31 ms·
FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December
- edwhitesell 9y agoThis is the kind of stuff that really bothers me about government. Governments should, IMHO, work for the people and their best interests. This seems clearly about who's lobbying the most. Contrary to some state-level efforts and laws; companies are not people.
- Dangeranger 9y agoIt’s clear now that most US representatives have been bought by one special interest or another. Until the people demand laws outlawing political contributions from organizations and companies this will only get worse.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y agoWhat's rough is that the system is a positive feedback loop. Corruption and lack of representation makes it even easier for bribery and corruption to occur in the future. This kind of stuff is why I see America more as a corporate oligarchy than a democracy anymore. Gerrymandering, lobbying/bribery, and lack of contact with our government means it doesn't represent the people any longer.
- mirimir 9y agoI'd say kleptocracy.
- DarronWyke 9y agoThe US has never been a democracy.
- flavor8 9y agoI think that outlawing contributions from certain entity classes is tackling this from the wrong side. The problem is that political success in the US depends on a successful marketing & sales campaign, which in turn costs a lot of money. Legislating campaign events out of existence seems to be a non-starter, but with a progressive supreme court paid political advertising could be curtailed or stopped, in return opening up debate and equal-time promo slots on network TV that uses licensed slices public airwaves. Journalists and opinion-swayers could still report on candidates as they did before, but the need to have millions of dollars to run a senate campaign would be dramatically reduced. Of course there's a big free speech juggling act that would have to be performed, but it's not an insurmountable problem. Couple this with some relatively lightweight voting reform (IRV or something more sophisticated, plus data driven auto-districting or even proportional representation at a state level to combat gerrymandering) and a good deal of the problems with the system go away, since politicians would have to spend much less of their time seeking donations (and politicians who were still doing a lot of fundraising would stand out more and could be investigated more thoroughly.)
- s73ver_ 9y agoI don't. I see zero reason whatsoever that the contributions should come from anything but individual US Citizens. Additionally, I see zero reason why that shouldn't be capped at $500/person/tax year.
- shkkmo 9y agoI hold the highly unusual view that voting to elect representatives is a inefficient and ineffective way of accurately determining the will of the people. Our current system predominantly favors white, rich, cis-gendered male christians who are good at manipulating their constituents and getting rich people and corporations to give them money. This seems like such an awful set of criteria that it is hard to see how just picking randomly could fail to be better. (There is evidence that sometimes it is better to choose randomly than relying on ineffective criteria: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/10/random-decisions-oliver-burkeman-this-column-change-your-life https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/10/random-...) Even if you eliminate the problems of campaign finance and winner-takes-all in elections we are still left with the distorting incentives of re-election (though enforced single terms could help with that.) State representatives that want to be successfully re-elected, need to bring home the pork and this incentives wasteful government spending. They also need to avoid taking political stances that might cost them the election, even when it has popular support and would be beneficial to our society (e.g. gun laws, criminal reform and the legalization of marijuana). Removing perverse incentives of re-election and moving to random selection for one of our chambers of representatives would mean less pointless pork barrel spending, reduce the incentives for corruption, and lead to a more representative demographic sampling with a better personal understanding of the economic and social challenges we face as a society.
- Gustomaximus 9y agoI feel a good solution comes with 3 changes; 1) Donations to politicians from companies/foreigners need an absolute ban. 2) Personal donations should be capped at what a average politically interested person could afford. 3) A company can either lobby or hire government employees, not both. If a company lobbies government they cant hire senior government employees for 7 years. Likewise if a company hires senior government staff they cant lobby for 7 years. This way if a business is lobbying government then that person knows there is no cushy job for them at the end and your not hiring someone for their relationships that can directly influence government. I know these will have loopholes and need more detail etc. Not least super pac issue in US (I am Australian so different challenges). I do believe something around this framework would significantly change the face of politics towards working for their constituents. Especially with the internet today and its ability to spread information and ideas.
- VLM 9y agoAnd it dovetails nicely with hate of populist politicians.
- mythrwy 9y agoThat's weird because it's a populist issue.
