10 ms·

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue. Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-par

This is proof positive that the current FCC commission has ignored the will of the voters on this issue. Support for Net Neutrality was overwhelming and bi-partisan, yet Ajit Pai just plowed forward without consideration for what the citizens demanded. This is government at its worst.

ikeboy 9y ago
It's funny, the FCC's mandate isn't to poll the public and do whatever most of them want. Strange how people seem to think it's a numbers game, at least when they feel the numbers are on their side
- bllguo 9y ago
  Why did they solicit public feedback then? And why did they misrepresent public feedback and refuse to acknowledge that most people want net neutrality? Obviously they aren't beholden to what the public wants, but the latter is clearly scummy, is it not?
  - sflicht 9y ago
    Isn't it because this is required by the Administrative Procedures Act?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Soliciting and addressing public feedback is; ignoring and/or misrepresenting it is not (and may, in fact, help support a finding that the act was arbitrary and capricious in the light of the information available to the agency at the time of the decision, though that's—even with that fact established—a fairly difficult case to make.)
    - Delmania 9y ago
      Yes, the intent is to let the public weigh in, help the committee make an informed decision as opposed to a capricious and arbitrary one. The decision is clearly arbitrary, as Pai has stated from the beginning he's going to do this, has blatantly ignored everyone, and is now on record as having insulted us. In terms of capricious, that's harder to prove. Between the EFF and the various attorneys general, this will be tied up in federal court.
      - harryh 9y ago
        Arbitrary means random. I don't think that Ajit Pai flipped a coin to make this decision.
        nerfhammer 9y ago
        adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. "his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary" synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority. "arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible" synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed; mathematics. (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        catnaroek 9y ago
        > Arbitrary means random. This is false both in mathematics and in everyday language.
        harryh 9y ago
        It also means due to personal whim. I don't think it was this either. Pai has reasons for his choice. Many, of course, disagree with these reasons or think they are bad reasons but they are reasons nonetheless. It wasn't an arbitrary decision.
        Delmania 9y ago
        It's "arbitrary" because Pai, on multiple occasions, indicated he will not take the comments into effect. Even after the reports of the faked comments, the calls to delay the vote by some senators, the faked DDoS attack, he still went through with it. There's also allegation he violated the FCC's process. He was determined to ram this through no matter what. That's arbitrary.
  - ISL 9y ago
    It is often required to solicit feedback before a rule change. Those in charge of the rule change are not generally required to follow the feedback. The direct feedback mechanism is voting for those who determine the composition of the rule-making bodies.
    - Retric 9y ago
      One more step. The direct feedback mechanism is voting, for people who draw maps that determine who get's elected to have the power to determine the composition of the rule-making bodies. You could even argue it's how people spend their money that determines who has money to chose who get's to draw the maps etc.
      - ISL 9y ago
        Agreed, especially upon the final point. I try to engage in commerce with entities that do/make good things.
    - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
      I'm not sure I'd use the term "direct feedback mechanism" to describe voting for an elector who votes on a President who appoints a commissioner to a five person committee for five year terms.
    - zpallin 9y ago
      It's required because it's supposed to help inform the FCC of pending legal challenges. FCC and other government agencies are supposed to take those comments seriously to avoid implementing bad rules and attracting expensive lawsuits in order to save the government (and ultimately the peoples') money.
    - sliverstorm 9y ago
      They are not legally beholden to follow the feedback, but if the FCC is supposed to be an unelected dictatorship, why even require feedback?
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    They are required to solicit comments and to consider them. Many comments are cited in the Order. Could you give examples of them "misrepresenting public feedback"?
    - pfranz 9y ago
      The FCC has dismissed the public's feedback[1]--they never considered it and did a poor job of soliciting it in the first place. The servers went down during the feed back process, the interface for solicitation was confusing and there wasn't much effort to prevent spam. There were 22 million replies (the previous record was 3.7 million during the last net neutrality debate). Even if you write most of that off as spam or duplicate, form-comments, that's still an immense amount of feedback. To dismiss it all is misrepresenting it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-ignored-public-opinion-in-its-push-to-kill-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-igno...
      - ikeboy 9y ago
        You're complaining about servers going down while acknowledging that the number of comments was unprecedented? And your link doesn't support your claim: >The Pai staffer who spoke with reporters acknowledged that there were legitimate comments from both sides in the net neutrality docket. In Pai's draft order, the FCC comprehensively addresses all the serious comments that made factual and legal arguments, the official said.
        pfranz 9y ago
