[Upsetter]

pretty sure fcc regs still have to be published in the federal register and opportunity for public comment is still required. i think the commission coming out with a final draft means its time to publish. i could be wrong, but id be surprised.

[BigCliff]

it's not the wired network companies like Comcast that have been the most guilty of meddling in the marketplace. It's the mobile carriers. Hell, Verizon straight-up said no to the first iPhone. Comcast might have throttled Netflix until Netflix paid up, but AT&T initially blocked Google Voice from the iOS App Store and prevented Hangouts and FaceTime video chat from working over cellular unless you bought the right plan. Verizon basically killed Google Wallet by blocking it on the Galaxy Nexus so that it could favor its own Softcard system...

Here's the thing: carriers suck at consumer software. They always have, and they always will. Verizon shouldn't spend a single extra dime developing VZ Navigator; it should shut that down and spend all that money improving its network. AT&T Address Book should be put to a ruthless, speedy death; all that money should go to improving the network. Placing firm net neutrality rules on mobile means that these companies can't just build crap software and block the good stuff from working; they will actually have to compete.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/2/813320 ... neutrality

[Plow]

Hardly seems grounds to let the FCC pass hundreds of pages of regs in secret for something as important to all of us.

It all boils down to this, administration needed some corporation to demonize so they can shoved internet control up our asses. Comcast is just the libs demon de jour. Might be netscape next week.

Anyone seen the new FCC regs yet? Odd for such a transparent government.

You do realize that this is regulation, not a bill or legislature? The FCC doesn't need to permission or public opinion to offer regulation, that is their job function. If the government doesn't like a certain regulation, then they put legislature on the table to change it. See: EPA. The regulations have been up for public viewing since May. Right here:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launche ... n-internet

You should probably learn a little bit about how government works if you are going to have such a staunch opinion of it...

I'm aware of that and believe it was noted earlier in this thread.

Passing regulations (any) by government without public review and comment (not just lobbyist, politicians and donors) is a major fail. It's un-American IMHO. Yes, its the way its done (Bush too) and its wrong.

Anyone here think approving federal regulations without public review and comment is right way to do it? 2 of the 5 FCC goons didn't.

[Plow]

But of course when it was Bush's FCC commisioner passing unviewed reg's without public review, it was ok.

Oh, this changes everything... wait, no it doesn't.

[Plow]

pretty sure fcc regs still have to be published in the federal register and opportunity for public comment is still required. i think the commission coming out with a final draft means its time to publish. i could be wrong, but id be surprised.

Once they're approved its a little late for comment. Measure twice, cut once kind of thing.

[Upsetter]

pretty sure fcc regs still have to be published in the federal register and opportunity for public comment is still required. i think the commission coming out with a final draft means its time to publish. i could be wrong, but id be surprised.

Once they're approved its a little late for comment. Measure twice, cut once kind of thing.

Thats not how it works. And if you read wooly's link you will see the commissions proposed rules are open for public comment for the next four months, which is par for the course with any new set of regs. Read up on how executive rules are passed through the federal register process: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads ... rocess.pdf

[Plow]

I'm aware of the screwed up process, a process only bureaucrats could come up with and one that should be changed (open government and all).

Does anyone seriously think commenting after the fact will have any real affect on the rules?

[BigCliff]

I'm aware of the screwed up process, a process only bureaucrats could come up with and one that should be changed (open government and all).

Does anyone seriously think commenting after the fact will have any real affect on the rules?

Commenting beforehand sure seems to have-

WASHINGTON – More than 3.7 million comments poured into the Federal Communications Commission over the four months that it was seeking public input on its proposal for “Promoting and Protecting the Open Internet,” also known as net neutrality...

Over all, the comments studied were overwhelmingly one-sided. Less than 1 percent were clearly opposed to net neutrality.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/1 ... says/?_r=0

[Upsetter]

Does anyone seriously think commenting after the fact will have any real affect on the rules?

