6 ms·

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went th

This has made me feel pretty damn powerless, as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal, and yet they went through it anyway. Just a gut feeling that our democracy isn't working properly when such a loud and clear, great majority of the population messaging is completely ignored.

simplify 9y ago
Keep in mind the FCC is not accountable to the public – we don't vote them in. However, we as the public still have power to push our representatives to encode NN as law. Now that NN has unfortunately been repealed, we can cue in Congress to act.
- aphextron 9y ago
  >Now that NN has unfortunately been repealed, we can cue in Congress to act. lol
fnoiw22 9y ago
Don't give up. Our democracy isn't working properly. Too many are complacent.
rkuykendall-com 9y ago
> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality [1]. If a population wants to send a different message, they must do it in the next election [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... [2] https://swingleft.org/ https://swingleft.org/
- scrollaway 9y ago
  You're just saying your democracy isn't working properly, just for different reasons. Most Trump supporters did not elect trump "knowing ... he would end Net Neutrality", and a statement from 2014 does not disprove that (a cursory glance at r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/ kinda makes the point). The US public is atrociously misinformed as a whole, either due to lack of education or bad media incentives or both. In order to function, a democracy requires an informed public.
  - dfee 9y ago
    Thankfully we don’t live in a democracy. America is a democratic republic. As the public is naturally under-informed, this is arguably a good thing; regardless of your views on Net Neutrality. E.g. has Trump been able to build the wall that arguably half the population approved of? No, because his budget approval process has been checked by other elected representatives.
- olympus 9y ago
  Having a good memory is the singularly best way to combat the money corrupting politics. The people just proved with the Alabama special election that they can change the establishment if they feel strongly enough about it. Sadly I think the effects of repealing Net Neutrality will be felt more like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water, and no single change is going to entice the majority of the population to vote. It's not the tech industry that needs to be convinced that repealing neutrality is bad, it's the general non-tech population that needs to be convinced to care.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Alabama didn't prove anything really. It demonstrated that the bar for getting elected to a national office in Alabama is a minuscule amount above "accused of sexually assaulting minors".
    - olympus 9y ago
      It also demonstrated that the established incumbent party can lose if they ignore the will of the people. They could have easily found another Republican (even another judge) that wasn't accused of numerous sexual misconducts. They chose not to bother because why swap out a yes-man with a person that might have principles when Alabama is a guaranteed win? Eventually both parties are going to realize that they would be better off putting forward a candidate that the people like instead of putting forth an establishment yes-man (in the Dems case from the presidential race, a yes-woman).
- ryanisnan 9y ago
  Our democracy is hardly a democracy. I kind of wish people would stop discussing it as such. The opinion of the population matters very little to the outcome of legislation, and for those whose opinions it does matter (legislators), they are bought and paid for. Also, if you really think that people who voted for Donald Trump understood the intricacies of net neutrality you must be an incredibly optimistic individual.
- tmat 9y ago
  the problem with this statement is we weren't given a fair choice of options.. It was this or that and they both stunk to high heaven.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Absolutely. The strongest point of each candidate was that they weren't the other candidate.
    - sergiotapia 9y ago
      I'm sure President Trump's policies were very important for voters, not just "he's not hillary".
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I think his very-well-known inconsistencies on policy matters makes it hard to argue that he won on the merits of his policies. His personality, attitude, and his not being Hillary Clinton seemed to be more important.
    - tmat 9y ago
      Amazing isn't it?
- Cknight70 9y ago
  While I do not think Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president, his competition was not any better for different reasons. I think there is also a problem with how our Democracy elects people as well.
  - nawgszy 9y ago
    I don't like Hillary at all and think the Democrats would've easily won if they hadn't used establishment tactics to put thru their establishment candidate over Bernie, but.. >his competition was not any better Really? Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. Net neutrality would still exist, pedophiles would not be publicly endorsed by her, and a 'tax cut' that is actually just a confusing mess that only clearly benefits the super-rich would not have happened. So what exactly would she have done to be as bad as Trump? The guy is incessantly mired in scandals; says things that a centrist family would barely tolerate their old, crazy, racist uncle saying around holiday dinners; and is basically a narcissist. I don't like Hillary at all and don't see how you can say "she's not any better than Trump" with a straight face.
    - chronic193 9y ago
      > Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. This is precisely why she did not win.
    - Cknight70 9y ago
      Probably because of political leaning, but statements Trump made like wanting to incentivize companies to return to the US, deporting illegal immigrants, and decreasing military spending. Were some of the main reasons I thought Trump was even worthy of being considered. Trump has been wishy washy on his immigration and military spending statements since being in office.
  - jamescontrol 9y ago