        > You're complaining about servers going down while acknowledging that the number of comments was unprecedented? Yes I am. My point is that they did a poor job at soliciting feedback--not that they didn't get a lot. The fact the volume was so high just shows how important it was for this issue. If servers are going offline, then you can show good faith by extending the comment period or addressing it in some other manor. Being "required to solicit comments and to consider them" doesn't mean you only consider a subset containing legal arguments.
- csours 9y ago
  Really funny when people in a democracy believe in majority rule.
  - jackhack 9y ago
    Or those in a representative, Constitutional Republic, which is what the United States of America is. USA is not a democracy, thank God. A democracy is mob rule.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      Imagine pure democracy mixed with social media... Horrific
      - Parcissons 9y ago
        Actually as long as the people only hold the power to veto by direct vote- that idea is not that horrific.
    - lurr 9y ago
      A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    The structure is such that people elect representatives and those representatives sometimes appoint other people to roles because it's not feasible for people to elect 10's or 100's of thousands of public employees with decision and regulatory making power. Also, all of these people are still humans. Meaning that they have their own closely held beliefs. If you are honestly expecting non-elected officials to violate their own beliefs based on public feedback simply because "majority rules", you aren't living in reality. That virtually never happens. When it does happen, it usually happens on issues that are not hot-button issues and those being hounded by the public don't have a strong opinion so they are willing to switch sides if necessary. And the US is not and has never been a majority rule democracy. It's a constitutional republic and that's a critical difference. Part of that structure is ensuring that in some cases (like the electoral college), the majority don't get to make the rules simply because they decided to band together or live close to each other. The electoral college exists precisely for the situation the US is currently in - where the more liberal areas are all clustered in relatively small, high density areas. They now account for more than 50% of the population but far less in the electoral college because the system was built to prevent that density issue where these small areas by land mass could force feed laws upon the rest of the country, enabling those areas to effectively have control over money and resources which they otherwise would not.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Logician and Philosopher Raymond Smullyan had a story about this in one of his books. He had gone on a trip with a woman with a little girl. The adults wanted to eat at colorful local cafes, while the girl wanted to eat at McDonalds. He suggested that they vote, and the little girl replied, "That's no fair. I'd lose!" Our republic isn't designed just to do what the people want. It's intentionally designed so that good people can sometimes do something unpopular in the public interest. For this to work, it's incumbent on the voting public to elect good people.
  - nickbauman 9y ago
    Ajit Pai is an appointee, not an elected official.
    - coltonv 9y ago
      Appointed by a candidate who lost by 3 million votes
      - komali2 9y ago
        Do you mean Trump? President Obama appointed Pai. EDIT: I am not factually incorrect, so could you please explain why you are downvoting?
      - alexeldeib 9y ago
        > Appointed by a candidate who lost by 3 million votes Obama won by ~5 million and ~10 million votes in 2012 and 2008, respectively.
        nickbauman 9y ago
        The appointment was chosen by a Republican congress.
        coltonv 9y ago
        Designated as Chairman by Donald Trump - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai Obama Designated Tom Wheeler chairman, and he put in place the regulations that Pai dismantled today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
- slantedview 9y ago
  And yet it was a party line vote.
- joering2 9y ago
  I was about to say people think in Democracy every vote counts the same. It doesn't. Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin. The latest Presidential race is great example how Democratic election works.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that's exactly what happens in the US. People in rural Nebraska or Wyoming's vote is often up to three times more "effective" than someone in NYC or LAs.
- zpallin 9y ago
  Just because it's not the FCC's "job", it doesn't mean that overwhelming support for Net Neutrality is wrong.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  You're right that it's not a referendum. But the public poll was not "yea or nea?" it was "if we did this, what sort of problems would it raise for you?" And if they had substantive answers to the problems raised, then it would be logical for them to override the outcry. But it was instead as if the answer was, "Yes, the feedback solicited was merely our bureaucratic obligation but we are not obligated to follow through."
- imsofuture 9y ago
  Their job is to serve the public interest though. Not sure that's funny.
- jetpks 9y ago
  The government exists for and by the people. Funny how fascists seem to forget this.
  - dannytatom 9y ago
    right lol. it doesn't matter if a vote is required, it's still fucked to go against 99% of the american public.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  The FCC's mandate isn't to give in to the industry, either.
- dgllghr 9y ago
  This isn't exactly true. There is a reason that the FCC must accept submissions from the public before it makes a major decision -- it's part of the FCC charter to consider the input of the public. If a prosecutor can argue that the FCC did not take the public's comments into account (or did not take them seriously or the public commenting process was not done properly), then a court should overturn the FCC's decision.
- tomsthumb 9y ago
  This is true with some caveats. "The judiciary" can overturn a decision in some cases. See [0] for a very detailed explaination. Comments to the FCC do MATTER. If half of America says that Net-Neutrality is good and then it gets repealed, then the judicial branch can accept a case examining the decision. Or something, IANAL, but the the dude who wrote [0] is. Specifically, the paragraph which starts with "Another way they'll drop their deference" is roughly the section which covers the caveats. [0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_unique_net_neutrality_comments_oppose_ajit/dmcoqey/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_uni...
