8 ms·

I'm all for everyone commenting so at least it's well known how far this FCC is going against public opinion, and encourage everyone to make their voices heard.

by byuu 9y ago

I'm all for everyone commenting so at least it's well known how far this FCC is going against public opinion, and encourage everyone to make their voices heard. But, and I hate to be the cynic here, does anyone really believe that even if all 323 million Americans commented in opposition to killing net neutrality, that Ajit Pai would relent? It's all but guaranteed he's going to do this. The only question is when, not if :(

colanderman 9y ago
What are the checks and balances here? He's not an elected official (so he can't be voted out), and he knows his time is up as soon as the executive branch turns blue again. So of course he will do his best to please the ISPs in whose coddling arms he will find refuge after his tenure. Best I can think of is Congress passing a law to enforce net neutrality.
- notalawyer 9y ago
  So the federal regulatory agencies actually have fairly unchecked power; it's one of their flaws. Lawyer boyfriend has remarked that they are actually rather unconstitutional in the sense that they have broad powers to make what are effectively laws, and constitutionally, only Congress can do that. That being said, Congress has rightly delegated the ability to manage things like radio transmissions, the environment, food and drugs, etc. to bodies that have more time and domain knowledge, and under a decent president and Congress, we wouldn't have to worry about bad actors making their way to the tops of these organizations. And frankly, do you really have faith that Americans would do any better having to elect tens or hundreds of people to various positions in regulatory bodies?
- matt4077 9y ago
  It's the same as for any government employee. First, obviously, the law. It's not actually within his power to just write something down and sign it to make it the law of the land. There's a process that has to be followed, of which the comment period is but one step. Regulatory decisions are also required to, in general terms, make sense and be fair. The new EPA head is currently coming to the realisation that there are limits to his power, especially when he's trying to change rules which had just recently been created: quickly flip-flopping on regulatory issues is an open invitation to be sued by, for example, companies that have based decisions on the assumption of regulatory stability. It's also really hard to argue convincingly to abolish a rule, when the almost unchanged group of people has just made the convincing case for that rule a year ago. But beyond those squabbles, he is accountable to the people who hire and fire people in his position: the President and Congress. The assumption being that people realise it is the Republican Party who deserves the blame for this disaster of an idea.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  I think that FCC can make some net neutrality rules, but I think the real win is if congress sets the ISP's status to title II common carrier. We already have the laws for that, they've just never been able to get it through so instead we are at the whim of the guy in office at the FCC
benlorenzetti 9y ago
Its a system for commenting, not voting. Of course any American with an opinion should be encouraged to comment but if all 323 million actually did, that would not be productive. The bot programmers and TV programs on both sides don't seem to respect this.
aphextron 9y ago
This is just a microcosm of the greater political climate created in the US over the past 40 or so years. Business interests completely control every single legislative decision made. We're all just along for the ride now.
- kevinh 9y ago
  It seems a bit disingenuous to call out imply all sides are the same when one party put into place these rules and the other party is removing them.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  With the importance of lobbying the people who will benefit financially from legislation will be able to afford most lobbying and ultimately almost always get their way. That's a real problem.
- etplayer 9y ago
  There's an interesting essay about democracy in America (well, there are hundreds if not thousands probably) but what's unique is that it's a criticism levelled against the idea of democratic pluralism, and from where it emerges - the 'tolerance' of the democracy, the idea that rather than the individual action expounded by the classical liberals (for all their faults) there is now a system in which representative voices are heard - whether those are religious or ethno-groups or worker groups or business groups. The key part, though, is that the group is recognised as legitimate by the others and only then will it be tolerated. The idea of this tolerance is a kind of peaceful existence, which, the author argues, is inadequate for democracy but makes us feel good. The essay is "Beyond Tolerance" by Robert Wolff, and it's part of a three essay book called Critique of Pure Tolerance, which as the name may not suggest to the reader is written from a strongly left-wing point of view (it even contains an essay by Frankfurt School critical theorist Herbert Marcuse!). You can read the PDF of it here, I hope others are as enlightened by it as I was: https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Criti...
  - pas 9y ago
chaostheory 9y ago
It's cheap to comment. You and I just did it now (max time 5-10 min), just like it's cheap to participate in mail-in vote ballots as a citizen
- purple-again 9y ago
  Sorry citizen, your signature doesn't match the signature we have on file. Better luck next cycle.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    That can happen from anywhere. It's more likely to happen when you have people walking in off the street and filling out ballots.
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    My point is that it's so cheap, easy, and fast to do that it's more of a waste of time rationalizing all the reasons how it potentially won't work.
cmurf 9y ago
There's nothing wrong with being cynical in this case, the FCC's politics are quite clearly in favor of those who want internet asymmetry, to slow or outright ban certain content on their infrastructure, to permit the charging of higher fees not based on usage but on content, and so on. This is the very definition of self-interest, and it's not democratic. So there's no reason to hate being a cynic, it's completely rational.
boona 9y ago
> I'm all for everyone commenting so at least it's well known how far this FCC is going against public opinion From where I'm standing, I don't see a huge opposition against this move apart from a vocal minority. I believe it's due to the fact that at this stage the arguments are academic, and as such highly debatable. If they kill net neutrality and people see substantive impacts on their wallets or service, that will be the time to take up arms. At this point in time, I don't see it happening.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Root of the problem was the creation of this power center, FCC, to begin with. Once created, it was given that it was going to be abused. The powers that are enforcing ISP monopolies, and are against municipal broadband, are part of the problem.