    I an pretty far away from you guys, but from where I’m sitting trump seems like a utter maniac, lying even when people can clearly prove it is lies. Alternative facts etc etc. I have a hard time understanding how he can be compared to pretty much anyone and come out on top.. I know the Media paints their own picture of him, but still?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality More charitably, they chose Donald Trump on the suspicion that he would do "better" than Hillary Clinton on: abortion, immigration, the economy, leading in "the culture wars", and maybe a few other issues. Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody At that time, sure. Time will tell whether electing an extremist candidate was a good idea or not. Losing in deep red Alabama isn't a good sign.
    - dfee 9y ago
      I think you’re looking for the term populist, not extremist.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet.
        unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet. Are you serious? Every politician is an ideologue. It's why we elect one over another. We agree with one's idea about policies over another's. The only people who we expect to divorce themselves from ideologies are judges, who are there to interpret the law, not make it.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm not sure the electorate sees elections the same way. I think most of them are true Republicans in the sense that they want to elect people they think are trustworthy and then let them make decisions as their proxy. In that case, a candidate can have policies and platforms to convince people to let her be their proxy, but she doesn't need them. She could just have a "trust me, I'll make the right decision" pitch. Besides, if Trump is an ideologue, what is that ideology? At best it's a new (or at least renewed) nativist spin on identity politics. That's not an ideology; that's a team.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  >the states chose Donald Trump as president The states, yet not the people Sure, he won with our current system, but even school children think our current system is silly
betterunix2 9y ago
Did you submit a comment on this proceeding, beyond just clicking on some site that auto-generated a comment? I spent several days working on my comment; it was a dozen pages long, it included relevant citations, and it addressed specific questions asked in the NPRM. I took the time to correct a few falsehoods in the NPRM's technical analysis. Now imagine what it is like to see that comment being specifically cited and totally dismissed in the draft rules that were just approved. In a way it is worse than just being ignored -- someone took the time to read my comment and comments by like-minded experts, saw the part where we corrected falsehoods, and then replied with, "Well, ISPs say $X so $X is true and your comment wrong." I am not going to give up on civic engagement but I am sure some of those like-minded engineers and researchers might.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  I am not going to give up on civic engagement Please don't. I mean that very sincerely. The fact that you took the time to do this is very inspiring to me. It reminds me of this guy: https://professional-troublemaker.com https://professional-troublemaker.com It kind of blows my mind to think of how much individuals who are focused and determined can really accomplish.
- matrix 9y ago
  Thank you for doing that. I sincerely hope this fight isn't over yet; hopefully your comment gets its rightful fair hearing.
- ovao 9y ago
  The effort's appreciated. I'd commend you for it even if I disagreed with your position — to take the time to directly express concern and raise issues is key, in my opinion, to enacting real change.
overcast 9y ago
This isn't a democracy, this is a republic. While we have some power in who we elect, those elected are representing us, and can choose to vote how they want. Whether that screws them in future elections is another story.
- vkou 9y ago
  This is false. The United states is a representative democracy, AND a republic. A democracy can be direct (As in parts of ancient Greece), or representative (As in... Every democracy that is not in ancient Greece.) The only criteria for being a republic is that you don't have a monarch. The USSR was a republic. China is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Yet, Canada is also a representative democracy, while neither China, nor the USSR are.
amelius 9y ago
> ... as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal ... But what exactly did Google do to oppose this? In my view: doing nothing == being evil.
komali2 9y ago
>Powerless Same, so as a petty man I've made a personal vow to send Ajit Pai a card every Christmas reminding him he sold his soul to Comcast and that I will never forget or forgive him for it. Totally pointless right now when the whole country is calling for his head and he gets to play the haughty "I don't give a fuck, I'm set for life now, suck it plebes" card. But in 2040, when he has long since moved on, and the rest of the country has forgotten, and he's an old man that just wants to spend time with his grandkids and ensure a good future for his family or whatever, every Christmas, still, a card from me - "Hey shithead, remember when you sold out the American people for cash? Fuck you." I will do this until he or I dies.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  Any way we could build this into something more large scale? How can we do this in a way that doesn't fall afoul of harassment laws?
  - komali2 9y ago
    If by "large scale" you mean "lots of people doing it," the only way I can think of is making it easier and telling people. Making it easier: https://www.mailmygov.com/ https://www.mailmygov.com/ Telling people: Turn to your right and tell your coworker, I guess. Make a twitter post?
- dhimes 9y ago
  I think you are on to something here.
simooooo 9y ago
Well fuuuuuck you! - FCC
volgo 9y ago
Probably because you work in the tech industry which is negatively affected by the decision.
turc1656 9y ago
In this instance, it's working as intended. Based on the election results, this is pretty much expected. I suspect it's more that all the people of significance who have stated their opposition also share the same core political ideology as you, which doesn't match that of the party currently in power. So you view the system as not working because you didn't get what you wanted by having everyone on your side yell louder.

