Anyone who thinks the FCC is going to change course under this administration based on public comments can buy the bridge I am selling in NYC.
I disagree.
I don't think Trump would change his opinion based on what Democrats or people he view as the opposition says. He probably figures they'll attack him no matter what. (And I'm not sure he'd be wrong.)
However, if his core base is expresses concern, I do believe his attitude will change.
In fact, I would argue that's one of the best hopes we have.
Net Neutrality isn't partisan. Or rather, it doesn't need to be. There are reasons for both Democrats & Republicans to support it.
I completely agree. Most techies who support Trump see that removing net neutrality could worsen partisan media. The issue hasn't been raised on r/the_donald because they can't get enough people to support Ajit Pai's proposed "Internet Freedom" policy.
The only people who seem to support it are die-hard free-market folks who don't understand the internet, or, who are already invested in a business that would benefit from such a change.
Killing net neutrality will never benefit the consumer, only the big players.
You can't expect free market theory to work when you take net neutrality with one hand while giving ISPs the right to practically pen state legislation, deny access to lines and sue up and coming competitors into oblivion with the other.
You end up with the worst of both worlds: government sponsored unrestrained monopolies.
Because we have virtual monopolies/duopolies across most of the United States, customers can't get away from any sort of shady stuff their ISP pulls, meaning we have to regulate it out of existence.
Often government regulation (not intervention) can be useful to get closer to such ideal conditions for the market to work efficiently. One example is taxes that cancel externalities. Can net neutrality also be justified in that way?
That doesn't mean all of the above isn't simply my opinion and perception.
> Net Neutrality isn't partisan
Sorry, that's just wrong. This is one of the most partisan issues where actual policy is being changed. There are near zero crossover votes on either side. There are good guys and bad guys, and your refusal to actually put your support behind the good guys is absolutely infuriating to those of us who can see the truth.
Parties don't have inherent values at all. They're just factions of people who hang out at the same clubs. Their values swing as the people attending the parties change over time.
Citation? Because I don't know a single Dem or Rep who endorses removing Net Neutrality (although I think I just read the first comment to say so on HN above).
I think this citation needs to go the other way: which republican do you know who have come out in favor of the current net neutrality regime. I honestly can't think of one.
This does not include that the new net neutrality we have now is not a true title 2. And has many loop holes inside of it. So what should be the conversation is getting a true title 2 on the books. Not a us versus them. As people I was talking about in the former do not hold the same beliefs of establishment Republicans
I don't think so. You know why they don't talk about this on r/the_donald? Because their propaganda attempts to raise the issue have resulted in people speaking out against the FCC's proposed policy.
I'd argue that current techies haven't become conservative enough to consider removing net neutrality. In 10-20 years, when we have more competition among ISPs, perhaps this will come up again and we'll finally gut it. I don't look forward to that, but it's happened to all other forms of communication. Eventually, money works its way in deeper and deeper, finding new markets and new ways to sell what we already have.
Anyway, my point is, politicians don't have a job without our vote, and when people speak out en masse about an issue, they do hear you. Trump is as big a politician as anyone. He cares what other people think and doesn't want to be viewed as the bad guy. He wants to get re-elected.
There's an entire school of conservative thought where government's only role in the market is maintaining a competitive market. It's unfortunate that this voice has been lost.
In 10-20 years, when we have more competition among ISPs
How's that going to happen if the current duopoly reinforce their position by removing net neutrality?
I have a hard time imagining that we remain stuck with the status quo for more than 20 years. Markets love to move money around. Comcast is already stale -- their customer service is crap.
I'm not saying that the change will come from markets, necessarily, or that the impetus for change comes from the government. I just think things will change and eventually we'll see more competition on the last mile, or, something that mitigates the current problems.
And, they'll change because we care and are working to do something about these issues, not because we sit back and wait for something to happen.
The value provided by the public comment process is a) an opportunity for the public to get their comments on the record, not because it will change the outcome, but just for the historical value of having their viewpoint officially represented somewhere and b) the opportunity for FCC commissioners to be surprised by a higher-than-normal flood of replies and realize they may need to back something out for political expediency.
This is the same way it works when you call your Congresspeople or do almost any other citizen interaction with the government. It's not like your Senator actually cares about your specific opinion and may find it convincing. The proposals supported or opposed by politicians are much larger than any single person's opinion or ideology (including the representative's own).
Since Oliver did a segment on net neutrality under the Obama administration (in which he analogized cable lobbyist and then-FCC chair Tom Wheeler to a dingo hired to babysit a child), it really probably doesn't surprise them that a large volume of comments would be directed from that type of source again. It's also probably not surprising that people more likely to fill out an FCC comment form are generally pro-net neutrality.
It happened less than 2 years ago, on the topic of Net Neutrality. Remember? Tom Wheeler who was a known opponent of Net Neutrality? And the amazing flood of comments CHANGED HIS MIND?
Quit spouting off about how it's hopeless to change anything, and instead GO START REACHING OUT TO YOUR GOVERNMENT. (Your suggestion of calling congresspeople is a good one.)
Tom Wheeler was a supporter of net neutrality from his first day on the commission. The FCC majority he led didn't initially see common carrier classification as the best route to enforce neutrality after the 2010 Open Internet Order was struck down, and proposed a revised Order which sought to do that without reclassification, and on that point the comments changed his mind. But that's different than being opponent to neutrality regulations like Pai has been (and Pai was on the committee, and opposed to both the non-reclassifying and reclassifying version of the Open Internet Order, at the time of the last go around; if comments were going to change his mind, they already would have.)
Anyway the GP's point is that comments changed his mind, not that Wheeler and Pai thought exactly alike.
No, he didn't.
> "F.C.C., in a Shift, Backs Fast Lanes for Web Traffic " ... The proposed rules, drafted by Mr. Wheeler and his staff ... [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-ne...
If people didn't believe things like this we wouldn't have staunch Democrats and Republicans who never vote across party lines.
Close enough to changing their mind for me.
My guess is that they're obligated to accept comments; lobbyists from both sides have already made all the points and the decision has already been made.
No, that's how democracy dies.
Please don't break the site guidelines by being uncivil, regardless of how right you are.