3 ms·

No, actually. If comments are largely against what a regulatory body is proposing to do, it can be used in court against the regulatory body in court to block

by ep103 9y ago

No, actually. If comments are largely against what a regulatory body is proposing to do, it can be used in court against the regulatory body in court to block the action. That just very, very rarely happens. When captured, regulatory agencies tend not to try to pass measures that very obviously go against public opinion, or are too complex to arise public wrath. This is a special situation that's only happening due to arrogance of the Trump administration, and the fact that he simply does not care about appealing to voters outside his base. If and When this passes, it will be immediately challenged in court, and this will be one of the things brought against the FCC. That's why the FCC conspired with ISPs to flood their own public opinion pages with comments from ISPs several months ago. Again though, this is all not normal. Its a damn important thing to remember in Alabama and in 2018, however. What I haven't been able to find any good articles on, however, is how strong those safeguards actually are.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> This is a special situation that's only happening due to arrogance of the Trump administration Pai was nominated by Obama on McConnell's recommendation [1]. Trump only elevated him to Chairman. I'm curious about his personal motivations. Is it as simple as him having served as associate general counsel at Verizon? Is it a legalistic interpretation, that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate this? Or about the role of government in general? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai
- umanwizard 9y ago
  It’s possible that he actually believes Net Neutrality is bad policy. I’m for net neutrality but I at least recognize that it’s possible to disagree in good faith.
  - jquery 9y ago
    I appreciate that. Reddit would have me believe anyone who is for market solutions to internet concerns is some sort of total anarchist who wants to burn down everything we have. I want to note that NN is something we've only never quite had for 2 years, and for the rest of the history of the internet we did not have.
    - ep103 9y ago
      That's not actually true. NN is something we've had since the foundation of the internet. The FCC has only been enforcing it the current legal framework for the last two years. Prior to 2 years ago, the FCC enforced NN without stipulating that ISPs were classified as "Title 2" communications services. Because ISPs really, really didn't want to be classified as Title 2s, whenever the FCC asked them to change their practices and thereby enforce net neutrality, the ISPs nearly always conceeded. Two years ago, Verizon refused to do so, and the matter went to court. Verizon argued that unless the FCC explicitly classified ISPs as Title 2 communications services, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to enforce NN the way they had been for the previous 20 years. The court agreed. Verizon was banking on the fact that, quite simply, they had made enough donations to Washington that the FCC wouldn't be willing to reclassify, and NN would die a quiet death. But then a giant public backlash happened, and Thomas Wheeler and the two Democrats realized they DID have political support for Title 2 reclassification, and they did exactly that. So for the last two years the FCC has been enforcing NN the way it always has been before. So in short, no, NN is what we've always had. Removing NN would be a MAJOR change to how the internet is regulated. And while I am all for free market solutions, we can't have free market solutions for last mile ISPs, when last mile ISPs have local monopolies on (I've read as high as) 90% of the US. If you both remove NN, and allow ISPs to continue being regional monopolies, you haven't created a free market, you've just hurt the people and the economy.
      - jquery 9y ago
        Tl;dr we didn’t have NN but we didn’t need it and now we do because. The FTC and FCC can still enforce anticompetitive regulations. This is so much FUD.
        ep103 9y ago
        I don't understand how you read my comment, and came to the exact opposite conclusion to what I was saying. What I literally just said was that we have had NN for the last 20 years. The exact legal definition for how the FCC enforces NN changed 2 years ago, but the fact that they continued enforcing NN did not. If Ajit Pai gets his way with this vote, the FCC will no longer be allowed to enforce NN. This would be the first time in 20 years that the FCC would not be able to enforce NN, which has never happened before.
  - convolvatron 9y ago
    it is. I can't recall seeing a well reasoned argument against it, but one can presume there is one. but this process seem pretty perfunctory. in this corner the open exchange of ideas and the free market, and in the other...the idea that if we allow service providers the ability to package and toll all the content in the world, somehow that will be better for all of us. maybe this decision is too important to delegate to appointed commissioners.
    - raarts 9y ago
      Here's one: getting rid of net neutrality increases the freedom of ISP's to monetize their control of your internet connection.
- ep103 9y ago
  A lot of people are asking this on the various forums, but is misunderstands what actually happened. Many of the major regulatory bodies work in the same way. At the top of the body, there is a board of political appointees. For the FCC, there are 5 commissioners. Of these 5 Commissioners, 2 are always Democrats, and 2 are always Republicans. That last one, the chair of the committee is always the current sitting President's choice. This is done this way, to keep some stability among the various administration heads across washington. So during Obama's term, a Republican chair opened up on the commission when Meredith Baker resigned to lobby for NBC. That meant a Republican needed to be appointed to the commission, so Obama asked Mitch McConnell for Mitch's recommendation, and Mitch chose Ajit Pai. When Trump took office, the sitting chair of the commission Thomas Wheeler (Obama's nominee) resigned, and Trump elevated Ajit Pai. Trump then filled Ajit Pai's Republican seat with another Republican, and now the board is majority Republican. So Ajit Pai was not Obama's recommendation. Ajit Pai was Mitch McConnel's choice for the then open Republican Chair on the FCC Commission. Its a little strange, but this is traditionally how its always been done. Now as to your other question: this last sentence is just conjecture, but we know from the Russia investigations that Trump had a tendency to demand loyalty pledges from his appointees, so I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised to find that Ajit Pai is marching so steadfastly towards this single policy agenda, despite all of the obvious flack and harm it is incurring on him and the nation in general.
shostack 9y ago
Will it go into effect while the court battle is going on? Or will it be put on hold until a decision is reached?