simplify 9y ago

Keep in mind the FCC is not accountable to the public – we don't vote them in. However, we as the public still have power to push our representatives to encode NN as law. Now that NN has unfortunately been repealed, we can cue in Congress to act.

aphextron 9y ago
>Now that NN has unfortunately been repealed, we can cue in Congress to act. lol

fnoiw22 9y ago

Don't give up. Our democracy isn't working properly. Too many are complacent.

rkuykendall-com 9y ago

> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality [1]. If a population wants to send a different message, they must do it in the next election [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... [2] https://swingleft.org/ https://swingleft.org/

scrollaway 9y ago
You're just saying your democracy isn't working properly, just for different reasons. Most Trump supporters did not elect trump "knowing ... he would end Net Neutrality", and a statement from 2014 does not disprove that (a cursory glance at r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/ kinda makes the point). The US public is atrociously misinformed as a whole, either due to lack of education or bad media incentives or both. In order to function, a democracy requires an informed public.
- dfee 9y ago
  Thankfully we don’t live in a democracy. America is a democratic republic. As the public is naturally under-informed, this is arguably a good thing; regardless of your views on Net Neutrality. E.g. has Trump been able to build the wall that arguably half the population approved of? No, because his budget approval process has been checked by other elected representatives.
olympus 9y ago
Having a good memory is the singularly best way to combat the money corrupting politics. The people just proved with the Alabama special election that they can change the establishment if they feel strongly enough about it. Sadly I think the effects of repealing Net Neutrality will be felt more like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water, and no single change is going to entice the majority of the population to vote. It's not the tech industry that needs to be convinced that repealing neutrality is bad, it's the general non-tech population that needs to be convinced to care.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Alabama didn't prove anything really. It demonstrated that the bar for getting elected to a national office in Alabama is a minuscule amount above "accused of sexually assaulting minors".
  - olympus 9y ago
    It also demonstrated that the established incumbent party can lose if they ignore the will of the people. They could have easily found another Republican (even another judge) that wasn't accused of numerous sexual misconducts. They chose not to bother because why swap out a yes-man with a person that might have principles when Alabama is a guaranteed win? Eventually both parties are going to realize that they would be better off putting forward a candidate that the people like instead of putting forth an establishment yes-man (in the Dems case from the presidential race, a yes-woman).
ryanisnan 9y ago
Our democracy is hardly a democracy. I kind of wish people would stop discussing it as such. The opinion of the population matters very little to the outcome of legislation, and for those whose opinions it does matter (legislators), they are bought and paid for. Also, if you really think that people who voted for Donald Trump understood the intricacies of net neutrality you must be an incredibly optimistic individual.
tmat 9y ago
the problem with this statement is we weren't given a fair choice of options.. It was this or that and they both stunk to high heaven.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Absolutely. The strongest point of each candidate was that they weren't the other candidate.
  - sergiotapia 9y ago
    I'm sure President Trump's policies were very important for voters, not just "he's not hillary".
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I think his very-well-known inconsistencies on policy matters makes it hard to argue that he won on the merits of his policies. His personality, attitude, and his not being Hillary Clinton seemed to be more important.
  - tmat 9y ago
    Amazing isn't it?
Cknight70 9y ago
While I do not think Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president, his competition was not any better for different reasons. I think there is also a problem with how our Democracy elects people as well.
- nawgszy 9y ago
  I don't like Hillary at all and think the Democrats would've easily won if they hadn't used establishment tactics to put thru their establishment candidate over Bernie, but.. >his competition was not any better Really? Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. Net neutrality would still exist, pedophiles would not be publicly endorsed by her, and a 'tax cut' that is actually just a confusing mess that only clearly benefits the super-rich would not have happened. So what exactly would she have done to be as bad as Trump? The guy is incessantly mired in scandals; says things that a centrist family would barely tolerate their old, crazy, racist uncle saying around holiday dinners; and is basically a narcissist. I don't like Hillary at all and don't see how you can say "she's not any better than Trump" with a straight face.
  - chronic193 9y ago
    > Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. This is precisely why she did not win.
  - Cknight70 9y ago
    Probably because of political leaning, but statements Trump made like wanting to incentivize companies to return to the US, deporting illegal immigrants, and decreasing military spending. Were some of the main reasons I thought Trump was even worthy of being considered. Trump has been wishy washy on his immigration and military spending statements since being in office.
- jamescontrol 9y ago
  I an pretty far away from you guys, but from where I’m sitting trump seems like a utter maniac, lying even when people can clearly prove it is lies. Alternative facts etc etc. I have a hard time understanding how he can be compared to pretty much anyone and come out on top.. I know the Media paints their own picture of him, but still?
humanrebar 9y ago
> One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality More charitably, they chose Donald Trump on the suspicion that he would do "better" than Hillary Clinton on: abortion, immigration, the economy, leading in "the culture wars", and maybe a few other issues. Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody At that time, sure. Time will tell whether electing an extremist candidate was a good idea or not. Losing in deep red Alabama isn't a good sign.
  - dfee 9y ago
    I think you’re looking for the term populist, not extremist.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet. Are you serious? Every politician is an ideologue. It's why we elect one over another. We agree with one's idea about policies over another's. The only people who we expect to divorce themselves from ideologies are judges, who are there to interpret the law, not make it.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm not sure the electorate sees elections the same way. I think most of them are true Republicans in the sense that they want to elect people they think are trustworthy and then let them make decisions as their proxy. In that case, a candidate can have policies and platforms to convince people to let her be their proxy, but she doesn't need them. She could just have a "trust me, I'll make the right decision" pitch. Besides, if Trump is an ideologue, what is that ideology? At best it's a new (or at least renewed) nativist spin on identity politics. That's not an ideology; that's a team.
mrguyorama 9y ago
>the states chose Donald Trump as president The states, yet not the people Sure, he won with our current system, but even school children think our current system is silly

