6 ms·

I'm glad they're looking into fixing their comment system, but: Fake. Not fake. The comments wren't a vote -- they were comments. If anything they should be us

I'm glad they're looking into fixing their comment system, but: Fake. Not fake. The comments wren't a vote -- they were comments. If anything they should be used to add ideas to the mix. Things that may have been overlooked. People who might be impacted but haven't been considered. And smart, well-meaning people should've synthesized those into useful and not useful piles to help inform their decision. The core problem is that Ajit Pai was determined to ignore all signal from people who supported Net Neutrality.

briandear 8y ago
However, based on what you just said, the pro-NN people might ought to consider other views as well. The pro-NN crowd is guilty of one-sided thinking and has had no interest in actually considering other viewpoints. So the FCC should consider everyone’s comments, but then regardless of those comments, uphold NN anyway? Is that what I’m reading? Regarding the ignoring NN supporters — at least a few of those supporters engaged in credible death threats against Pai and his children. At that point, I’d be done. I would give no credence to the pro-NN side if they are going to threaten my children. As soon as some NN supporters started acting like racist jackasses, that point of view ceased to matter to me.
- patient_zero 8y ago
  As a pro-NN person, I'd appreciate a good explanation of the benefits of removing NN that reflects the current reality of the situation. If you could kindly explain to this one-sided thinker why Pai seems like he just does the bidding of the companies he used to, likely will again, and (one would argue) currently works for, that would be a boon to my jackass brain. Thanks in advance for your hard and thankless work.
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    Its really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright ownership) are fine though. Heck the cities literally own the streets. Beyond that, how did the net neutrality policy makes sense? If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. The main argument for net neutrality is they are monopolies so we should beat them up, but I fail to see how net neutrality does that. You read a lot about the FCC chairman's bad motives (who can say, maybe true?), yet in the same opinion piece the author will want him to have more legal power over the conduits of free speech and media.
    - brandonjm 8y ago
      > It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. From what I've read, (I haven't followed it too closely as I'm not from the US) the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging through the roof for access to specific websites. I could be completely wrong, but this is what I took away from most of the pro-NN arguments.
      - iamdave 8y ago
        From what I've read, (I haven't followed it too closely as I'm not from the US) the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. I think that's become the poster child for the most accessible way of delivering a pro-NN argument to the masses; even if I think-personally-it's an incredible oversimplification of otherwise GOOD pro-NN arguments. Popcorn and circuses, etc. If you can explain it to people as "it's gonna hurt your ability to Binge Orange is the New Black Season 22" their ears perk up. If you start talking about "last mile" and startup competitiveness in an increasingly commoditized internet landscape, eyes glaze over. Perhaps even to the point of possibly being the petard hoisted by the pro-NN crowd when the powers at be decide to focus their attention on that topic, artfully skirt the issue to seem conciliatory to average-joe users while implementing the very types of platforms and policies that have more or less demonstrable affects on the Internet as a platform for Enterprise. Just my theory.
      - benlorenzetti 8y ago
        >> >> If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. >> ...the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging through the roof for access to specific websites. These are essentially equivalent statements, no? On the one hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them. Again I want to reiterate, for me this is all about the 1st amendment to the Constitution. I would love for the telecom monopolies to get broken up.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  It didn’t bother you that someone impersonated tens of thousands of Americans and the FCC ignored that fraud and voted anyways? People shouldn’t get death threats, but we shouldn’t act like it doesn’t happen on all sides of every dispute. People on reddit received threats from anti-NN posters, doesn’t that de-legitimize their stance?
- icebraining 8y ago
  "A few supporters" of literally any position with sufficient numbers will be assholes. If you discount the entire position over that, you're not fit to run for office.
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > that point of view ceased to matter to me. Except that you still feel the need to talk about them. eyeroll I think you troll topics masquerading as legitimate commentary (almost every assertion you made is an ad-hominem), because you don't really know the difference. This is a common problem with people who have superiority complexes.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but there were plenty of racists on the anti-NN side; the Daily Stormer was full of anti-NN commentary that seemed to be based on the fact that NN was a policy of the first Black president. Racism is on all sides of any major policy debate, which nobody should be surprised by given how many racists there are in society. Also, as someone who submitted a comment that was actually cited in the final order, I did consider the other points of view. In fact my comment addressed the anti-NN claims made in the NPRM, as did many other thoughtful, original comments submitted by other engineers and computer scientists, including a comment submitted by Vint Cerf (inventor of the Internet). By necessity I and those other experts had to think about the positions from the other side. All of us concluded approximately the same thing: that the anti-NN arguments were based on a poor understanding of how the Internet works and of the current state of the ISP market. (That is being generous. In fact the NPRM was based on deliberate, dishonest distortions of the truth, meant to stretch technical facts to support the legal argument for what can only be described as a preordained conclusion. Facts were never really the basis of the anti-NN argument; the argument is mostly based on ideological opposition to any regulation of ISPs, even regulations that might encourage competition among ISPs e.g. line-sharing requirements. The goal is just to minimize regulation, regardless of the impact on consumers or on society as a whole, regardless of the state of the ISP market, regardless of the facts.)
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "However, based on what you just said, the pro-NN people might ought to consider other views as well." What makes you think we haven't? What makes you think that we haven't thought about what the removal of net neutrality means, and that's why we feel the way we do? "The pro-NN crowd is guilty of one-sided thinking" This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "The side that's for something is guilty of only wanting that to prevail!" When have you given serious thought to having net neutrality and the benefits it will bring? "at least a few of those supporters engaged in credible death threats against Pai and his children" So because a few bad people are out there, we should fuck over the entire country? How many death threats have journalists received from GOP supporters? Does that mean we should abandon everything they stand for?