by byuu 9y ago

colanderman 9y ago

What are the checks and balances here? He's not an elected official (so he can't be voted out), and he knows his time is up as soon as the executive branch turns blue again. So of course he will do his best to please the ISPs in whose coddling arms he will find refuge after his tenure. Best I can think of is Congress passing a law to enforce net neutrality.

notalawyer 9y ago
So the federal regulatory agencies actually have fairly unchecked power; it's one of their flaws. Lawyer boyfriend has remarked that they are actually rather unconstitutional in the sense that they have broad powers to make what are effectively laws, and constitutionally, only Congress can do that. That being said, Congress has rightly delegated the ability to manage things like radio transmissions, the environment, food and drugs, etc. to bodies that have more time and domain knowledge, and under a decent president and Congress, we wouldn't have to worry about bad actors making their way to the tops of these organizations. And frankly, do you really have faith that Americans would do any better having to elect tens or hundreds of people to various positions in regulatory bodies?
matt4077 9y ago
It's the same as for any government employee. First, obviously, the law. It's not actually within his power to just write something down and sign it to make it the law of the land. There's a process that has to be followed, of which the comment period is but one step. Regulatory decisions are also required to, in general terms, make sense and be fair. The new EPA head is currently coming to the realisation that there are limits to his power, especially when he's trying to change rules which had just recently been created: quickly flip-flopping on regulatory issues is an open invitation to be sued by, for example, companies that have based decisions on the assumption of regulatory stability. It's also really hard to argue convincingly to abolish a rule, when the almost unchanged group of people has just made the convincing case for that rule a year ago. But beyond those squabbles, he is accountable to the people who hire and fire people in his position: the President and Congress. The assumption being that people realise it is the Republican Party who deserves the blame for this disaster of an idea.
jethro_tell 9y ago
I think that FCC can make some net neutrality rules, but I think the real win is if congress sets the ISP's status to title II common carrier. We already have the laws for that, they've just never been able to get it through so instead we are at the whim of the guy in office at the FCC

benlorenzetti 9y ago

Its a system for commenting, not voting. Of course any American with an opinion should be encouraged to comment but if all 323 million actually did, that would not be productive. The bot programmers and TV programs on both sides don't seem to respect this.

aphextron 9y ago

This is just a microcosm of the greater political climate created in the US over the past 40 or so years. Business interests completely control every single legislative decision made. We're all just along for the ride now.

kevinh 9y ago
It seems a bit disingenuous to call out imply all sides are the same when one party put into place these rules and the other party is removing them.
maxxxxx 9y ago
With the importance of lobbying the people who will benefit financially from legislation will be able to afford most lobbying and ultimately almost always get their way. That's a real problem.
etplayer 9y ago
There's an interesting essay about democracy in America (well, there are hundreds if not thousands probably) but what's unique is that it's a criticism levelled against the idea of democratic pluralism, and from where it emerges - the 'tolerance' of the democracy, the idea that rather than the individual action expounded by the classical liberals (for all their faults) there is now a system in which representative voices are heard - whether those are religious or ethno-groups or worker groups or business groups. The key part, though, is that the group is recognised as legitimate by the others and only then will it be tolerated. The idea of this tolerance is a kind of peaceful existence, which, the author argues, is inadequate for democracy but makes us feel good. The essay is "Beyond Tolerance" by Robert Wolff, and it's part of a three essay book called Critique of Pure Tolerance, which as the name may not suggest to the reader is written from a strongly left-wing point of view (it even contains an essay by Frankfurt School critical theorist Herbert Marcuse!). You can read the PDF of it here, I hope others are as enlightened by it as I was: https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Wolff_Moore_Marcuse_A_Criti...
- pas 9y ago

chaostheory 9y ago

It's cheap to comment. You and I just did it now (max time 5-10 min), just like it's cheap to participate in mail-in vote ballots as a citizen

purple-again 9y ago
Sorry citizen, your signature doesn't match the signature we have on file. Better luck next cycle.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  That can happen from anywhere. It's more likely to happen when you have people walking in off the street and filling out ballots.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  My point is that it's so cheap, easy, and fast to do that it's more of a waste of time rationalizing all the reasons how it potentially won't work.

cmurf 9y ago

There's nothing wrong with being cynical in this case, the FCC's politics are quite clearly in favor of those who want internet asymmetry, to slow or outright ban certain content on their infrastructure, to permit the charging of higher fees not based on usage but on content, and so on. This is the very definition of self-interest, and it's not democratic. So there's no reason to hate being a cynic, it's completely rational.

boona 9y ago

> I'm all for everyone commenting so at least it's well known how far this FCC is going against public opinion From where I'm standing, I don't see a huge opposition against this move apart from a vocal minority. I believe it's due to the fact that at this stage the arguments are academic, and as such highly debatable. If they kill net neutrality and people see substantive impacts on their wallets or service, that will be the time to take up arms. At this point in time, I don't see it happening.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

Root of the problem was the creation of this power center, FCC, to begin with. Once created, it was given that it was going to be abused. The powers that are enforcing ISP monopolies, and are against municipal broadband, are part of the problem.