- jordan801 9y agoThis is news to you? Pretty much everything happening in politics right now, is a direct result of lobbying. The problem is that lobbyists can legally pay politicians off, and the constituents don't care, because politics are boring. IMHO, if it weren't for reddit, imgur, news.ycombintor, etc. Net Neutrality would have been killed the first time. Now Ajit is just hoping that if the battle is drawn out, we'll fatigue, and he won't be eviscerated by his corporate overlords. And, unfortunately, he's probably right.
- shmerl 9y agoThis FCC is clearly working for monopolists, not for people.
- mirimir 9y agoAu contraire, corporations are the only real people :)
- s73ver_ 9y agoThose companies are the ones that are talking to the legislators, though. The problem is that people are not also talking to those legislators. Remember the healthcare law battles over the summer? Phoning Senators and expressing displeasure over the bills was what killed them. It can work here, too, as long as people make themselves heard.
- c0untzer0 9y agoSadly, governments now exist to protect the ruling class; the wealthy. Nowadays, the entire purpose of government is to propagate an unequal global economic balance of power and to allow corporations to grow more and more out of control.
- karl11 9y agoYou can either allow monopolies and regulate for net neutrality or bust up monopolies and let competition regulate. This guy is a stooge - no net neutrality regulation AND allow monopolies to control internet access.
- hguhghuff 9y agoGovernments don't govern for the people.
- spodek 9y agoWhat happens to a person that he or she will hurt a nation of people, against his or her job description, for what? ... a few dollars? I think my empathy skills are good, but I struggle to understand Ajit Pai. What is redeeming to this course beyond some dollars to a negligible number of people compared to the number of voters supposedly represented?
- arca_vorago 9y agoYou won't like the answer. Bribery works for most people, but is often much more subtle than simple quid pro quo. Things like offering a child of bribee business deals, etc. Jack Abramoff has talked about this pretty openly since his conviction. Now, when bribery doesn't work, it gets darker. Blackmail, extortion, threats against family members, and worse. I'll leave it there for now, but in general most people in DC seem to just be thinking "I'm gonna get mine for me and my family, fuck everyone else."
- FilterSweep 9y agoI'll just add that sometimes threats come even before bribery in the form of careericide
- indubitable 9y agoIn general, I think if it's the case that you can't reasonably defend a view you don't agree with then there's a very good chance you don't understand it. I was in the same boat as you until I started looking at Pai's comments [1][2][3]. Notably those are all transcripts. What he actually says, and the implications of the headlines and comments snipped by third party organizations tend to be quite different indeed! While certainly missing plenty of nuance, his view is that rules should be written as necessary instead of creating an enormous rule book based entirely on today's tech. And to some degree, I think this has a lot of merit. Take for instance SpaceX and Google's variations of widespread air-based internet. If the throughput for these systems starts to become an issue would it be so unreasonable for them to throttle or block sites consuming disproportionate resources? And yes, this could absolutely be used in an anti-competitive fashion. What Pai is saying is deal with specific bad behaviors as they arise instead of building an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws against many actions - which in some cases could be completely justifiable and beneficial. Maybe the most basic argument is that it should be clear that net neutrality has not really achieved anything. Many people seem to think we always had net neutrality and stripping it away is some radical shift. In reality the government had no formal regulatory role on the internet until 2015. What was the state of the internet beforehand? Has it worsened or improved since then? [1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrite-net-neutrality-rules/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chair-dishes-on-plan-to-rewrit... [2] - https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-merger-recode-decode https://www.recode.net/2017/5/5/15560150/transcript-fcc-chai... [3] - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/526916610/fcc-chief-net-neutrality-rules-treating-internet-as-utility-stifle-growth https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/05/52...
- porfirium 9y agoI would like to see a fair referendum about net neutrality. And by fair I mean to also see the good parts of not having net neutrality, like zero rating. Tell people they can get zero rating on their favourite services, and the result of such a referendum will be uncomfortable for many. I'm really tired of seeing people everywhere thinking net neutrality is "unquestionable", "universally good" and "the will of the people". Ever bothered to ask anyone outside the tech circles? Or you simply think you know what's best for everybody?