- plandis 9y ago
  They are required to have public comments, which Pai said he would ignore for the most part.
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  So, tax payers pay a government agency to get screwed over..?
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  Let us agree that what you said is True. Let us also agree that this statement is true, and perhaps becoming increasingly at odds with our federal government: > Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
- illumin8 9y ago
  That's just not true. The FCC are appointed by our elected representatives. Why do you think they even have to pretend they are accepting public comments on things like this? If the FCC does something bad, like this, we have the ability to elect better representatives, who will throw out these telco stooges and appoint people who represent us, not the large telco monopolies.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  What do you suppose the purpose of government agencies is then? Looking at their mandate it seems pretty clear that they are there to serve the interests of American citizens and should be acting in citizens best interests. I think that's pretty clear in the use of the phrase "the people of the United State" here: The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
bi-partisan? Pretty sure the vast majority of Republican candidates came out against it last November. People knew what they were voting for.
- tspike 9y ago
  Republican legislators are pretty uniformly against net neutrality. The Republican public is not, with one recent poll showing 3 out of 4 Republicans familiar with the issue voicing opposition to the rollback of regulations. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
  - knz 9y ago
    And yet they still vote for candidates with known public positions that are contrary to their own!
    - vkou 9y ago
      That's because they prioritize fighting a culture war... Over a minor issue like NN.
    - LyndsySimon 9y ago
      Would you suggest they not vote? There is no candidate that does not hold policy positions contrary to at least some my own. What they've done is decided that this issue is less important than others, and based their votes on that.
      - knz 9y ago
        > Would you suggest they not vote? Of course not. As you say, it's clearly not a significant issue for most Republican voters. However, I think a lot of voters assume that the party reflects the values of the voters though - clearly that is not always true.
gthtjtkt 9y ago
We live in an oligarchy, the will of the voters hasn't been relevant for a long time: > Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
- djsumdog 9y ago
  This is objectively true. There are studies that show that the opinions of American voters have a near zero, statistically insignificant effect on policy: http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-difference/ http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ngold 9y ago
The fun part is when this goes to court and the veil of secrecy is lifted.
raverbashing 9y ago
"at its worst" (and yes, it is government at its worst in the lack of competition protection)
- pjc50 9y ago
  This is being downvoted because it is a grammatical correction which is wrong.
  - swsieber 9y ago
    It's not a wrong grammatical correction though: it's: short for "it is". its: possessive version of "it". E.g. its worse -> worst belong to "it"
    - sudojudo 9y ago
      "its" is not the problem, the word "worse" is incorrect. EDIT: The original misguided pedant has now changed "worse" to "worst" in both instances; after downvoting me, of course.
      - raverbashing 9y ago
        Correct, thanks for pointing that out https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/at-its-their-worst https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/at-it...
dkonofalski 9y ago
Which is exactly what cracks me up... Republicans, moreso than Democrats, are always talking about government screwing over the people and yet this vote was completely on party lines. I wonder how they're going to figure out that dissonance.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it." - P.J. O'Rourke in Parliament of Whores (1991)
  - taurath 9y ago
    Funny how things have changed since 1991. Now it’s just “government has a role to play” vs “government is the source of all your problems”
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Republicans, moreso than Democrats Dunno. Fighting institutional <word that ends in 'ism'> is pretty popular on the left.
- 8ytecoder 9y ago
  Well, by saying that Title II was an overreach of the government and stifles competition. (Not my opinion. Just stating that it's not exactly inconsistent with their ideology. Just another example of ideology over common sense preventing people from doing what's right)
  - dkonofalski 9y ago
    Right... I just think its curious that their statements are so meaningless and have such little substance that you could replace "government" with "oligarchy", "corporations", or any other term that describes are large, organized group of people.
- 9y ago
spanktheuser 9y ago
If you're interested in further reading I found this analysis [1] of the gap between GOP policy and GOP public positioning pretty interesting. However, it's certainly couched as a screed. Depending on your politics that may make it difficult to wade through. [1] https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216 https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift...
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
How can we stop^H^H^H^H subvert this?
- guelo 9y ago
  VPNs
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Nope. They just whitelist whatever they want, then everything else (including VPNs) gets throttled or capped.
    - guelo 9y ago
      Yea I can imagine VPNs being only allowed on "business class" packages which cost more than buying all the nickel and dime packages together.
- code_duck 9y ago