Yep. Its happened quite a lot actually. I think the outpouring of local nebraska resistance to the keystone pipeline was what stymied that for so long. If it was just nutjob enviros who'd stop anything they could, they wouldve lost years ago.

How do public comments affect the final rule?
The 
notice‐and‐comment 
process 
enables 
anyone 
to 
submit 
a 
comment 
on 
any 
part 
of 
the

proposed 
rule.
This 
process 
is 
not 
like 
a 
ballot 
initiative 
or 
an 
up‐or‐down 
vote 
in 
a 
legislature.


An
 agency
 is
 not
 permitted
 to
 base
 its
 final
 rule
 on
 the
 number
 of
 comments in
 support
 of
 the
rule 
over 
those
 in 
opposition 
to 
it. 
At 
the
 end
 of 
the 
process,
the 
agency
 must 
base 
its

reasoning
 and
 conclusions 
on
 the
 rulemaking
 record,
 consisting
 of
 the
 comments,
 scientific

data,
 expert
 opinions,
 and 
facts 
accumulated
 during 
the 
pre‐rule 
and 
proposed 
rule 
stages.


To
 move
 forward
 with
 a
 final
 rule,
 the
 agency
 must 
conclude
 that
 its
 proposed
 solution
 will
 help

accomplish 
the
 goals
 or 
solve
 the
 problems 
identified.
 
It 
must
 also 
consider 
whether
 alternate

solutions 
would
 be 
more
 effective
 or
 cost
 less.


If 
the 
rulemaking
 record
 contains persuasive
 new
 data 
or 
policy 
arguments, 
or 
poses
 difficult

questions
 or
 criticisms,
 the
 agency
 may
 decide 
to
 terminate
 the
 rulemaking.

 Or,
 the
 agency

may
 decide
 to 
continue
 the
 rulemaking 
but
 change 
aspects
 of 
the 
rule to
 reflect 
these
 new

issues.

 If
 the 
changes
 are 
major, 
the 
agency 
may
 publish
 a
 supplemental
 proposed
 rule.

 If 
the

changes
 are 
minor,
or 
a 
logical
 outgrowth
 of
 the
 issues
 and
 solutions
 discussed
 in
 the 
proposed

rules,
 the
 agency 
may
 proceed
 with
 a 
final 
rule.


And Ive seen all these possibilities play themselves out in public lands disputes out here during both the scoping and public comment phases of the rulemaking process.

[BigCliff]

“The Internet Freedom Act” is a House bill intended to destroy newly instituted Net Neutrality rights. And of the bill's 31 co-sponsors, all but two of them received money from a major telecom or its lobby in 2014 alone.

The 29 co-sponsors received over $800,000 from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and their lobby, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ernet.html

Nuff said?

[Plow]

Commenting beforehand sure seems to have-

WASHINGTON – More than 3.7 million comments poured into the Federal Communications Commission over the four months that it was seeking public input on its proposal for “Promoting and Protecting the Open Internet,” also known as net neutrality...

Over all, the comments studied were overwhelmingly one-sided. Less than 1 percent were clearly opposed to net neutrality.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/1 ... says/?_r=0

Net neutrality is great and everybody loves it but do you really think this administration is going to give us that? Remember the affordable health care act (obamacare)? It's anything but affordable and with less healthcare, fucking disaster. Fool me once... you know the rest.

We consumers have some leverage keeping business in line, we have zero leverage keeping government in line.

[Plow]

Does anyone seriously think commenting after the fact will have any real affect on the rules?

Yep. Its happened quite a lot actually. I think the outpouring of local nebraska resistance to the keystone pipeline was what stymied that for so long. If it was just nutjob enviros who'd stop anything they could, they wouldve lost years ago.

It's the way Obama wanted it to swing. He only hears what he wants to hear. Lots of folks screaming for it on the other side and they are ignored. Politicians, all politicians, don't give a fuck what we say unless they agree.