by ep103 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> This is a special situation that's only happening due to arrogance of the Trump administration Pai was nominated by Obama on McConnell's recommendation [1]. Trump only elevated him to Chairman. I'm curious about his personal motivations. Is it as simple as him having served as associate general counsel at Verizon? Is it a legalistic interpretation, that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate this? Or about the role of government in general? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai

umanwizard 9y ago
It’s possible that he actually believes Net Neutrality is bad policy. I’m for net neutrality but I at least recognize that it’s possible to disagree in good faith.
- jquery 9y ago
  I appreciate that. Reddit would have me believe anyone who is for market solutions to internet concerns is some sort of total anarchist who wants to burn down everything we have. I want to note that NN is something we've only never quite had for 2 years, and for the rest of the history of the internet we did not have.
  - ep103 9y ago
    That's not actually true. NN is something we've had since the foundation of the internet. The FCC has only been enforcing it the current legal framework for the last two years. Prior to 2 years ago, the FCC enforced NN without stipulating that ISPs were classified as "Title 2" communications services. Because ISPs really, really didn't want to be classified as Title 2s, whenever the FCC asked them to change their practices and thereby enforce net neutrality, the ISPs nearly always conceeded. Two years ago, Verizon refused to do so, and the matter went to court. Verizon argued that unless the FCC explicitly classified ISPs as Title 2 communications services, the FCC shouldn't be allowed to enforce NN the way they had been for the previous 20 years. The court agreed. Verizon was banking on the fact that, quite simply, they had made enough donations to Washington that the FCC wouldn't be willing to reclassify, and NN would die a quiet death. But then a giant public backlash happened, and Thomas Wheeler and the two Democrats realized they DID have political support for Title 2 reclassification, and they did exactly that. So for the last two years the FCC has been enforcing NN the way it always has been before. So in short, no, NN is what we've always had. Removing NN would be a MAJOR change to how the internet is regulated. And while I am all for free market solutions, we can't have free market solutions for last mile ISPs, when last mile ISPs have local monopolies on (I've read as high as) 90% of the US. If you both remove NN, and allow ISPs to continue being regional monopolies, you haven't created a free market, you've just hurt the people and the economy.
    - jquery 9y ago
      Tl;dr we didn’t have NN but we didn’t need it and now we do because. The FTC and FCC can still enforce anticompetitive regulations. This is so much FUD.
      - ep103 9y ago
        I don't understand how you read my comment, and came to the exact opposite conclusion to what I was saying. What I literally just said was that we have had NN for the last 20 years. The exact legal definition for how the FCC enforces NN changed 2 years ago, but the fact that they continued enforcing NN did not. If Ajit Pai gets his way with this vote, the FCC will no longer be allowed to enforce NN. This would be the first time in 20 years that the FCC would not be able to enforce NN, which has never happened before.
- convolvatron 9y ago
  it is. I can't recall seeing a well reasoned argument against it, but one can presume there is one. but this process seem pretty perfunctory. in this corner the open exchange of ideas and the free market, and in the other...the idea that if we allow service providers the ability to package and toll all the content in the world, somehow that will be better for all of us. maybe this decision is too important to delegate to appointed commissioners.
  - raarts 9y ago
    Here's one: getting rid of net neutrality increases the freedom of ISP's to monetize their control of your internet connection.
ep103 9y ago
A lot of people are asking this on the various forums, but is misunderstands what actually happened. Many of the major regulatory bodies work in the same way. At the top of the body, there is a board of political appointees. For the FCC, there are 5 commissioners. Of these 5 Commissioners, 2 are always Democrats, and 2 are always Republicans. That last one, the chair of the committee is always the current sitting President's choice. This is done this way, to keep some stability among the various administration heads across washington. So during Obama's term, a Republican chair opened up on the commission when Meredith Baker resigned to lobby for NBC. That meant a Republican needed to be appointed to the commission, so Obama asked Mitch McConnell for Mitch's recommendation, and Mitch chose Ajit Pai. When Trump took office, the sitting chair of the commission Thomas Wheeler (Obama's nominee) resigned, and Trump elevated Ajit Pai. Trump then filled Ajit Pai's Republican seat with another Republican, and now the board is majority Republican. So Ajit Pai was not Obama's recommendation. Ajit Pai was Mitch McConnel's choice for the then open Republican Chair on the FCC Commission. Its a little strange, but this is traditionally how its always been done. Now as to your other question: this last sentence is just conjecture, but we know from the Russia investigations that Trump had a tendency to demand loyalty pledges from his appointees, so I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised to find that Ajit Pai is marching so steadfastly towards this single policy agenda, despite all of the obvious flack and harm it is incurring on him and the nation in general.

shostack 9y ago

Will it go into effect while the court battle is going on? Or will it be put on hold until a decision is reached?