  Confuse the government and big corps with new technological innovation.
huffmsa 9y ago
Big bureaucratic, un-elected government institutions are problematic? Well color me pink.
- djschnei 9y ago
  Seriously! I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for 90% of people upset over this. Reaping what they sow, if you ask me.
gameshot911 9y ago
>This is government at it's worst. Is it? Republicans were voted by the public into Congress, into the presidency. They are acting just as anyone voting for them could expect. In that sense they are representing the will of the people who duly elected them. The FCC ignored the will of a small % of technology-oriented, predominately liberal voters. Just because all the media that you might tend to consume and the people you tend to converse with are vocally against this repeal, doesn't mean that that represents the will of the majority. That same sort of ideological bubble is what caused everyone to be so shocked when Trump actually won, despite all the polls and predictions to the contrary.
- shreve 9y ago
  When you explain what Net Neutrality is, an overwhelming majority of people supported it, including republicans. This isn't just a tech-literate liberal issue. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
  - pfranz 9y ago
    A majority of people support Democrat's economic policies...even though Republicans hold a majority of the seats at both the state and federal level. It seems like people aren't necessarily voting for the party that represent's their positions--or, more likely, there are wedge issues that cause them to vote another way. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/27/new-polls-show-that-more-americans-prefer-democrats-policies/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/2...
- kup0 9y ago
  From everything I've seen, net neutrality seems to have broad voter support, regardless of party, and even many Republicans in office have voiced concerns. So are they really acting the way voters would expect? Voter support (a couple of instances here, but there are many), (PDF): https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/American_Public_Broadly_Supports_NN_3.pdf https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/American_Pu...
dfee 9y ago
America is not a direct democracy.
djschnei 9y ago
Hate to say "I told you so", but conservatives (sometimes) and libertarians have been warning the country for ever about the pitfalls of centralizing important things like this under an unaccountable federal bureaucracy. If you're opposed to this ruling, you're most likely reaping what you sow.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  What? If you're a staunch libertarian who wants the FCC to go away, how would the absence of FCC help net neutrality? We only have (had!) net neutrality and other important regulatory protections because the FCC exists. Something needs to exist as a protection against corporate abuse. If it's not a centralized agency, then what? There's no self-correcting mechanism in capitalism that magically prevents companies from screwing with consumers.
  - djschnei 9y ago
    Never said I was an opponent or proponent of 'Net Neutrality'. I was merely commenting on the interesting turn of events where the obvious ramifications of a centralized bureaucracy 'hurt' the perceived well being of the people who typically argue FOR centralized power. For all my ill feeling towards the Trump administration, it has been extremely fruitful in providing situations which exhibit this hilarity. As for your statement and question; > Something needs to exist as a protection against corporate abuse. If it's not a centralized agency, then what? There's no self-correcting mechanism in capitalism that magically prevents companies from screwing with consumers Couple points... First, "There's no self-correcting mechanism in capitalism that magically prevents companies from screwing with consumers" gave me a solid laugh. Little thought experiment: let's say there are two alternate realities. In one of these realities, somehow, Starbucks is the ONLY way for you to get coffee. Somehow, they've completely ensured other coffee shops can't open (it's either too expensive for them to open or literally illegal). In the other reality, opening a coffee shop is easy! Starbucks hasn't colluded with any government agency to make coffee shop ownership too expensive or difficult to pull off. In which one of these realities do you think (the) coffee shop(s) would abuse their customer base(s), charge inflated prices, or provide lackluster serviced that rarely if ever are innovated on? I'm hoping for the sake of discussion, you understand my point. Scenario 1 is hardly a far stretch from exactly what has happened over the years in the ISP industry. The FCC is HARDLY innocent in creating our current dismal ISP situation. Open markets are THE system that prevents abusive actions towards consumers. The second point, I am far from against the government protecting consumers from abuse by corporations. Fraud or anti-competitive behavior should be met with a stern legal response. But when the government played a huge role in creating an environment where we can't protect ourselves, I'm extremely dubious of any power grab attempted in the name of "we'll protect you". In an open market, I have a perfectly good mechanism for protecting myself which also happens to stimulate innovation, lowers prices, and improves the product/service. So yea, an artificial monopoly has now been given more leeway in how they provide services to an already abused customer base... it's a bummer. However, I'm not keen on providing more power to the very people who helped get us here so that they can control the problem they created. Let's fix the root of the issue. Decry crony capitalism always - not just when it's 'the other guys' doing it. And one last point... ISPs provide an extremely expensive and complex service to their customers. In what world are price controls and artificial monopolies a good idea? We need innovation in this space, not uniformity of service and centralized decision making. It's the internet, not the DMV. We should make it so ISPs have to win our usership by providing the best most valuable service, not by wielding the legislative process more effectively then there would be competition.