- murph-almighty 9y agoThis is why you tell people about the consequences of no net neutrality. Ask people if they like being more-or-less forced to use some companies over others, or if they like paying a premium for online gaming. Ask people how they'd feel if Optimum decided to slow down traffic to Fox News if Fox News released a story unfavorable to Optimum. Ask people how they'd feel if a startup that intended to compete with Netflix was effectively shut out of the market by deals like theirs with TMobile. Better yet, show them an image of internet packages ala cable. That'll make them change their tune.
- kfriede 9y agoI have no problem with any of the above, IF and ONLY IF the barriers to entry for competition weren't so high. I feel that the only reason we are discussing NN right now is because government regulation has effectively given major telcos a safety net wherein they can make small competition jump through an infinite amount of hoops to service an area. Free up the protectionism we're granting to major telcos and let the consumer choose what they are willing to pay for. Edit: Ultimately the consumer must own the "last mile" that is feeding their residence. In that way, ISPs would lease space in the residential IDF to tie willing customers in that neighborhood in.
- fiter 9y agoThis is absolutely the issue at hand. The two sides are monopoly + public utilities commission (FCC) or market competition. To get market competition, we'll still have to have SOME monopoly unless you want multiple "last miles".
- Dangeranger 9y agoIt’s clear now that most US representatives have been bought by one special interest or another. Until the people demand laws outlawing political contributions from organizations and companies this will only get worse.
- rothbardrand 9y agoRemember “net neutrality” is 800 pages of regulations, most of which enable spying and internet censorship... but was sold as “net neutrality” to quell protest. Regulations are always sold as protecting consumers but rarely work out that way- the telco and cable monopolies we have now are the product of regulation. In other words this is regulation that promises to fix the “unintended” consequences of earlier regulation. But those consequences were intended by the companies that benefit from regulation.
- aliljet 9y agoWhere is the latest response to this being coordinated?
- pas 9y agoThe latest response was in last November, people failed to coordinate. The next is going to be next year November. November 6, Tuesday to be exact. All 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested. 39 state and territorial governorships and numerous other state and local elections will also be contested. Yes, showing that this [FCC fuckery] is bad is important, but it is possible because there is no legislation, no statute regulating this.
- chriscappuccio 9y agoNet neutrality, the answer you didn't want to the question nobody asked
- jimktrains2 9y agoI'm a bit confused with what you mean. Net Neutrality, the idea that an ISP sells dumb pipes, is the answer to the complaints I have.
- joeblow9999 9y agoExactly. First, net neutrality rules have NEVER been in force. The internet you use today operates WITHOUT any government net neutrality regulations. Not everyone is in favor of net neutrality. An excellent article about very valid reasons to oppose it: https://medium.com/@RiaanDeBeer/net-neutrality-isnt-what-you-think-it-is-9005c593f530 https://medium.com/@RiaanDeBeer/net-neutrality-isnt-what-you... You can agree or disagree but the point is that not everyone thinks it's a good idea and not all of those people are corrupt politicians. I've never seen such one-sided irrational discourse over a question of govt regulation before.
- rndmind 9y agoPerhaps you should read more about what it means to classify ISP telecommunication providers as title two common carriers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier this is not about the government trying to regulate an industry, it's more about the monopolies within the industry trying to gain control over the content. The implications of allowing ISP's to control what data is sent over your internet connection is like a phone company telling you what you're allowed to speak about on your phone line.
- TYPE_FASTER 9y agoI really missed the good ol' days where, if you had the right feature phone, you could pay VZN $3-4 dollars to put a song on it. /s
- kfriede 9y agoAre you suggesting that Verizon should have given you that feature for "free"? In that case, they would have either passed that cost on to every customer, or not had that feature at all, taking it away from those who were willing to pay for it.
- mfringel 9y agoThat's not what I get from parent's comment. I think the parent was implying that large telco interests have a dubious track record when it comes to the balance between investing in capacity vs. rent-seeking.
- ben1040 9y agoIs $3-4 is a fair price for access to a song, at a time when Apple was selling it for a dollar? You couldn't connect a phone to Verizon's network unless Verizon sold it to you. The phones they sold had the firmware configured to prohibit adding content from any source other than their store, which sold it at an extremely high cost.
- kfriede 9y agoAh, I thought they were referring to buying a song-ringtone. Still, it's not the government's business to be telling Verizon they must sell for $1 or allow competition into their ecosystem.
