No need to ascribe to astroturfing that which is likely just someone regurgitating talk radio propaganda. I find it prohibitively unlikely that your siblings have any esoteric knowledge of telecom laws. One says "read the law", I did and it flatly contradicted his other claims.

This is a very peculiar tone to use in describing a detail-oriented fact-based discussion. I didn't know _anything_, if the other comments didn't help contextualize this I'd not get much value from the story at all.

If you feel like there's astroturfing abuse going on on HN, we'd appreciate links at [email protected] so we can investigate. It's hard to run across a comment like this in a large thread and have any idea what you're specifically referring to.

It's also a breach of HN's civility rule to insinuate astroturfing by commenters you disagree with—that trope is far more often (probably 100x more often) a below-the-belt rhetorical move than it is an accurate assessment of others' behavior. Though the latter does happen.

Or another interpretation is that a tech news site like HN has many people who regularly and closely follow policy and regulatory developments in Telecom, cable and the FCC.

That's certainly another possibility, though it seems some of them are either totally brand new (IE < 12 hours) , or been around forever and never posted in any of those types of discussions previously, but suddenly are first to comment on this one with, like i said, very well prepared comments and quotes and links to things from lobbying organizations that strongly support the policy position taken here.

I feel like i'm allowed to find that a little odd.

But yeah, you are right, it could be that they just decided, this second, this is the place they wanted to jump in first.

I agree on the general feeling. On one hand, I don't have any particular reason to think that these folks are shills. On the other hand, rayiner's classic product line "Here's why Your Biases and Suppositions about Telecom Policy are Ill-informed Garbage" has proven perfectly suitable, so why take a chance on Brand X?

Admittedly I did not look at any profile information. That is certainly very odd I agree. This was not at all how I interpreted your original post. Maybe inform the moderator? If this is true it would certainly be a disturbing development.

Haha, nope I'm just a normal person who listens to that podcast on the way to work and did some internet searching to dig up his dissent. Maybe I need a more popular hobby? I feel like more of us should be reading the background information instead of ad hominem accusations of astroturfing.

Do you care to refute the description of that podcast you referenced as a lobbyist think tank?

No I don't care to.

First, its an ad hominem attack on credibility which while sometimes useful does not refute the central points that Pai made. "If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?"[1]

Second, I have no clue who funds them or why.

Third, they really do have a great podcast about the intersection of technology and policy (Uber, AirBnb, self driving cars). Specifically the one on bringing back supersonic airplanes is really cool. [2]

[1]http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html [2]http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/139-make-america-boom-again...

Ad hominems that call to question the credibility of the argument's source are non-fallacious and thus perfectly valid in debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reas...

"First, its an ad hominem attack on credibility which while sometimes useful does not refute the central points that Pai made."

First, your messaging on this is confused. Since how is it both ad-hominem and "sometimes useful". By definition, ad-hominem is not useful. So it's one or the other.

Second, I believe i directly refuted each one, actually. We should in fact, be subsidizing 1/3rd of the households broadband if that's what it takes to get broadband for the categories of people i listed. Especially when Pai's alternative is "encourage investment", aka give AT&T or whoever another 100 million to do nothing with. He doesn't actually give a real plan, just a magic thought that we'll somehow "encourage investment", ignoring that literally none of these companies want to be investing.

Heck, they even say that in their investor filings, which he apparently doesn't bother to read. Nowhere do they say "hey, we really want to provide rural broadband, but are held back by regulation". Instead, they said "We don't think rural broadband is worth it for us, but we want to make sure no one else gets a foothold, so we are going to do what we can stop them from doing it any other way than paying us high prices".

Don't worry though, i'm sure magically, his "investment encouragement" will change the literal written down plans and presentations of the large telecoms.

Also, it doesn't seem to apply to municipalities, since he's strongly against any of these rural communities being self-supporting by starting their own rural networks. How strange that is. you think he'd be all for it, since it means the government doesn't subsidize them anymore. That's what he said he wants! Apparently people investing is not okay, but companies, that's awesome!

It's also strange techfreedom don't seem supportive of this, for an organization dedicated to "tech freedom", it apparently doesn't mean for people.

Meanwhile, Pai lives in a mythical world where they are desperately trying to provide large scale broadband at low prices, and sadly stymied at every turn simply that doesn't exist.

But really, he's not an idiot. He knows this already. He's not even really that malicious. He just wants something he can do that is business friendly so he can declare victory and go be a million dollar telecom lobbyist like all the others. I just wish he didn't play the game along the way. Because that's what would make me really respect him.

But hey, you can classify my argument however you want, because i already knew i wasn't going to convince you.

You did a nice job on me, however.

No; not interesting; a coincidence.

Any actionable claims?