7 ms·

"Because it wasn’t a hack, it seems that the comment-filing system, though recently revamped, needs yet another fresh coat of paint to handle the kind of volume

"Because it wasn’t a hack, it seems that the comment-filing system, though recently revamped, needs yet another fresh coat of paint to handle the kind of volume it saw during the net neutrality repeal." Or as an alternative, maybe don't shove through legislation that's so wildly unpopular with the american citizens that the entire internet comes crashing down on you in protest. Just a thought.

dlp211 8y ago
Nit: it's not legislation, it's regulation in the FCCs purview. The reason this matters is because it is likely going to take Congressional legislation to get net neutrality now, which means electing (mostly) Democrats.
- devmunchies 8y ago
  Isn’t removing neutrality a de-regulation? To enforce neutrality would be a regulation.
  - cma 8y ago
    Imagine the government collecting everyone's taxes to put in electricity based on common will, and then once it is hooked up it corrupt politicians say a new unaccountable king gets to decide who gets to plug in. The king has a profit motive, so for the most part you can pay him extra, in addition to the taxes you already paid, to let you plug in. Was inserting that king really a deregulatory step? Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft. (king/comcast/att/etc.)
    - koboll 8y ago
      Eh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure. Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
      - fnordfnordfnord 8y ago
        Didn't the King get a bunch of federal subsidies to build out his infrastructure or something like that? Does that ring a bell?
        rayiner 8y ago
        Aside from some stimulus money recently, no. Instead, they were subject to special extra taxes, like cigarettes: https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026 https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026. Telecom is unusual in that welfare is funded by taxing companies that provide the service rather than using general tax dollars: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone. If would be like charging Panera a tax on bread and then using it to buy food for homeless shelters.
        smolder 8y ago
        Which would be reasonable if Panera bread had a protected Monopoly on bread selling, and great profit margins. The analogy breaks down but isps also way under invest in service and maintenance relative to demand. Because they can.
      - kahnpro 8y ago
        In most cases the king didn't fund his own infrastructure, he convinced the people to pay for it.
    - xtreme 8y ago
      Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but "inserting a king" is absolutely an act of deregulation in this context. Because earlier there would be only one supplier of electricity (the government) but now anyone would be able to sell electricity for a price that they see fit. Now, socialists claim that since the government is not profit driven, it would keep the prices low. On the other hand, capitalists say that even if the supplier seeks profit, there would be competition which would lead to innovation, better service, and lower prices. Of course, pretty much none of our systems are fully on one side or the other which complicates things. For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding.
      - dmix 8y ago
        > For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding. I keep hearing this constantly. They received significant amount of government funding, yes, but how much of their (current) success and assets due to government funding? How much of it is really due to the continued regulation of radio waves and the land where cables are dug?
        smolder 8y ago
        Their success is due to corruption and the lack of competition they are afforded. They barely do enough aside from collect money to avoid being displaced, despite how protected they are. Our ISPs suck terribly.
  - Whitestrake 8y ago
    Attempting to enforce deregulation is regulation.
  - chriscappuccio 8y ago
    Yes, removing "network neutrality" is de-regulation.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    No, because the FCC is preventing state and local governments from introducing their own net neutrality regulations. It is a regulation to prevent net neutrality in totality.
    - Spivak 8y ago
      This really isn't as simple as, "The hypocrites! They claim to be eliminating regulation but really introduced them." Someone who is in favor of small government typically doesn't have much problem regulation the government itself especially when it's to preempt the creation of regulation. And if you actually want to have !NN and have a consistent set of rules for ISPs nationally then you have to "occupy the field" to prevent state/local governments from enacting 50 separate different not-quite-NN rules which will: not actually allow your deregulation to take effect, create even more complicated regulations, and then open yourself up to blame for all the problems the state regulations cause. I would expect HN overall to agree with the FCC that the rules that govern the internet need to be as flat and global as possible.
- mkhpalm 8y ago