betterunix2 9y ago

Did you submit a comment on this proceeding, beyond just clicking on some site that auto-generated a comment? I spent several days working on my comment; it was a dozen pages long, it included relevant citations, and it addressed specific questions asked in the NPRM. I took the time to correct a few falsehoods in the NPRM's technical analysis. Now imagine what it is like to see that comment being specifically cited and totally dismissed in the draft rules that were just approved. In a way it is worse than just being ignored -- someone took the time to read my comment and comments by like-minded experts, saw the part where we corrected falsehoods, and then replied with, "Well, ISPs say $X so $X is true and your comment wrong." I am not going to give up on civic engagement but I am sure some of those like-minded engineers and researchers might.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
I am not going to give up on civic engagement Please don't. I mean that very sincerely. The fact that you took the time to do this is very inspiring to me. It reminds me of this guy: https://professional-troublemaker.com https://professional-troublemaker.com It kind of blows my mind to think of how much individuals who are focused and determined can really accomplish.
matrix 9y ago
Thank you for doing that. I sincerely hope this fight isn't over yet; hopefully your comment gets its rightful fair hearing.
ovao 9y ago
The effort's appreciated. I'd commend you for it even if I disagreed with your position — to take the time to directly express concern and raise issues is key, in my opinion, to enacting real change.

overcast 9y ago

This isn't a democracy, this is a republic. While we have some power in who we elect, those elected are representing us, and can choose to vote how they want. Whether that screws them in future elections is another story.

vkou 9y ago
This is false. The United states is a representative democracy, AND a republic. A democracy can be direct (As in parts of ancient Greece), or representative (As in... Every democracy that is not in ancient Greece.) The only criteria for being a republic is that you don't have a monarch. The USSR was a republic. China is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Yet, Canada is also a representative democracy, while neither China, nor the USSR are.

amelius 9y ago

> ... as pretty much every site/person of significance has stated their opposition to such a repeal ... But what exactly did Google do to oppose this? In my view: doing nothing == being evil.

komali2 9y ago

>Powerless Same, so as a petty man I've made a personal vow to send Ajit Pai a card every Christmas reminding him he sold his soul to Comcast and that I will never forget or forgive him for it. Totally pointless right now when the whole country is calling for his head and he gets to play the haughty "I don't give a fuck, I'm set for life now, suck it plebes" card. But in 2040, when he has long since moved on, and the rest of the country has forgotten, and he's an old man that just wants to spend time with his grandkids and ensure a good future for his family or whatever, every Christmas, still, a card from me - "Hey shithead, remember when you sold out the American people for cash? Fuck you." I will do this until he or I dies.

mrguyorama 9y ago
Any way we could build this into something more large scale? How can we do this in a way that doesn't fall afoul of harassment laws?
- komali2 9y ago
  If by "large scale" you mean "lots of people doing it," the only way I can think of is making it easier and telling people. Making it easier: https://www.mailmygov.com/ https://www.mailmygov.com/ Telling people: Turn to your right and tell your coworker, I guess. Make a twitter post?
dhimes 9y ago
I think you are on to something here.

simooooo 9y ago

Well fuuuuuck you! - FCC

volgo 9y ago

Probably because you work in the tech industry which is negatively affected by the decision.

turc1656 9y ago

In this instance, it's working as intended. Based on the election results, this is pretty much expected. I suspect it's more that all the people of significance who have stated their opposition also share the same core political ideology as you, which doesn't match that of the party currently in power. So you view the system as not working because you didn't get what you wanted by having everyone on your side yell louder.