briandear 8y ago

However, based on what you just said, the pro-NN people might ought to consider other views as well. The pro-NN crowd is guilty of one-sided thinking and has had no interest in actually considering other viewpoints. So the FCC should consider everyone’s comments, but then regardless of those comments, uphold NN anyway? Is that what I’m reading? Regarding the ignoring NN supporters — at least a few of those supporters engaged in credible death threats against Pai and his children. At that point, I’d be done. I would give no credence to the pro-NN side if they are going to threaten my children. As soon as some NN supporters started acting like racist jackasses, that point of view ceased to matter to me.

patient_zero 8y ago
As a pro-NN person, I'd appreciate a good explanation of the benefits of removing NN that reflects the current reality of the situation. If you could kindly explain to this one-sided thinker why Pai seems like he just does the bidding of the companies he used to, likely will again, and (one would argue) currently works for, that would be a boon to my jackass brain. Thanks in advance for your hard and thankless work.
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  Its really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright ownership) are fine though. Heck the cities literally own the streets. Beyond that, how did the net neutrality policy makes sense? If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. The main argument for net neutrality is they are monopolies so we should beat them up, but I fail to see how net neutrality does that. You read a lot about the FCC chairman's bad motives (who can say, maybe true?), yet in the same opinion piece the author will want him to have more legal power over the conduits of free speech and media.
  - brandonjm 8y ago
    > It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. From what I've read, (I haven't followed it too closely as I'm not from the US) the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging through the roof for access to specific websites. I could be completely wrong, but this is what I took away from most of the pro-NN arguments.
    - iamdave 8y ago
      From what I've read, (I haven't followed it too closely as I'm not from the US) the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. I think that's become the poster child for the most accessible way of delivering a pro-NN argument to the masses; even if I think-personally-it's an incredible oversimplification of otherwise GOOD pro-NN arguments. Popcorn and circuses, etc. If you can explain it to people as "it's gonna hurt your ability to Binge Orange is the New Black Season 22" their ears perk up. If you start talking about "last mile" and startup competitiveness in an increasingly commoditized internet landscape, eyes glaze over. Perhaps even to the point of possibly being the petard hoisted by the pro-NN crowd when the powers at be decide to focus their attention on that topic, artfully skirt the issue to seem conciliatory to average-joe users while implementing the very types of platforms and policies that have more or less demonstrable affects on the Internet as a platform for Enterprise. Just my theory.
    - benlorenzetti 8y ago
      >> >> If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationships with the ISPs to push the servers closer to the edges. >> ...the issue is that repealing NN enables an ISP to throttle Netflix for users who don't pay more for (for example) a 'Media' plan WITHOUT even needing to make a deal with Netflix. Monopolies then become a problem because certain areas of the US can only get connection with one ISP, so there is no room for them to choose a better option if their only available ISP starts charging through the roof for access to specific websites. These are essentially equivalent statements, no? On the one hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them, and on the other hand ISPs want Netflix to pay them. Again I want to reiterate, for me this is all about the 1st amendment to the Constitution. I would love for the telecom monopolies to get broken up.
moorhosj 8y ago
It didn’t bother you that someone impersonated tens of thousands of Americans and the FCC ignored that fraud and voted anyways? People shouldn’t get death threats, but we shouldn’t act like it doesn’t happen on all sides of every dispute. People on reddit received threats from anti-NN posters, doesn’t that de-legitimize their stance?
icebraining 8y ago
"A few supporters" of literally any position with sufficient numbers will be assholes. If you discount the entire position over that, you're not fit to run for office.
TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
> that point of view ceased to matter to me. Except that you still feel the need to talk about them. eyeroll I think you troll topics masquerading as legitimate commentary (almost every assertion you made is an ad-hominem), because you don't really know the difference. This is a common problem with people who have superiority complexes.
betterunix2 8y ago
Hate to break it to you, but there were plenty of racists on the anti-NN side; the Daily Stormer was full of anti-NN commentary that seemed to be based on the fact that NN was a policy of the first Black president. Racism is on all sides of any major policy debate, which nobody should be surprised by given how many racists there are in society. Also, as someone who submitted a comment that was actually cited in the final order, I did consider the other points of view. In fact my comment addressed the anti-NN claims made in the NPRM, as did many other thoughtful, original comments submitted by other engineers and computer scientists, including a comment submitted by Vint Cerf (inventor of the Internet). By necessity I and those other experts had to think about the positions from the other side. All of us concluded approximately the same thing: that the anti-NN arguments were based on a poor understanding of how the Internet works and of the current state of the ISP market. (That is being generous. In fact the NPRM was based on deliberate, dishonest distortions of the truth, meant to stretch technical facts to support the legal argument for what can only be described as a preordained conclusion. Facts were never really the basis of the anti-NN argument; the argument is mostly based on ideological opposition to any regulation of ISPs, even regulations that might encourage competition among ISPs e.g. line-sharing requirements. The goal is just to minimize regulation, regardless of the impact on consumers or on society as a whole, regardless of the state of the ISP market, regardless of the facts.)
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"However, based on what you just said, the pro-NN people might ought to consider other views as well." What makes you think we haven't? What makes you think that we haven't thought about what the removal of net neutrality means, and that's why we feel the way we do? "The pro-NN crowd is guilty of one-sided thinking" This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "The side that's for something is guilty of only wanting that to prevail!" When have you given serious thought to having net neutrality and the benefits it will bring? "at least a few of those supporters engaged in credible death threats against Pai and his children" So because a few bad people are out there, we should fuck over the entire country? How many death threats have journalists received from GOP supporters? Does that mean we should abandon everything they stand for?