[wwweston]

Invoking the term "deregulation" carries with it the connotation that this is a policy decision. But given the active efforts to avoid engaging with the topic on a policy level made by the FCC in this case, it's obvious that it's not a policy decision at all.

They don't disagree, they just don't care.

And that's before we get to the signs of influence/interest contact points.

[dionidium]

I don't know what to tell you. They do disagree with you. Setting everything else aside -- money and influence in politics, etc -- you really need to start by accepting that there are people who disagree with you in good faith. Not just on this issue, but in general.

If you can't even do that, then I'm not sure there's really any conversation that's likely to be fruitful.

[wwweston]

> you really need to start by accepting that there are people who disagree with you in good faith.

Certainly, such people exist. I respect them and even enjoy talking to them sometimes.

But that's off topic. We're talking about the current/recent incarnation of the Republican Party. The idea that they believe, "in good faith", in deregulation implies that they have some kind of tested framework for believing it, that they've actually spent any time at all observing and thinking out issues where they intersect with relevant policy areas. And when it comes to how Net Neutrality debate (and now, recent policy changes), there is no evidence that's happened, and absolutely ample evidence of bad faith scattered all over both the process and the transparently poor arguments deployed to give a pretense of engagement.

Or what, exactly, does "good faith" really mean in your mind? Is honest belief enough? If I were to say, honestly believing it, "I think the earth is flat, not round" or "I think the gold standard has been behind the most stable and prosperous economies," or "I think a hot air balloon is a reasonable way to provide transport between the earth's surface and the moon," would my honest belief be enough to really give grant me "good faith?"

Also, why should anyone "set aside" money and influence in politics, particularly on this issue where the fingerprints are pretty clearly visible?

[dionidium]

"Also, why should anyone "set aside" money and influence in politics, particularly on this issue where the fingerprints are pretty clearly visible?"

I'm not asking you to set it aside forever and in all contexts. I'm asking you to set it aside when evaluating the claims of Republicans against net neutrality, because it seems to be blocking you from accepting that they genuinely and in good faith disagree with you.

[sheepmullet]

> And when it comes to how Net Neutrality debate (and now, recent policy changes), there is no evidence that's happened

Yes there was.

They are working on the rule of thumb that we shouldn't have a regulation unless there is significant evidence that it is needed.

And the truth is there is not a lot of evidence it is required.

[raisedbyninjas]

There is plenty of evidence that regulation is required. Even before yesterday there is a laundry list of violations. Verizon has even explicitly stated in court that the neutrality rules are what is preventing their plans to block websites that don't pay their tolls.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science...

https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip...

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a679f360-9890...

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/iphone-att-skype/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go...

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/verizon-tethering-fcc/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/23/technology/att-facetime/inde...

https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-pla...

[matwood]

> They don't disagree, they just don't care.

Except this just isn't true. In NN in particular, the GOP tried to push legislation through, but the Dems only wanted Title II as the method. The disagreement is really less about NN and more about how to accomplish NN.