominate at state level…

> Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights.

No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without federal interference.)

They do like, since the adoption of the Southern Strategy, to use the phrase “States Rights”, but that's a 150+-year-old American political code for “we support and demand systematic oppression of blacks”, not a position on the relative distribution of power between the federal and state government.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#146

Post by thechao »

alexanderstears wrote: post #51
rectang wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inconsistency in this position is prioritizing killing off net neutrality regulations while the thicket of regulations which cement the ISP oligopoly remain in place to be dispensed with probably never.

Oligopoly? Most people seem to be served by a monopoly.

My HOA requires me to use TWC, or get a fine which can lead to a lien. TWC doesn’t even exist in my part of Texas: it’s spectrum or ATT.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#147

Post by TheRealPomax »

batmansmk wrote: post #108

If you are ready to steal identities at large scale, don't you think you are capable of faking logs, bribing judges and do whatever you want as well? It's funny to see how trustful we are in America that the rules will save us all from people not playing by the same rules. Changing the referee is the real solution right? Impeachment should be the focus.

No, I don't. Do you? If so, you might need to read up on the slippery slope fallacy.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#148

Post by Azkar »

jedberg wrote: post #139
ghrifter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC has effectively ignored the rules and stalled their way to victory. Nawh, they are following the power delegation given to them by congress. They dont have to do fuck all for public comments, other then recieve them, document them, and say "we got feedback but fuck yall we going forward"

> They dont have to do fuck all for public comments That's not true. As a nonpartisan federal agency, the must show how they accounted for public comment and why the choice they made is either in line with the public comments or why it is justified to not be in line. They have to do more than just accept the comments. But by allowing all the fake comments, they were able to say "see everyone wants this, what we are d…

> They have to do more than just accept the comments.

Or what?

There's no one enforcing rules in this administration.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#149

Post by erikpukinskis »

epmaybe wrote: post #74
dmalvarado wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's wait and see where he ends up. If he doesn't immediately go back to telecom after his appointment is over, then I'll agree bringing up his history wasn't warranted.

I'm curious, where would you expect someone with years of experience in a specific industry to go after public office? Besides public office, of course.

If I wrote regulations that benefitted Google, I would hope I’d go work at Qualcomm or somewhere unrelated. It gives the appearance of quid pro quo.

Re: An Open Letter to the FCC

#150

Post by erikpukinskis »

creaghpatr wrote: post #58
kadenshep wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Democrats were vehemently opposed to states authority No they weren't. This is a total lie. I'd call it a mis-characterization but it's been beaten down so much that you have to be purposefully lying at this point to keep repeating it.

Is that your argument?

A bald assertion on the internet need only be met with another bald assertion.

If you want someone to argue with you, you need to present an argument first.

Post reply on HN