Hacker News Reader

Comment by DevX101 | Hacker News Reader

> approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines,

Why the fuck are there party lines in the FCC? Or any other regulatory body for that matter?

> Why the fuck are there party lines in the FCC? Or any other regulatory body for that matter?

Because regulators aren't angels that descend from heaven, but people peforming a political function, appointed and confirmed by elected politicians.

Or, more succinctly, because representative democracy.

I think the question was not why there are members of different parties in the FCC, but why do they differ in this vote based on partisan membership? I.e. why would one party find these rules good while the other not? It's as if one likes net neutrality, while the other doesn't.

> It's as if one likes net neutrality, while the other doesn't.

"As if"? For the whole length of the net neutrality policy debate, the support has concentrated in the Democratic Party and the opposition has centered in the Republican Party -- not just on the FCC, but in Congress and everywhere else. The reason the Democratic majority of the FCC keeps trying to find a way to advance Open Internet principles within the framework of existing law that at best addresses the issue indirectly is because neither mostly-Democratic supporters of express FCC authority (or mandate) for net neutrality nor mostly-Republican supporters of expressly prohibiting the FCC from regulating for net neutrality have sufficient support in Congress to pass legislation incorporating those goals and get it signed into law or override a Presidential veto.

Let's rephrase it then. Net neutrality is a very reasonable idea (same way as antitrust regulations are). Why do Republicans oppose it? They like monopolistic abuses on the Internet?

It's quite simple; net neutrality represents regulations on business. Republicans are anti-(business)-regulation, believing that a completely free market will deliver the best result to consumers. Of course, in this case that disregards the reality of 80 years of telecom monopolies (and derivative companies thereof,) i.e. mammoth established players with a history of playing dirty to stomp all others out of the marketplace; it is possible that in a blank slate scenario that regulation-less competition would lead to a good result for consumers, but even that is not a foregone outcome. In short, market idealism.

That's the point. One has to be blind to reality to have such "idealism". They should know better.

The administration gets to nominate commissioners. The Senate confirms them. These are partisan bodies.

The commissioners themselves have theories that fit into party politics as well.

same reason there's party lines inherent in the verdict-deciders of the highest court in the land (blind justice). or in counties/cities where sheriffs are publicly-voted for (to serve and protect). political collusion -- sorry, persuasion -- is the dna of gov't office.

For the same reason US politics in general are such a disaster...money driven lobbying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com