ikeboy 9y ago

It's funny, the FCC's mandate isn't to poll the public and do whatever most of them want. Strange how people seem to think it's a numbers game, at least when they feel the numbers are on their side

bllguo 9y ago
Why did they solicit public feedback then? And why did they misrepresent public feedback and refuse to acknowledge that most people want net neutrality? Obviously they aren't beholden to what the public wants, but the latter is clearly scummy, is it not?
- sflicht 9y ago
  Isn't it because this is required by the Administrative Procedures Act?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Soliciting and addressing public feedback is; ignoring and/or misrepresenting it is not (and may, in fact, help support a finding that the act was arbitrary and capricious in the light of the information available to the agency at the time of the decision, though that's—even with that fact established—a fairly difficult case to make.)
  - Delmania 9y ago
    Yes, the intent is to let the public weigh in, help the committee make an informed decision as opposed to a capricious and arbitrary one. The decision is clearly arbitrary, as Pai has stated from the beginning he's going to do this, has blatantly ignored everyone, and is now on record as having insulted us. In terms of capricious, that's harder to prove. Between the EFF and the various attorneys general, this will be tied up in federal court.
    - harryh 9y ago
      Arbitrary means random. I don't think that Ajit Pai flipped a coin to make this decision.
      - nerfhammer 9y ago
        adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. "his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary" synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority. "arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible" synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed; mathematics. (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - catnaroek 9y ago
        > Arbitrary means random. This is false both in mathematics and in everyday language.
        harryh 9y ago
        It also means due to personal whim. I don't think it was this either. Pai has reasons for his choice. Many, of course, disagree with these reasons or think they are bad reasons but they are reasons nonetheless. It wasn't an arbitrary decision.
        Delmania 9y ago
        It's "arbitrary" because Pai, on multiple occasions, indicated he will not take the comments into effect. Even after the reports of the faked comments, the calls to delay the vote by some senators, the faked DDoS attack, he still went through with it. There's also allegation he violated the FCC's process. He was determined to ram this through no matter what. That's arbitrary.
- ISL 9y ago
  It is often required to solicit feedback before a rule change. Those in charge of the rule change are not generally required to follow the feedback. The direct feedback mechanism is voting for those who determine the composition of the rule-making bodies.
  - Retric 9y ago
    One more step. The direct feedback mechanism is voting, for people who draw maps that determine who get's elected to have the power to determine the composition of the rule-making bodies. You could even argue it's how people spend their money that determines who has money to chose who get's to draw the maps etc.
    - ISL 9y ago
      Agreed, especially upon the final point. I try to engage in commerce with entities that do/make good things.
  - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
    I'm not sure I'd use the term "direct feedback mechanism" to describe voting for an elector who votes on a President who appoints a commissioner to a five person committee for five year terms.
  - zpallin 9y ago
    It's required because it's supposed to help inform the FCC of pending legal challenges. FCC and other government agencies are supposed to take those comments seriously to avoid implementing bad rules and attracting expensive lawsuits in order to save the government (and ultimately the peoples') money.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    They are not legally beholden to follow the feedback, but if the FCC is supposed to be an unelected dictatorship, why even require feedback?
- ikeboy 9y ago
  They are required to solicit comments and to consider them. Many comments are cited in the Order. Could you give examples of them "misrepresenting public feedback"?
  - pfranz 9y ago
    The FCC has dismissed the public's feedback[1]--they never considered it and did a poor job of soliciting it in the first place. The servers went down during the feed back process, the interface for solicitation was confusing and there wasn't much effort to prevent spam. There were 22 million replies (the previous record was 3.7 million during the last net neutrality debate). Even if you write most of that off as spam or duplicate, form-comments, that's still an immense amount of feedback. To dismiss it all is misrepresenting it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-ignored-public-opinion-in-its-push-to-kill-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-igno...
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      You're complaining about servers going down while acknowledging that the number of comments was unprecedented? And your link doesn't support your claim: >The Pai staffer who spoke with reporters acknowledged that there were legitimate comments from both sides in the net neutrality docket. In Pai's draft order, the FCC comprehensively addresses all the serious comments that made factual and legal arguments, the official said.
      - pfranz 9y ago
        > You're complaining about servers going down while acknowledging that the number of comments was unprecedented? Yes I am. My point is that they did a poor job at soliciting feedback--not that they didn't get a lot. The fact the volume was so high just shows how important it was for this issue. If servers are going offline, then you can show good faith by extending the comment period or addressing it in some other manor. Being "required to solicit comments and to consider them" doesn't mean you only consider a subset containing legal arguments.
csours 9y ago
Really funny when people in a democracy believe in majority rule.
- jackhack 9y ago
  Or those in a representative, Constitutional Republic, which is what the United States of America is. USA is not a democracy, thank God. A democracy is mob rule.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Imagine pure democracy mixed with social media... Horrific
    - Parcissons 9y ago
      Actually as long as the people only hold the power to veto by direct vote- that idea is not that horrific.
  - lurr 9y ago
    A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy.
- turc1656 9y ago
