[product50]

Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.

[khawkins]

It's for this reason that I cannot follow this debate anymore. Every time this debate comes up buzzwords get thrown around and people take sides but the issues keep moving.

From what I read in the comments, these rules make all packets equal in terms of prioritization. If that's the case, then Net Neutrality has won, right? Can we start a new debate to work on the other problems?

[adventured]

You're referring to HN as though it's one person.

There's wide disagreement over net neutrality.

There's wide disagreement over allowing the FCC to pass a large framework for regulating the Internet without allowing the public to see what's in it.

It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it. Recognizing that fact, is not cynical.

[lkbm]

> It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it.

Are you outraged at every FCC regulation? They're pretty much all passed before publication.

[adventured]

Yes, I find any government regulations that pass in a clandestine fashion without allowing the public to first have an opportunity to know what is being passed, to be truly vile. Who wouldn't be bothered by that approach to government? It's the kind of mentality that leads to laws like the Patriot Act.

It's the: we have to pass the bill, before we can know what's in it, form of government authoritarianism.

When it comes to not publishing what they're doing, I'm outraged in proportion to the scale or impact of the action. This was an extraordinarily large regulatory action, impacting the best vehicle for free speech that has ever existed.

The same government that has spent the last decade massively abusing Americans when it comes to privacy, just got handed regulatory keys to the Internet, without the right of the public to first review the new regulations.

How could a person not be outraged by that?

[strictnein]

You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet regulations and not mess things up?

I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons, especially in regards to technical issues.

The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net Neutrality for everyone!" bit.

[mfringel]

What leads you to believe that it's a fairly simple change?

[daughart]

The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact.

EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

[O____________O]

The Affordable Healthcare Act was ... created by morons

Really? I thought it was drafted by very clever, largely self-interested people.

I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.

Good luck with that. Sounds like a great way to eventually find yourself banned.

[daughart]

The morons part was just me being facetious. Since I edited my comment I went from -3 to 0, so apparently people agree. I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned, or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days and I've been a member for over 600 days. I've never actually heard of banning here.

[O____________O]

I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned

You didn't do that. You wrote snark about downvotes.

or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days

What, you think they charge for accounts around here, or something? Why in the world would you think I haven't used other accounts before? If you made it to 600 days and haven't heard of the slow-down (whatever it's called) or hell-banning, then you haven't been paying much attention.

[72deluxe]

Not being in the USA, could you summarise the Affordable Healthcare Act and the problems with it?

[daughart]

Unfortunately, not really. You might know it better as Obamacare, though. It created health insurance exchanges that are subsidized for low income people and reformed other aspects of medical reimbursement and regulations governing health insurance. The aspects you think are problematic will depend on whether you're criticizing it from the right (it increased government involvement, and the complexity of the healthcare system, etc.) or the left (that it gave private insurance companies too much power, wasn't universal, and didn't fundamentally address some of the problems driving cost increases, etc.). Either way, the data shows that healthcare costs are growing more slowly after implementation and that more people are insured than were in the past.

[72deluxe]

Thanks. Where does the subsidisation come from?