- s73ver_ 9y agoI believe it is their business to act on price gouging, which that most definitely was.
- 9y ago
- shmerl 9y agoThere should be a way to depose this corrupted shill.
- gooseus 9y ago> On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market. > Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said. Despair seems like an appropriate response here, but hardly useful. This is probably as bad for society as any of the changes to the net neutrality laws. Getting out into the streets, blacking out websites, commenting on the FCC site... those things are just meaningless it seems and weren't even a response to these last two pieces. How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press? Shouldn't this constitutionally protected industry have its own set of anti-trust laws? In the Information Age, how can we be so careless about the management and structure of our core information distribution systems? Are there any movements to combat this and prevent more local papers and tv stations from becoming smaller delivery mechanisms for the same partisan bullshit?
- tw04 9y ago>In the Information Age, how can we be so careless about the management and structure of our core information distribution systems? Because, sadly enough, in this day and age the average American doesn't know and doesn't care. When the people who want this to pass are the people you get your information from, you walk away with a very, VERY different viewpoint than hearing from someone who doesn't have a horse in the race.
- gxs 9y agoEven if they cared, with modern surveillance do you think the government would ever allow anything other than a peaceful protest? I'm so cynical that any type of revolt, even moderately "violent", would be squashed before it ever had a chance to fully form. It truly is an interesting time. Initially, corporations were to have a definite lifespan (something like 70 years). Of course they got rid of that. Our system wasn't designed for corporate influence of this magnitude. Our forefathers were pretty smart dudes..I wonder how they'd change the constitution knowing what we know now.
- blitmap 9y agoI wonder if there would be any issue with creating a service for identifying Congress members (by IP or browser identity or something) to perpetually block them from accessing sites we would consider to be important. There's a danger in having news media block our representatives, but I wonder if being cut off from everything but Fox News would ultimately wake them up. We don't have to include them if they want to let Comcast and others restrict the web. Black out Wikipedia, Reddit, Facebook, Netflix.. Do not serve them - because they are not serving us. If they learn to get around this - well then they'll be more informed anyway. It would be more hilarious to see Comcast come out with its own VPN service to help them get back "online".
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoOur members of Congress don't access anything on the internet. They have people do it for them. Otherwise they may actually be tech-savvy enough to understand the implications of their choices.
- FilterSweep 9y agoPerhaps you could regionally serve up different content or throttle performance by the techniques you said.
- w0rd-driven 9y agoI feel like the last ditch effort is to go a step further. This may not be actually possible but if we could identify the leaders of the companies and people in the government that are for a restricted internet, blacking out their access as a form of ransom may be the only thing that works. We're to the point of dealing with seemingly hostile entities and the passive, yet legal approaches are clearly not working at all. We're dealing with people that are either too ignorant or too complacent to see what a colossal fuck up this is and it's possible even spelling out the entirety of the impending disaster isn't enough to get them to do the right thing.
- coldcode 9y agoI wonder if Hacker News will be available in the new internet channels.
- wmeredith 9y agoIt will depend on your service level.
- yuhong 9y agoOf course, it is likely that a shutdown will also happen too.
- pimmen 9y agoPlease, tell me one thing this administration has done that has empowered the majority of Americans. So it's up to the EU now to lead the way, and then we went ahead and started the process of making it legal for national governments to block IP-addresses. Which great power is left to fight for net neutrality? China? Russia?
- lightbyte 9y ago>Please, tell me one thing this administration has done that has empowered the majority of Americans. It seems to have empowered Americans who were previously apathetic about the political process to get involved!
- Balgair 9y agoCALL your Reps here, there is still time: https://callyourrep.co/ https://callyourrep.co/
- s73ver_ 9y agoRemember, calling Members of Congress is what killed the healthcare bills this past summer. It absolutely can and does work.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- burntrelish1273 9y agoIf the status quo continues, the billionaires will continue advancing their dreams of greater extraction, while many people lose jobs and industries, live in homeless camps on the side of the road, decline in standards to turn formerly first-world countries into third-world poor ones and a few of the white-collar, hangers-on prosper willfully oblivious. At some point, the people will reach a sudden and "unexpected" breaking point to rebalance austere extremism. This is why Roosevelt offered a slice of bread instead of crumbs while the rich got to keep the bakery.