Hacker News Reader

Comment by wdr1 | Hacker News Reader

> Anyone who thinks the FCC is going to change course under this administration based on public comments can buy the bridge I am selling in NYC.

I disagree.

I don't think Trump would change his opinion based on what Democrats or people he view as the opposition says. He probably figures they'll attack him no matter what. (And I'm not sure he'd be wrong.)

However, if his core base is expresses concern, I do believe his attitude will change.

In fact, I would argue that's one of the best hopes we have.

Net Neutrality isn't partisan. Or rather, it doesn't need to be. There are reasons for both Democrats & Republicans to support it.

View on HN

> Net Neutrality isn't partisan. Or rather, it doesn't need to be. There are reasons for both Democrats & Republicans to support it.

I completely agree. Most techies who support Trump see that removing net neutrality could worsen partisan media. The issue hasn't been raised on r/the_donald because they can't get enough people to support Ajit Pai's proposed "Internet Freedom" policy.

The only people who seem to support it are die-hard free-market folks who don't understand the internet, or, who are already invested in a business that would benefit from such a change.

Killing net neutrality will never benefit the consumer, only the big players.

So, the only possible explanations for disagreeing with you is stupidity or malice. It must be really nice to have so high confidence.

I feel strongly about this issue. If that's reflected in my choice of words, so be it.

That doesn't mean all of the above isn't simply my opinion and perception.

The free market argument is so frustrating to hear, and yet I do hear it from people...

You can't expect free market theory to work when you take net neutrality with one hand while giving ISPs the right to practically pen state legislation, deny access to lines and sue up and coming competitors into oblivion with the other.

You end up with the worst of both worlds: government sponsored unrestrained monopolies.

That's the underlying problem here. If most people had a reasonable amount of choice in ISPs, the large ISPs would be forced to actually provide value to compete. What we have right now, as far as Internet access goes, is not a free market; it's more along the lines of crony capitalism.

Because we have virtual monopolies/duopolies across most of the United States, customers can't get away from any sort of shady stuff their ISP pulls, meaning we have to regulate it out of existence.

This is why I oppose net neutrality on principle. In practice, however, I feel it is unfortunately necessary due to the existing regulations. The ideal solution would be to remove the existing regulations and thus remove the need for net neutrality (since new competition would finally be allowed to easily enter the market), but I simply don't forsee that happening in my lifetime.

There is misconception that "free market" means "no regulation". Actually free market theory works (perfectly) under extremely specific conditions, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Often government regulation (not intervention) can be useful to get closer to such ideal conditions for the market to work efficiently. One example is taxes that cancel externalities. Can net neutrality also be justified in that way?

As someone who has written their Senators and Congressperson about it and gotten responses about the issue, it is sadly partisan. The Republican Congress stands behind Ajit's stance on anti-net neutrality.

His core base elected him on a platform that explicitly refused to touch entitlements. Didn't matter.

> Net Neutrality isn't partisan

Sorry, that's just wrong. This is one of the most partisan issues where actual policy is being changed. There are near zero crossover votes on either side. There are good guys and bad guys, and your refusal to actually put your support behind the good guys is absolutely infuriating to those of us who can see the truth.

The only reason it's partisan is because the previous government addressed it. Nothing else. There's nothing inherent in the values of either party to strongly side for or against net neutrality.

I think you and grandparent don't agree on the meaning of the word 'partisan', and ended up talking past each other.

Parties don't have inherent values at all. They're just factions of people who hang out at the same clubs. Their values swing as the people attending the parties change over time.

I'm part of a large upcomming group on the net that has been pushed into a tiny corner that started with the original net neutrality. Many of these people supported trump, but now are joining in rallying against the FCC change.

This does not include that the new net neutrality we have now is not a true title 2. And has many loop holes inside of it. So what should be the conversation is getting a true title 2 on the books. Not a us versus them. As people I was talking about in the former do not hold the same beliefs of establishment Republicans

> There are near zero crossover votes on either side.

Citation? Because I don't know a single Dem or Rep who endorses removing Net Neutrality (although I think I just read the first comment to say so on HN above).

Literally every republican with a stake (i.e. the FCC board, and those responsible for nominating/confirming them) endorses this policy. It's literally the party line position.

I think this citation needs to go the other way: which republican do you know who have come out in favor of the current net neutrality regime. I honestly can't think of one.

Your original subject is "His core base", which was what I referenced. You are talking about party politicians. In this situation, we may both be correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com