<story><title>FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote</title><url>http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/26/fcc-passes-strict-net-neutrality-regulations-on-3-2-vote/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mehwoot</author><text>&lt;i&gt;I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or we&amp;#x27;re all cynical assholes.  Just possibly.</text></item><item><author>ertdfgcb</author><text>I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. When there&amp;#x27;s a post that says &amp;quot;we solved this problem&amp;quot;, a lot of people here (me included) think &amp;quot;great, what&amp;#x27;s the next problem to solve&amp;quot;. The focus is on &amp;quot;the next problem to solve&amp;quot; more than the &amp;quot;great&amp;quot;, sometimes to the degree that the &amp;quot;great&amp;quot; is completely ignored. I don&amp;#x27;t think this is necessarily a &lt;i&gt;bad&lt;/i&gt; thing, but it can get grating. It reminds me a lot of a part of the essay &amp;quot;How to ask questions the smart way&amp;quot;[0] by Eric Raymond:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give offence. Rather, it&amp;#x27;s the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not quite the same, but it comes from the same cut-through-the-bullshit attitude.&lt;p&gt;[0]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.catb.org&amp;#x2F;~esr&amp;#x2F;faqs&amp;#x2F;smart-questions.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>ChrisAntaki</author><text>There does seem to be a bias towards overly worded critical comments.</text></item><item><author>bobbles</author><text>The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like &amp;quot;yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes every year&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>grecy</author><text>There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly.&lt;p&gt;Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets.&lt;p&gt;Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and&amp;#x2F;or it should be mandated that competition is much easier.&lt;p&gt;Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1?&lt;p&gt;Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.</text></item><item><author>xnull2guest</author><text>Unfortunately the Net Neutrality &amp;#x27;debate&amp;#x27; was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn&amp;#x27;t for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set &amp;quot;Goldilocks&amp;quot; regulation so that it&amp;#x27;s easy for small and new ISPs to compete on both price and service. Additional laws preventing corporations from discriminating by content, protocol, or customer may also have been nice, but would have been that extra nice something.&lt;p&gt;Are Comcast and Time Warner going to be somehow less shitty now? Are they going to monitor our communications less? Are they going to provide better prices and better customer service? Are they going to cease fraudulently charging customers? No.&lt;p&gt;Of the two options the FCC chose the better one. But it&amp;#x27;s America&amp;#x27;s fatal flaw that all problems have two political solutions, neither of which address real issues or people&amp;#x27;s needs.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Thimothy</author><text>I&amp;#x27;d rather &amp;quot;Idealistic Perfectionist&amp;quot;, thank you.</text></comment>
<story><title>FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote</title><url>http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/26/fcc-passes-strict-net-neutrality-regulations-on-3-2-vote/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mehwoot</author><text>&lt;i&gt;I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or we&amp;#x27;re all cynical assholes.  Just possibly.</text></item><item><author>ertdfgcb</author><text>I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. When there&amp;#x27;s a post that says &amp;quot;we solved this problem&amp;quot;, a lot of people here (me included) think &amp;quot;great, what&amp;#x27;s the next problem to solve&amp;quot;. The focus is on &amp;quot;the next problem to solve&amp;quot; more than the &amp;quot;great&amp;quot;, sometimes to the degree that the &amp;quot;great&amp;quot; is completely ignored. I don&amp;#x27;t think this is necessarily a &lt;i&gt;bad&lt;/i&gt; thing, but it can get grating. It reminds me a lot of a part of the essay &amp;quot;How to ask questions the smart way&amp;quot;[0] by Eric Raymond:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give offence. Rather, it&amp;#x27;s the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not quite the same, but it comes from the same cut-through-the-bullshit attitude.&lt;p&gt;[0]: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.catb.org&amp;#x2F;~esr&amp;#x2F;faqs&amp;#x2F;smart-questions.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>ChrisAntaki</author><text>There does seem to be a bias towards overly worded critical comments.</text></item><item><author>bobbles</author><text>The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like &amp;quot;yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes every year&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>grecy</author><text>There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly.&lt;p&gt;Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets.&lt;p&gt;Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and&amp;#x2F;or it should be mandated that competition is much easier.&lt;p&gt;Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1?&lt;p&gt;Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.</text></item><item><author>xnull2guest</author><text>Unfortunately the Net Neutrality &amp;#x27;debate&amp;#x27; was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn&amp;#x27;t for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set &amp;quot;Goldilocks&amp;quot; regulation so that it&amp;#x27;s easy for small and new ISPs to compete on both price and service. Additional laws preventing corporations from discriminating by content, protocol, or customer may also have been nice, but would have been that extra nice something.&lt;p&gt;Are Comcast and Time Warner going to be somehow less shitty now? Are they going to monitor our communications less? Are they going to provide better prices and better customer service? Are they going to cease fraudulently charging customers? No.&lt;p&gt;Of the two options the FCC chose the better one. But it&amp;#x27;s America&amp;#x27;s fatal flaw that all problems have two political solutions, neither of which address real issues or people&amp;#x27;s needs.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>asdkl234890</author><text>I think it&amp;#x27;s because we are pedantic. In a pedantic way no more world hunger, but people still die in car crashes, is correct. Pedantically correct.</text></comment>