19 ms·

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.

cookiecaper 9y ago
Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. The public comment period is mandatory, and it's not like the FCC commissioners are dying to know the public's thought process and need their input. They have already made up their minds. 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  > Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. If people didn't believe things like this we wouldn't have staunch Democrats and Republicans who never vote across party lines.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ori_b 9y ago
  > 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. Close enough to changing their mind for me.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mcherm 9y ago
  > Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. 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.)
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    And yet here we are facing the same problem again, merely two years later. During that two year timespan, they tried and tried to get legislation through that would kill net neutrality. They just kept pushing until our political will broke down. It should be fairly obvious that democracy has failed. The government does not represent the people, it represents the corporations and lobbyists.
    - deadbunny 9y ago
      Isn't this the exact reason Americans give for having their right to bear arms? Why is there not an armed revolution against the clearly corrupt government?
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        Because that's ridiculous and exactly what foreign adversaries would love to see as a result of the currently tense political environment. Plus, violent protesters almost never come out looking good. Any violence coming from the left would just entrench the powers of the right. There are a few exceptions, like the revolutionary war. But, that's a time when American people were separated by great distance from its governing body. Revolution doesn't work when you're connected by land. Some foreign power would just take advantage of our weakness, and all Americans would lose. We need to find a way to work together.
      - cookiecaper 9y ago
        People usually need to anticipate a lot of hardship/uncertainty before they're willing to get into a war. De-prioritizing Netflix traffic doesn't really fit the bill. These issues are much more sophisticated than many people appreciate. Democrat and Republican, all FCC commissioners have a telecom industry background, which causes everyone to posit that they have a bias toward their former employers. But how can you be expected to regulate the telecom industry if you have no idea how it works? How do you establish that someone knows what they're doing if they don't have an industry background? There are a lot of complexities here. That's why our system of checks and balances is so important; it puts clear constraints on the powers of each segment, making it so no segment can get too much control. FCC is an executive-branch enforcement body; it can only do what Congress allows it to do. Congress is at the heart of the governmental ineffectualness in the US. Fixing Congress would take care of most of our other problems.
easilyBored 9y ago
In theory they are right. Basing your decision on counting these comments is as scientific as online polls. 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.
rybosome 9y ago
Yes, this won't affect a god damn thing - net neutrality is dead. I still submitted a public comment because I want the historical record to be clear, and as others have mentioned, the ferocity of the response may cause politicians to reconsider if for no other reason than to preserve their own asses.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > net neutrality is dead 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.
  - nl 9y ago
    I'd argue that current techies haven't become conservative enough to consider removing net neutrality. 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?
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      > 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.
wdr1 9y ago
> 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.
- ajross 9y ago
  His core base elected him on a platform that explicitly refused to touch entitlements. Didn't matter. > 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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - DiThi 9y ago
    The only reason it's partisan is because the previous government addressed it. Nothing else. There's nothing inherent in the values of either party to strongly side for or against net neutrality.
    - philipov 9y ago
      I think you and grandparent don't agree on the meaning of the word 'partisan', and ended up talking past each other. 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.
  - deleted 9y ago
int_19h 9y ago
The point is to leave a very clear track record that they did it contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of electorate.
libeclipse 9y ago
So we shouldn't do anything? No, that's how democracy dies.
- dang 9y ago
  > Stop spreading bullshit. Please don't break the site guidelines by being uncivil, regardless of how right you are.
  - libeclipse 9y ago
    Fair enough, edited it out.
pvnick 9y ago
Hope you're right

cookiecaper 9y ago

Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. The public comment period is mandatory, and it's not like the FCC commissioners are dying to know the public's thought process and need their input. They have already made up their minds. 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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
> Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. If people didn't believe things like this we wouldn't have staunch Democrats and Republicans who never vote across party lines.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ori_b 9y ago
> 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. Close enough to changing their mind for me.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mcherm 9y ago
> Anyone who thinks that these bodies ever change their mind due to the public comment periods is gullible. 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.)
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  And yet here we are facing the same problem again, merely two years later. During that two year timespan, they tried and tried to get legislation through that would kill net neutrality. They just kept pushing until our political will broke down. It should be fairly obvious that democracy has failed. The government does not represent the people, it represents the corporations and lobbyists.
  - deadbunny 9y ago
    Isn't this the exact reason Americans give for having their right to bear arms? Why is there not an armed revolution against the clearly corrupt government?
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      Because that's ridiculous and exactly what foreign adversaries would love to see as a result of the currently tense political environment. Plus, violent protesters almost never come out looking good. Any violence coming from the left would just entrench the powers of the right. There are a few exceptions, like the revolutionary war. But, that's a time when American people were separated by great distance from its governing body. Revolution doesn't work when you're connected by land. Some foreign power would just take advantage of our weakness, and all Americans would lose. We need to find a way to work together.
    - cookiecaper 9y ago
      People usually need to anticipate a lot of hardship/uncertainty before they're willing to get into a war. De-prioritizing Netflix traffic doesn't really fit the bill. These issues are much more sophisticated than many people appreciate. Democrat and Republican, all FCC commissioners have a telecom industry background, which causes everyone to posit that they have a bias toward their former employers. But how can you be expected to regulate the telecom industry if you have no idea how it works? How do you establish that someone knows what they're doing if they don't have an industry background? There are a lot of complexities here. That's why our system of checks and balances is so important; it puts clear constraints on the powers of each segment, making it so no segment can get too much control. FCC is an executive-branch enforcement body; it can only do what Congress allows it to do. Congress is at the heart of the governmental ineffectualness in the US. Fixing Congress would take care of most of our other problems.

easilyBored 9y ago

In theory they are right. Basing your decision on counting these comments is as scientific as online polls. 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.

rybosome 9y ago

Yes, this won't affect a god damn thing - net neutrality is dead. I still submitted a public comment because I want the historical record to be clear, and as others have mentioned, the ferocity of the response may cause politicians to reconsider if for no other reason than to preserve their own asses.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> net neutrality is dead 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.
- nl 9y ago
  I'd argue that current techies haven't become conservative enough to consider removing net neutrality. 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?
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > 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.

wdr1 9y ago

> 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.

ajross 9y ago
His core base elected him on a platform that explicitly refused to touch entitlements. Didn't matter. > 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DiThi 9y ago
  The only reason it's partisan is because the previous government addressed it. Nothing else. There's nothing inherent in the values of either party to strongly side for or against net neutrality.
  - philipov 9y ago
    I think you and grandparent don't agree on the meaning of the word 'partisan', and ended up talking past each other. 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.
- deleted 9y ago

int_19h 9y ago

The point is to leave a very clear track record that they did it contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of electorate.

libeclipse 9y ago

So we shouldn't do anything? No, that's how democracy dies.

dang 9y ago
> Stop spreading bullshit. Please don't break the site guidelines by being uncivil, regardless of how right you are.
- libeclipse 9y ago
  Fair enough, edited it out.

pvnick 9y ago

Hope you're right