Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryoshon | Hacker News Reader

This isn't enough. We can't just keep shouting at them and hoping that they'll do as we say-- the FCC does not work for us, it works for the cable companies firstly and the USG secondly. We have to escalate the situation substantially and threaten their funding/power/political structure by bribing the correct people or else we won't get anywhere.

EDIT: Of course I've left the FCC a comment, made a phone call, and talked to my political representatives (in addition to bitching at the president) about this issue anyway. I don't expect that my word is worth anything without a bribe, though.

View on HN

You're right. It isn't enough. But neither is silence.

It's certainly worth my 95 seconds to participate in this democracy in some fashion. Wouldn't you be outraged that the FCC didn't listen to you when you spoke, rather than being outraged that they didn't listen to you when you were silent?

http://news.ubc.ca/2013/11/08/slacktivism-liking-on-facebook...

This was an interesting analysis, I read about it in Science News. It "feels" like something was done when it wasn't. I applaud your active participation.

I met one of the FCC lawyers at a conference two years ago and asked him to include some of Sam's and others very cogent talking points into the "debate." And I continue to work on my conceptual 'the last mile is a municipal infrastructure problem, not a private sector problem' pitch to local government.

> We can't just keep shouting at them and hoping that they'll do as we say-- the FCC does not work for us, it works for the cable companies firstly and the USG secondly.

You mean, the cable companies that (along with the telephone companies) keep suing the FCC because it keeps issuing pro-neutrality regulations that those companies oppose?

Understand that the FCC has been getting slapped around in court by cable and telecom companies for over a decade. This rule making did not just come out of nowhere.

I think that the FCC wants to implement some form of net neutrality but feels hamstrung by legislation and court precedent. So collecting a ton of comments is their way to demonstrate that there is huge demand for a rule. This will either back them up in court after they issue the new rule, or it help them to persuade Congress to update the 1996 Act.

>bribing the correct people or else we won't get anywhere.

I agree, but the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line, and they're already bribing politicians. Can we out-spend them?

No, but it's the only way we'll win this game while still playing by the legal and social rules.

Not enough people care, and even if they do care they probably don't have enough money, even when combined together. With some products, it might be possible to inflict economic damage against our enemies by boycotting and hopefully reducing the amount of money they have to lobby, but that's nearly impossible with the monopolies that the ISPs have built.

We have to try, though-- if only to save ourselves from hypocrisy.

> the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line

There's multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increases on the line on both sides of this debate. Sure, there's the cable/telcos on one side -- but there's (among others) the Internet Association companies on the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com