  The structure is such that people elect representatives and those representatives sometimes appoint other people to roles because it's not feasible for people to elect 10's or 100's of thousands of public employees with decision and regulatory making power. Also, all of these people are still humans. Meaning that they have their own closely held beliefs. If you are honestly expecting non-elected officials to violate their own beliefs based on public feedback simply because "majority rules", you aren't living in reality. That virtually never happens. When it does happen, it usually happens on issues that are not hot-button issues and those being hounded by the public don't have a strong opinion so they are willing to switch sides if necessary. And the US is not and has never been a majority rule democracy. It's a constitutional republic and that's a critical difference. Part of that structure is ensuring that in some cases (like the electoral college), the majority don't get to make the rules simply because they decided to band together or live close to each other. The electoral college exists precisely for the situation the US is currently in - where the more liberal areas are all clustered in relatively small, high density areas. They now account for more than 50% of the population but far less in the electoral college because the system was built to prevent that density issue where these small areas by land mass could force feed laws upon the rest of the country, enabling those areas to effectively have control over money and resources which they otherwise would not.
stcredzero 9y ago
Logician and Philosopher Raymond Smullyan had a story about this in one of his books. He had gone on a trip with a woman with a little girl. The adults wanted to eat at colorful local cafes, while the girl wanted to eat at McDonalds. He suggested that they vote, and the little girl replied, "That's no fair. I'd lose!" Our republic isn't designed just to do what the people want. It's intentionally designed so that good people can sometimes do something unpopular in the public interest. For this to work, it's incumbent on the voting public to elect good people.
- nickbauman 9y ago
  Ajit Pai is an appointee, not an elected official.
  - coltonv 9y ago
    Appointed by a candidate who lost by 3 million votes
    - komali2 9y ago
      Do you mean Trump? President Obama appointed Pai. EDIT: I am not factually incorrect, so could you please explain why you are downvoting?
    - alexeldeib 9y ago
      > Appointed by a candidate who lost by 3 million votes Obama won by ~5 million and ~10 million votes in 2012 and 2008, respectively.
      - nickbauman 9y ago
        The appointment was chosen by a Republican congress.
      - coltonv 9y ago
        Designated as Chairman by Donald Trump - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai Obama Designated Tom Wheeler chairman, and he put in place the regulations that Pai dismantled today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
slantedview 9y ago
And yet it was a party line vote.
joering2 9y ago
I was about to say people think in Democracy every vote counts the same. It doesn't. Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin. The latest Presidential race is great example how Democratic election works.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > Imagine quality of people's life in big cities if majority living outside would be playing first violin. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that's exactly what happens in the US. People in rural Nebraska or Wyoming's vote is often up to three times more "effective" than someone in NYC or LAs.
zpallin 9y ago
Just because it's not the FCC's "job", it doesn't mean that overwhelming support for Net Neutrality is wrong.
wyldfire 9y ago
You're right that it's not a referendum. But the public poll was not "yea or nea?" it was "if we did this, what sort of problems would it raise for you?" And if they had substantive answers to the problems raised, then it would be logical for them to override the outcry. But it was instead as if the answer was, "Yes, the feedback solicited was merely our bureaucratic obligation but we are not obligated to follow through."
imsofuture 9y ago
Their job is to serve the public interest though. Not sure that's funny.
jetpks 9y ago
The government exists for and by the people. Funny how fascists seem to forget this.
- dannytatom 9y ago
  right lol. it doesn't matter if a vote is required, it's still fucked to go against 99% of the american public.
s73ver_ 9y ago
The FCC's mandate isn't to give in to the industry, either.
dgllghr 9y ago
This isn't exactly true. There is a reason that the FCC must accept submissions from the public before it makes a major decision -- it's part of the FCC charter to consider the input of the public. If a prosecutor can argue that the FCC did not take the public's comments into account (or did not take them seriously or the public commenting process was not done properly), then a court should overturn the FCC's decision.
tomsthumb 9y ago
This is true with some caveats. "The judiciary" can overturn a decision in some cases. See [0] for a very detailed explaination. Comments to the FCC do MATTER. If half of America says that Net-Neutrality is good and then it gets repealed, then the judicial branch can accept a case examining the decision. Or something, IANAL, but the the dude who wrote [0] is. Specifically, the paragraph which starts with "Another way they'll drop their deference" is roughly the section which covers the caveats. [0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_unique_net_neutrality_comments_oppose_ajit/dmcoqey/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6x0bdy/985_of_uni...
plandis 9y ago
They are required to have public comments, which Pai said he would ignore for the most part.
nkkollaw 9y ago
So, tax payers pay a government agency to get screwed over..?
matt_wulfeck 9y ago
Let us agree that what you said is True. Let us also agree that this statement is true, and perhaps becoming increasingly at odds with our federal government: > Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
illumin8 9y ago
That's just not true. The FCC are appointed by our elected representatives. Why do you think they even have to pretend they are accepting public comments on things like this? If the FCC does something bad, like this, we have the ability to elect better representatives, who will throw out these telco stooges and appoint people who represent us, not the large telco monopolies.
bogomipz 9y ago
What do you suppose the purpose of government agencies is then? Looking at their mandate it seems pretty clear that they are there to serve the interests of American citizens and should be acting in citizens best interests. I think that's pretty clear in the use of the phrase "the people of the United State" here: The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

