Hacker News Reader

> why risk the FCC getting involved?

In national communications policy?

> Also, can anyone honestly see rates being reduced because of this?

Prices are pretty much an orthogonal issue to net neutrality. If you don't have a source/destination neutral network, it's possible you won't be able to buy the services such a network supports at any price.

> The FCC is made up of unelected officials

I think it's reasonably clear that doesn't mean they're unaccountable. Congress or the President can heavily influence policy if they screw it up.

But strangely, at the moment, they seem to be doing policy better than most elected officials. :/

I agree, it is national communications policy. But why not try getting a new statute passed that isn't based on telephones from the switch-operator era? It just seems to me that it's being pressed so hard because it's such a "fad" issue right now. Most people honestly don't even have a clue what the FCC or "net neutrality" is. Sure, the FCC is accountable to the President (ultimately), and to congressional oversight committees, but they don't have to worry about being thrown out of office for any decisions they make.

"Last-mile" broadband need-not be a 'national' issue except to the extent national politicians want to grandstand about it.

The options at every location are different... from city-to-city and even block-to-block. Some local broadband markets are competitive; others aren't. Creating options requires specific locally-adapted work – new wires, new antennas, new hardware. Three regulators signing-into-law new regulations adds no capacity, only new constraints on the people doing the real work.

One set of national service-shaping rules for all, because some localities have limited choices, is an overreach that doesn't match the problem.

"Why not let our elected representatives take care of this?"

Uh, because they can't be trusted farther than they can be thrown?

Seriously, between the gerrymandering, the closed primaries, and the unlimited private election finance they've done as astonishing amount to insulate themselves from the wrath of voters they screw on behalf of super-rich special interests. And in cases where they do get their comeuppance, the revolving door means they can count on well-paid sinecures after leaving "public" service.

None of this suggests that leaving broad policy choices to the F.C.C. is optimal. Indeed, having a less-corrupt Congress that could be relied on to represent the people would be vastly preferable. But that's not what we've got. Indeed, under normal circumstances, the only time popular will is taken into consideration is when it happens to coincide with the wishes of the wealthiest.

(Depressing details on that phenomena here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0...)

This development with the F.C.C. represents a remarkable and welcome exception to that norm. Not coincidentally, it's because the Internet represents a means for marshaling and focusing democratic will in a way that hasn't been as undermined as severely as the ballot box.

These circumstances have been happening since the creation of the United States. We act like things move far slower now than they ever have. The government was made to move slow on controversial issues.

Still, the closest thing we have to a democracy is not the FCC, it is our local/state/federal election process. Sure, there's money involved -- too much in fact. Push your representatives, they might listen if enough people let them know. There are turnovers in seats every two years on both sides of the aisle because of their bad decisions.

"These circumstances have been happening since the creation of the United States."

No dude. Just...no.

Gerrymandering has existed for ages but only in recent years - with the advent of seriously high-powered data mining - has it had anything remotely close to the influence it now possesses. Citizens United (which did a major number on campaign finance) passed in 2010. Key sections of the Voting Rights Act were overturned last June, less than a year ago. As far as powerfully damaging structural changes go, these are all very recent events. Your position is like saying "computers have always existed" while ignoring the differences between an abacus and a Xenon chip.

And saying "seats turnover in the House ever year" is even more meaningless. Intelligent people look at the rate of turnover - which is at record lows and declining relentlessly and not because people are satisfied. Indeed, approval ratings for Congress are setting record lows as well. The reason these trends don't correct each other is because Congress has - in recent years - secured an unprecedented level of detachment from the will of the public. This, in turn has become a major factor in driving inequality to unprecedented levels.

On the off-chance that you're genuinely interested in the relations between regulatory capture, extreme concentrations of wealth, and the proliferation of rentier economies, I can strongly recommend "Why Nations Fail" by MIT's Daron Acemoglu. One of the essential point he makes is that Inclusive economies (i.e., the good kind) can often give way to Extractive economies (the bad kind) following periods of retrograde policy change not unlike the ones we're presently witnessing.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp...

In regards to "circumstances", I was specifically referring to the gridlock in Congress (since we're posting links, here's one: http://blog.oup.com/2013/10/federalist-papers-government-gri...), not gerrymandering; which is prevalent in heavily GOP and heavily Dem states. I think gerrymandering is a little off-topic here, so I'll defer for now :-)

The truth is, I think we might agree more than you think. The problem with the last thirty or so years in politics is that politicians (and by default, those they appoint) and special interest groups (corporations, labor unions, etc.) have created together what's we often referred to as "crony capitalism." Do you really think that the FCC and the current administration are doing this "for the people?" No, they're pandering to the tech block (Google, Facebook, eBay, etc.). I don't see that is being too much different than pandering to the big ISP's.

Capitalism without a sense of morality will itself turn into an oligarchy, as we see now. Thus, people seek more government regulation, which then just breeds more interference in individual freedoms.

This comment is as if it's straight out of 2009. Have you followed anything related to TWC/Comcast/Verizon over the last 5 years? We've TRIED to let the Executive Branch handle this and they produced SOPA/PIPA. We TRIED to let the ISPs work on their own with little regulation and we get 3 Mbps speeds in areas with no competition.