4 ms·

"Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with ho

"Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies should operate in the modern era." You end with FUD. Your credibility is at risk.

chimeracoder 12y ago
I don't think it's a tough argument that conservatives would be opposed to it, as Title II is undeniably more restrictive (that's why it's being proposed as a means to regulate last-mile Internet in the first place!) As for the second part, Title II reclassification is controversial enough that even the EFF didn't support it until very recently, and even then only under the assumption that the FCC would practice forebearance[0]. Finally, while I very strongly disagree with many of the things rayiner has posted on this issue in the past (including the interpretation of some of the evidence he cites), it's clear that he has done his research and knows what he's talking about. As far as semi-anonymous/psuedonymous online forum discussions go, that's a reasonable enough amount of credibility for me. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-why-its-essential-net-neutrality-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-wh...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I don't think it's a tough argument that conservatives would be opposed to it, Well, lots of conservatives (including 2/5 of the FCC) are entirely opposed to any regulation toward neutrality, whether under Title I or Title II or any other basis (and, in fact, many support Congress acting to eliminate any potential basis under which the FCC might adopt pro-neutrality regulations), so, sure, the proposed conservative opposition is not controversial at all (OTOH, its not much a basis for opposing any particular approach if you support the goal of neutrality regulation, since there is strong conservative opposition to the idea of pro-neutrality regulation, independent of the specific authority or mechanism.)
- dbpokorny 12y ago
  "he has done his research and knows what he's talking about" Yeah, and then he goes on here and does the usual propaganda stuff. Come up with a problem, find some way to discredit the other side, and generally find some excuse to do nothing. There is a word for this attitude and behavior, from Winnie the Pooh: Eeyore. His words speak for themselves. Credibility and leadership go hand in hand. Don't listen to people whose job it is to add confusion to the debate. These lawyers have no concept of the public good and will say whatever wins them the most money. This kind of thing is a science: https://archive.org/details/PropagandaMadeEasy https://archive.org/details/PropagandaMadeEasy
rayiner 12y ago
As I said, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Silicon Valley sees this issue as a "necessary exception" to a generally "hands off" regulatory regime as to the internet, as Sam Altman articulated the other day, but I think this is more subtle than how your average politician views the situation. Selling this as a party-line, regulation versus deregulation issue is easy. To highlight what I see as an impedance mismatch between Silicon Valley and Washington, take YC's comment to the FCC. There is a line in there "we should treat the telcos like the utilities they are" or something to that effect. That resounds here on HN, but made me cringe. The failures of utility regulation are a source of embarrassment to both sides of the aisle. Whether we're talking about rolling brownouts or ancient sewer systems dumping waste into rivers, nobody is really happy with how utilities are regulated in the U.S. So why evoke that association? You're guaranteed to alienate all but the hardcore "consumer protection" contingent of liberals, which are a dying breed.
- dbpokorny 12y ago
  "We can't trust the politicians" is more FUD. This seems to be a theme in your comments.

chimeracoder 12y ago

I don't think it's a tough argument that conservatives would be opposed to it, as Title II is undeniably more restrictive (that's why it's being proposed as a means to regulate last-mile Internet in the first place!) As for the second part, Title II reclassification is controversial enough that even the EFF didn't support it until very recently, and even then only under the assumption that the FCC would practice forebearance[0]. Finally, while I very strongly disagree with many of the things rayiner has posted on this issue in the past (including the interpretation of some of the evidence he cites), it's clear that he has done his research and knows what he's talking about. As far as semi-anonymous/psuedonymous online forum discussions go, that's a reasonable enough amount of credibility for me. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-why-its-essential-net-neutrality-0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-wh...

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I don't think it's a tough argument that conservatives would be opposed to it, Well, lots of conservatives (including 2/5 of the FCC) are entirely opposed to any regulation toward neutrality, whether under Title I or Title II or any other basis (and, in fact, many support Congress acting to eliminate any potential basis under which the FCC might adopt pro-neutrality regulations), so, sure, the proposed conservative opposition is not controversial at all (OTOH, its not much a basis for opposing any particular approach if you support the goal of neutrality regulation, since there is strong conservative opposition to the idea of pro-neutrality regulation, independent of the specific authority or mechanism.)
dbpokorny 12y ago
"he has done his research and knows what he's talking about" Yeah, and then he goes on here and does the usual propaganda stuff. Come up with a problem, find some way to discredit the other side, and generally find some excuse to do nothing. There is a word for this attitude and behavior, from Winnie the Pooh: Eeyore. His words speak for themselves. Credibility and leadership go hand in hand. Don't listen to people whose job it is to add confusion to the debate. These lawyers have no concept of the public good and will say whatever wins them the most money. This kind of thing is a science: https://archive.org/details/PropagandaMadeEasy https://archive.org/details/PropagandaMadeEasy

rayiner 12y ago

As I said, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Silicon Valley sees this issue as a "necessary exception" to a generally "hands off" regulatory regime as to the internet, as Sam Altman articulated the other day, but I think this is more subtle than how your average politician views the situation. Selling this as a party-line, regulation versus deregulation issue is easy. To highlight what I see as an impedance mismatch between Silicon Valley and Washington, take YC's comment to the FCC. There is a line in there "we should treat the telcos like the utilities they are" or something to that effect. That resounds here on HN, but made me cringe. The failures of utility regulation are a source of embarrassment to both sides of the aisle. Whether we're talking about rolling brownouts or ancient sewer systems dumping waste into rivers, nobody is really happy with how utilities are regulated in the U.S. So why evoke that association? You're guaranteed to alienate all but the hardcore "consumer protection" contingent of liberals, which are a dying breed.

dbpokorny 12y ago
"We can't trust the politicians" is more FUD. This seems to be a theme in your comments.