bi-partisan? Pretty sure the vast majority of Republican candidates came out against it last November. People knew what they were voting for.

tspike 9y ago
Republican legislators are pretty uniformly against net neutrality. The Republican public is not, with one recent poll showing 3 out of 4 Republicans familiar with the issue voicing opposition to the rollback of regulations. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
- knz 9y ago
  And yet they still vote for candidates with known public positions that are contrary to their own!
  - vkou 9y ago
    That's because they prioritize fighting a culture war... Over a minor issue like NN.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    Would you suggest they not vote? There is no candidate that does not hold policy positions contrary to at least some my own. What they've done is decided that this issue is less important than others, and based their votes on that.
    - knz 9y ago
      > Would you suggest they not vote? Of course not. As you say, it's clearly not a significant issue for most Republican voters. However, I think a lot of voters assume that the party reflects the values of the voters though - clearly that is not always true.

gthtjtkt 9y ago

We live in an oligarchy, the will of the voters hasn't been relevant for a long time: > Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

djsumdog 9y ago
This is objectively true. There are studies that show that the opinions of American voters have a near zero, statistically insignificant effect on policy: http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-difference/ http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ngold 9y ago

The fun part is when this goes to court and the veil of secrecy is lifted.

raverbashing 9y ago

"at its worst" (and yes, it is government at its worst in the lack of competition protection)

pjc50 9y ago
This is being downvoted because it is a grammatical correction which is wrong.
- swsieber 9y ago
  It's not a wrong grammatical correction though: it's: short for "it is". its: possessive version of "it". E.g. its worse -> worst belong to "it"
  - sudojudo 9y ago
    "its" is not the problem, the word "worse" is incorrect. EDIT: The original misguided pedant has now changed "worse" to "worst" in both instances; after downvoting me, of course.
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      Correct, thanks for pointing that out https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/at-its-their-worst https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/at-it...

dkonofalski 9y ago

Which is exactly what cracks me up... Republicans, moreso than Democrats, are always talking about government screwing over the people and yet this vote was completely on party lines. I wonder how they're going to figure out that dissonance.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it." - P.J. O'Rourke in Parliament of Whores (1991)
- taurath 9y ago
  Funny how things have changed since 1991. Now it’s just “government has a role to play” vs “government is the source of all your problems”
humanrebar 9y ago
> Republicans, moreso than Democrats Dunno. Fighting institutional <word that ends in 'ism'> is pretty popular on the left.
8ytecoder 9y ago
Well, by saying that Title II was an overreach of the government and stifles competition. (Not my opinion. Just stating that it's not exactly inconsistent with their ideology. Just another example of ideology over common sense preventing people from doing what's right)
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Right... I just think its curious that their statements are so meaningless and have such little substance that you could replace "government" with "oligarchy", "corporations", or any other term that describes are large, organized group of people.
9y ago

spanktheuser 9y ago

If you're interested in further reading I found this analysis [1] of the gap between GOP policy and GOP public positioning pretty interesting. However, it's certainly couched as a screed. Depending on your politics that may make it difficult to wade through. [1] https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216 https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift...