  If only it were as simple as voting for 1 of 2 parties. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018&ind=B09 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018... Neither party appears to be turning down money from the opponents of net neutrality. It feels more like everybody takes the money and the rest is just politics and propaganda.
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    Yep, you have the corporatist Democrats and the corporatist Republicans, both of which are happy to collude if it makes the companies that own them happy. I wish we would just make our politicians wear their owner's logos.
    - pssflops 8y ago
      Sounds like the outfits worn in Idiocracy.
  - Blackthorn 8y ago
    Okay, but under Democrats we had net neutrality and under Republicans it was removed, and those were respectively explicit goals for both parties. So it really is as simple as voting for 1 of 2 parties.
  - criley2 8y ago
    This is a pretty weird statement, as one party has fought tirelessly for NN including legislation and regulation, while one party has fought against legislation and regulation. But you create a false equivalence based on media corp donations, instead of examining the actual behavior and recent history of the parties. To Godwin this: "Well, the fascists and racists are supporting both Hitler's party and his competition, so, really they're all the same!" You might want to sophisticate your political examination process.
    - mkane848 8y ago
      I'm on the same side and pretty much agree with all of your points, but that really came out as condescending. I'm a huge fan of the new wave of Dems coming through (mainly the Democratic Socialist part) but we can't act like the main Democratic Party hasn't been fucking up for a WHILE. They're still trying to fight the DemSoc movement even though it's getting huge grassroot support. I don't trust the main party, but I believe in some select parts of the machine and don't think it's unreasonable for people to call out the Dems on their shit.
praneshp 8y ago
Playing devil's advocate: Was there something that ensured only American citizens (or residents or some relevant filter) could submit comments? I suspect there was a fair bit of trolling as well (not excusing the lie that they were hacked though).
- Teknoman117 8y ago
  Not particularly. All you had to do was give a US located address. I'm also assuming (hoping?) the IP was recorded, although using VPNs isn't hard. Ironically, the democrats (or at least the current people in power and the media) tend to be against any requirement of strong ID when it comes to interacting with the government...
  - chaosite 8y ago
    The US doesn't really have a form of strong ID, especially not a universal one that is easily applied.
- koboll 8y ago
  No. And the FCC could have said that. They also could have just simply said "Well, this is just an issue that certain subsets of internet denizens have strong feelings about, but the average citizen doesn't," just like the Obama admin said in regards to the legalize-marijuana petition. There were lots of different ways to respond that would have come off as far more legitimate, and led to the same outcome. Instead, they concocted an obviously false and politically motivated story about being "hacked".
pitaj 8y ago
The comments weren't votes. Beyond the general idea that lying is wrong and the FCC shouldn't have lied, which is a big deal, the entire "a majority of real comments were in support of NN" is entirely irrelevant to the decision. Popularity doesn't make something correct or true.
- dtornabene 8y ago
  except it is very much relevant. their called "public comment periods" for a reason; they're a way for the public to give meaningful feedback on issues and policy that affect their lives. So, the content of those comments is exactly the point.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    They're meant for the public to provide new, unique perspectives. Quantities aren't relevant, especially when most NN supporters used forms which automatically said the exact same thing and other entities spammed the comment period with marginally different generated texts saying the same thing.
    - jack9 8y ago
      > They're meant for the public to provide new, unique perspectives Citation?
      - snowwrestler 8y ago
        This is so basic to the regulatory public comment process that it's hard to find a simple, clear citation, but this one might help: https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effecti... Key quotes: > The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters > The comment process is not a vote. The government is attempting to formulate the best policy, so when crafting a comment it is important that you adequately explain the reasoning behind your position. > Form Letters: Organizations often encourage their members to submit form letters designed to address issues common to their membership. Organizations including industry associations, labor unions, and conservation groups sometimes use form letters to voice their opposition or support of a proposed rulemaking. Many in the public mistakenly believe that their submitted form letter constitutes a “vote” regarding the issues concerning them. Although public support or opposition may help guide important public policies, agencies make determinations for a proposed action based on sound reasoning and scientific evidence rather than a majority of votes. A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters.