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

How can we stop^H^H^H^H subvert this?

guelo 9y ago
VPNs
- icebraining 9y ago
  Nope. They just whitelist whatever they want, then everything else (including VPNs) gets throttled or capped.
  - guelo 9y ago
    Yea I can imagine VPNs being only allowed on "business class" packages which cost more than buying all the nickel and dime packages together.
code_duck 9y ago
Confuse the government and big corps with new technological innovation.

huffmsa 9y ago

Big bureaucratic, un-elected government institutions are problematic? Well color me pink.

djschnei 9y ago
Seriously! I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for 90% of people upset over this. Reaping what they sow, if you ask me.

gameshot911 9y ago

>This is government at it's worst. Is it? Republicans were voted by the public into Congress, into the presidency. They are acting just as anyone voting for them could expect. In that sense they are representing the will of the people who duly elected them. The FCC ignored the will of a small % of technology-oriented, predominately liberal voters. Just because all the media that you might tend to consume and the people you tend to converse with are vocally against this repeal, doesn't mean that that represents the will of the majority. That same sort of ideological bubble is what caused everyone to be so shocked when Trump actually won, despite all the polls and predictions to the contrary.

shreve 9y ago
When you explain what Net Neutrality is, an overwhelming majority of people supported it, including republicans. This isn't just a tech-literate liberal issue. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
- pfranz 9y ago
  A majority of people support Democrat's economic policies...even though Republicans hold a majority of the seats at both the state and federal level. It seems like people aren't necessarily voting for the party that represent's their positions--or, more likely, there are wedge issues that cause them to vote another way. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/27/new-polls-show-that-more-americans-prefer-democrats-policies/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/2...
kup0 9y ago
From everything I've seen, net neutrality seems to have broad voter support, regardless of party, and even many Republicans in office have voiced concerns. So are they really acting the way voters would expect? Voter support (a couple of instances here, but there are many), (PDF): https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/American_Public_Broadly_Supports_NN_3.pdf https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/American_Pu...

dfee 9y ago

America is not a direct democracy.

djschnei 9y ago

Hate to say "I told you so", but conservatives (sometimes) and libertarians have been warning the country for ever about the pitfalls of centralizing important things like this under an unaccountable federal bureaucracy. If you're opposed to this ruling, you're most likely reaping what you sow.

lobster_johnson 9y ago
What? If you're a staunch libertarian who wants the FCC to go away, how would the absence of FCC help net neutrality? We only have (had!) net neutrality and other important regulatory protections because the FCC exists. Something needs to exist as a protection against corporate abuse. If it's not a centralized agency, then what? There's no self-correcting mechanism in capitalism that magically prevents companies from screwing with consumers.
- djschnei 9y ago
  Never said I was an opponent or proponent of 'Net Neutrality'. I was merely commenting on the interesting turn of events where the obvious ramifications of a centralized bureaucracy 'hurt' the perceived well being of the people who typically argue FOR centralized power. For all my ill feeling towards the Trump administration, it has been extremely fruitful in providing situations which exhibit this hilarity. As for your statement and question; > Something needs to exist as a protection against corporate abuse. If it's not a centralized agency, then what? There's no self-correcting mechanism in capitalism that magically prevents companies from screwing with consumers Couple points... First, "There's no self-correcting mechanism in capitalism that magically prevents companies from screwing with consumers" gave me a solid laugh. Little thought experiment: let's say there are two alternate realities. In one of these realities, somehow, Starbucks is the ONLY way for you to get coffee. Somehow, they've completely ensured other coffee shops can't open (it's either too expensive for them to open or literally illegal). In the other reality, opening a coffee shop is easy! Starbucks hasn't colluded with any government agency to make coffee shop ownership too expensive or difficult to pull off. In which one of these realities do you think (the) coffee shop(s) would abuse their customer base(s), charge inflated prices, or provide lackluster serviced that rarely if ever are innovated on? I'm hoping for the sake of discussion, you understand my point. Scenario 1 is hardly a far stretch from exactly what has happened over the years in the ISP industry. The FCC is HARDLY innocent in creating our current dismal ISP situation. Open markets are THE system that prevents abusive actions towards consumers. The second point, I am far from against the government protecting consumers from abuse by corporations. Fraud or anti-competitive behavior should be met with a stern legal response. But when the government played a huge role in creating an environment where we can't protect ourselves, I'm extremely dubious of any power grab attempted in the name of "we'll protect you". In an open market, I have a perfectly good mechanism for protecting myself which also happens to stimulate innovation, lowers prices, and improves the product/service. So yea, an artificial monopoly has now been given more leeway in how they provide services to an already abused customer base... it's a bummer. However, I'm not keen on providing more power to the very people who helped get us here so that they can control the problem they created. Let's fix the root of the issue. Decry crony capitalism always - not just when it's 'the other guys' doing it. And one last point... ISPs provide an extremely expensive and complex service to their customers. In what world are price controls and artificial monopolies a good idea? We need innovation in this space, not uniformity of service and centralized decision making. It's the internet, not the DMV. We should make it so ISPs have to win our usership by providing the best most valuable service, not by wielding the legislative process more effectively then there would be competition.