dlp211 8y ago

Nit: it's not legislation, it's regulation in the FCCs purview. The reason this matters is because it is likely going to take Congressional legislation to get net neutrality now, which means electing (mostly) Democrats.

devmunchies 8y ago
Isn’t removing neutrality a de-regulation? To enforce neutrality would be a regulation.
- cma 8y ago
  Imagine the government collecting everyone's taxes to put in electricity based on common will, and then once it is hooked up it corrupt politicians say a new unaccountable king gets to decide who gets to plug in. The king has a profit motive, so for the most part you can pay him extra, in addition to the taxes you already paid, to let you plug in. Was inserting that king really a deregulatory step? Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft. (king/comcast/att/etc.)
  - koboll 8y ago
    Eh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure. Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
    - fnordfnordfnord 8y ago
      Didn't the King get a bunch of federal subsidies to build out his infrastructure or something like that? Does that ring a bell?
      - rayiner 8y ago
        Aside from some stimulus money recently, no. Instead, they were subject to special extra taxes, like cigarettes: https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026 https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026. Telecom is unusual in that welfare is funded by taxing companies that provide the service rather than using general tax dollars: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone. If would be like charging Panera a tax on bread and then using it to buy food for homeless shelters.
        smolder 8y ago
        Which would be reasonable if Panera bread had a protected Monopoly on bread selling, and great profit margins. The analogy breaks down but isps also way under invest in service and maintenance relative to demand. Because they can.
    - kahnpro 8y ago
      In most cases the king didn't fund his own infrastructure, he convinced the people to pay for it.
  - xtreme 8y ago
    Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but "inserting a king" is absolutely an act of deregulation in this context. Because earlier there would be only one supplier of electricity (the government) but now anyone would be able to sell electricity for a price that they see fit. Now, socialists claim that since the government is not profit driven, it would keep the prices low. On the other hand, capitalists say that even if the supplier seeks profit, there would be competition which would lead to innovation, better service, and lower prices. Of course, pretty much none of our systems are fully on one side or the other which complicates things. For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding.
    - dmix 8y ago
      > For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding. I keep hearing this constantly. They received significant amount of government funding, yes, but how much of their (current) success and assets due to government funding? How much of it is really due to the continued regulation of radio waves and the land where cables are dug?
      - smolder 8y ago
        Their success is due to corruption and the lack of competition they are afforded. They barely do enough aside from collect money to avoid being displaced, despite how protected they are. Our ISPs suck terribly.
- Whitestrake 8y ago
  Attempting to enforce deregulation is regulation.
- chriscappuccio 8y ago
  Yes, removing "network neutrality" is de-regulation.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  No, because the FCC is preventing state and local governments from introducing their own net neutrality regulations. It is a regulation to prevent net neutrality in totality.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    This really isn't as simple as, "The hypocrites! They claim to be eliminating regulation but really introduced them." Someone who is in favor of small government typically doesn't have much problem regulation the government itself especially when it's to preempt the creation of regulation. And if you actually want to have !NN and have a consistent set of rules for ISPs nationally then you have to "occupy the field" to prevent state/local governments from enacting 50 separate different not-quite-NN rules which will: not actually allow your deregulation to take effect, create even more complicated regulations, and then open yourself up to blame for all the problems the state regulations cause. I would expect HN overall to agree with the FCC that the rules that govern the internet need to be as flat and global as possible.
mkhpalm 8y ago
If only it were as simple as voting for 1 of 2 parties. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018&ind=B09 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018... Neither party appears to be turning down money from the opponents of net neutrality. It feels more like everybody takes the money and the rest is just politics and propaganda.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Yep, you have the corporatist Democrats and the corporatist Republicans, both of which are happy to collude if it makes the companies that own them happy. I wish we would just make our politicians wear their owner's logos.
  - pssflops 8y ago
    Sounds like the outfits worn in Idiocracy.
- Blackthorn 8y ago
  Okay, but under Democrats we had net neutrality and under Republicans it was removed, and those were respectively explicit goals for both parties. So it really is as simple as voting for 1 of 2 parties.
- criley2 8y ago
  This is a pretty weird statement, as one party has fought tirelessly for NN including legislation and regulation, while one party has fought against legislation and regulation. But you create a false equivalence based on media corp donations, instead of examining the actual behavior and recent history of the parties. To Godwin this: "Well, the fascists and racists are supporting both Hitler's party and his competition, so, really they're all the same!" You might want to sophisticate your political examination process.
  - mkane848 8y ago
    I'm on the same side and pretty much agree with all of your points, but that really came out as condescending. I'm a huge fan of the new wave of Dems coming through (mainly the Democratic Socialist part) but we can't act like the main Democratic Party hasn't been fucking up for a WHILE. They're still trying to fight the DemSoc movement even though it's getting huge grassroot support. I don't trust the main party, but I believe in some select parts of the machine and don't think it's unreasonable for people to call out the Dems on their shit.

praneshp 8y ago

Playing devil's advocate: Was there something that ensured only American citizens (or residents or some relevant filter) could submit comments? I suspect there was a fair bit of trolling as well (not excusing the lie that they were hacked though).

Teknoman117 8y ago
Not particularly. All you had to do was give a US located address. I'm also assuming (hoping?) the IP was recorded, although using VPNs isn't hard. Ironically, the democrats (or at least the current people in power and the media) tend to be against any requirement of strong ID when it comes to interacting with the government...
- chaosite 8y ago
  The US doesn't really have a form of strong ID, especially not a universal one that is easily applied.
koboll 8y ago
No. And the FCC could have said that. They also could have just simply said "Well, this is just an issue that certain subsets of internet denizens have strong feelings about, but the average citizen doesn't," just like the Obama admin said in regards to the legalize-marijuana petition. There were lots of different ways to respond that would have come off as far more legitimate, and led to the same outcome. Instead, they concocted an obviously false and politically motivated story about being "hacked".

pitaj 8y ago

The comments weren't votes. Beyond the general idea that lying is wrong and the FCC shouldn't have lied, which is a big deal, the entire "a majority of real comments were in support of NN" is entirely irrelevant to the decision. Popularity doesn't make something correct or true.

dtornabene 8y ago
except it is very much relevant. their called "public comment periods" for a reason; they're a way for the public to give meaningful feedback on issues and policy that affect their lives. So, the content of those comments is exactly the point.
- pitaj 8y ago
  They're meant for the public to provide new, unique perspectives. Quantities aren't relevant, especially when most NN supporters used forms which automatically said the exact same thing and other entities spammed the comment period with marginally different generated texts saying the same thing.
  - jack9 8y ago
    > They're meant for the public to provide new, unique perspectives Citation?
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      This is so basic to the regulatory public comment process that it's hard to find a simple, clear citation, but this one might help: https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effecti... Key quotes: > The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters > The comment process is not a vote. The government is attempting to formulate the best policy, so when crafting a comment it is important that you adequately explain the reasoning behind your position. > Form Letters: Organizations often encourage their members to submit form letters designed to address issues common to their membership. Organizations including industry associations, labor unions, and conservation groups sometimes use form letters to voice their opposition or support of a proposed rulemaking. Many in the public mistakenly believe that their submitted form letter constitutes a “vote” regarding the issues concerning them. Although public support or opposition may help guide important public policies, agencies make determinations for a proposed action based on sound reasoning and scientific evidence rather than a majority of votes. A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters.