10 ms·
So basically, it doesn't really matter if comments are fake or legitimate, if pai is going to ignore them anyways.
by craftyguy 8y ago
So basically, it doesn't really matter if comments are fake or legitimate, if pai is going to ignore them anyways.
- MBCook 8y agoThey’re also going to drop unofficial complaints against ISPs. You’ll have to pay the $230 to make an official complaint if you think they’re doing something illegal.
- RIMR 8y agoMaking people pay to report illegal activity is just insane. This is literal fascism - and I'm not just being hyperbolic.
- 24gttghh 8y agoI'm not trying to defend this, just providing the FCC's context: >`Complaints filed through the Consumer Complaint Center are categorized as "informal" complaints. There is no fee for filing an informal complaint. If you are not satisfied with the response to your informal complaint, you can file a "formal" complaint. Your formal complaint must be filed within six months of the date of the response to your informal complaint. The current fee for filing a formal complaint is $225.00, but it is subject to change. Formal complaint proceedings are similar to court proceedings. Each party must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the FCC and file documents that address legal issues. Parties filing formal complaints usually are represented by lawyers or experts in communications law and the FCC's procedural rules. No attorneys fees may be awarded.`[0] Question is, does this jive with similar methods of launching court-proceedings in civil-court as an example? [0]https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/205082880?from=button#question_14 https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/2050828...
- nkassis 8y agoOne thing that seems to have changed is informal complaints won't be looked at by people at the FCC but will go directly to the ISPs. Meaning the FCC won't be monitoring for any issues and only care about formal complaints
- rayiner 8y agoIncorrect. Under both the current and revised versions of 47 C.F.R. 1.717, the complaint goes to the FCC; the FCC forwards it to the respondent, and may order it to file a response which either states the complaint has been satisfied, or explains why the carrier cannot or will not do so: > The Commission will forward informal complaints to the appropriate carrier for investigation and may set a due date for the carrier to provide a written response to the informal complaint to the Commission, with a copy to the complainant. The response will advise the Commission of the carrier’s satisfaction of the complaint or of its refusal or inability to do so.
- pishpash 8y agoThe same has been happening with the State AG complaint process, i.e. they've become worthless and toothless. Of course the "respondent" will state the complaint has been satisfied, and by a bot-generated form response, too. Nobody is going to check, and the case will be closed. You have no recourse. US consumers have zero rights because the sheriff is completely in bed with the people they oversee. The CFPB and the paltry legislation passed at the height of the financial crisis are some of the only remaining consumer protection left. The reason why the CFPB had to be set up with a dubious structure under the Fed and an unchecked director is precisely because only a hammer could bring about some semblance of equity. It shouldn't have to be this way to begin with. I don't know why this hasn't turned into a bigger cross-party issue, it affects everyone.
- taurath 8y agoSo its not just $225, its $225 + the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for your law team, to file a complaint to a government agency run by lobbyists of the industry it would be judging. Thats some banana republic shit.
- JohnCrane 8y agoand you are a literal retard
- lainga 8y agoAs they say, Mussolini put coin slots in front of all the police stations.
- toast0 8y agoThankfully, the third amendment prevents this in the US.
- ars 8y agoYou have to pay to file in court. I've always felt that was wrong, but that is how it works, and it's not fascism, so yes, you are being hyperbolic.
- darkstar999 8y agoTaking them to court is a lot different than making a complaint to a regulatory agency whose entire job is enforcement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- paulddraper 8y agoThe formal complaint you are referring to is essentially a court proceeding, where both sides present cases to the FCC.
- briandear 8y agoIt’s actually not literal fascism. Paying to report is wrong, but it’s not even close to fascism. And yes, calling it fascism is hyperbole. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
- s2g 8y agoNo, it's just capitalism in action.
- paulddraper 8y ago> literal fascism - and I'm not just being hyperbolic. High government fees aren't really fascism. They're bureaucracy. Industry-wise, fascism is authoritarian governmental control. [1] By that measure (and it's 100% stupid hyperbole) Net Neutrality is more "fascist" than non-NN. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
- moorhosj 8y agoIf we are taking power away from the Government (elected by citizens to serve citizens) and putting that power into the hands of a few corporations, we are moving towards corporate fascism. See also: Corporate tax breaks at a time of record profits, arguments against universal healthcare or family leave, stagnant national minimium wage, increasing barriers to unionization and weakening bargaining ability, selling public lands to private energy companies, weakening EPA regulations, the for-profit prison system, tying education directly to job training.
- wolco 8y agoThe definition of fascism according to webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. I don't think corporate fascism fits. Corporations would need to use force to suppress you. They would need to control religion. Not sure why the word fascism has come back into common language. We needed a new word to describe Trump but instead we recycled this word.
- moorhosj 8y ago==The definition of fascism according to webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.== Add "to the benefit of corporations and the extremely wealthy" at the end of this definition and you have Corporate Fascism. Who do think is donating the money to these politicians? Corporate Fascism is exactly the new phrase needed to describe what is happening. Your argument was essentially "your phrase doesn't exist" followed by "someone needs to make up a new phrase".
- WillPostForFood 8y agoThat is a literal insult to the millions who have suffered under real fascism.
- kryogen1c 8y agoThe language hyperbole is out of control and tragic. The boy keeps crying wolf, but the wolf will show and murder tens or hundreds of millions of people. Everyone forgets fascism can come from the left, too.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't perpetuate ideological flamewars here, even if someone else posted something excessive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- andybak 8y ago> This is literal fascism - and I'm not just being hyperbolic. reply Tragic that you have enough insight to realise you might be misusing either "literal" or "fascism" and not enough to pull yourself back from the brink... I know "fascism" has been misused to the point of meaninglessness but can we all agree there has to be at least a small amount of - I don't know - death or torture involved - before we wheel out the big guns?
- jerkstate 8y agoHere's a summary of Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto, lifted directly from Wikipedia: Politically, the Manifesto calls for: Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and up; Proportional representation on a regional basis; Voting for women (which was then opposed by most other European nations); Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector; The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown); The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers. In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for: The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers; A minimum wage; The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions; To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants; Reorganization of the railways and the transport sector; Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance; Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55. In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates: Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities; Armaments factories are to be nationalized; A peaceful but competitive foreign policy. In finance, the Manifesto advocates: A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth); The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor; Revision of all contracts for military provisions; The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
- dang 8y agoThis comment broke the HN guidelines badly by throwing extraneous flamebait into the thread. That's gross negligence, and it led to a ridiculous flamewar about fascism. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been breaking the guidelines in other places too (like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17494098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17494098). We ban accounts that do that, so please re-read the rules and use this site as intended from now on.
- dv_dt 8y agoAll that the fee will accomplish is that entities with deep pockets can flood the comments whenever they wish. And there will be fewer other comments to overcome.
- inetknght 8y agoWait, what? Where's info on this?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 8y agoIf you're referring to this article from Ars today, it's misleading: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/ajit-pais-fcc-wants-to-stop-reviewing-your-complaints-unless-you-pay-225 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/ajit-pais-fcc-wa.... Here are the proposed rules: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-351867A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-351867A1.pdf. What Ars is worked up about is footnote 14, which revises 47 CFR 1.717: > 14 We also clarify rule 1.717, which addresses informal Section 208 complaints. See 47 CFR § 1.717. In addition to wording revisions that do not alter the substance of the rule, we delete the phrase “and the Commission’s disposition” from the last sentence of that rule because the Commission’s practice is not to dispose of informal complaints on substantive grounds. Contrary to the Ars article, the FCC is not "drop[ping] unofficial complaints." The current wording suggests that each complaint will result in an investigation and a "disposition" (i.e. formal agency decision). In reality, the FCC does not necessarily start an investigation and reach a formal disposition in response to every complaint. Rather, it handles informal complaints exactly how you'd expect an agency to handle informal complaints--based on the complaints, it may or may not initiate an investigation and an enforcement action. But it is not obliged to investigate and formally dispose of each and every complaint. The wording update simply reflects that. A "formal" complaint is not just an "official" complaint. It is a lawsuit in the FCC: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-1/subpart-E https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-1/subpart-E. The telecommunications provider is required to show up and defend the lawsuit, there are motions, briefing, discovery, etc., and if a violation of the law is found, the respondent can be held liable for damages to the complainant. The filing fee reflects the fact that a formal complaint initiates court-like proceedings in the FCC.
- shmerl 8y agoPai looks for any excuse to stonewall public complaints about monopolistic abuse. No need to whitewash his intentions. It's as corrupt as it gets.
- aplummer 8y agoWhat the heck - if you complain about an ISP in Australia it’s free for you and the ISP gets fined (a small amount even if the complaint isn’t genuine).
- kevin_b_er 8y agoHe will ignore any comments that go against his politics of maximal corporate profit and minimal service to the public citizenry.
- briandear 8y agoI am not a corporate person and I am in the “public citizenry” and I oppose so-called net neutrality. If the public citizenry is unhappy, they are invited to vote. As Obama famously said, elections have consequences. We should be demanding policies that encourage ISP competition instead of demanding policies that would ultimately suppress it.
- Daishiman 8y agoYou totally sound like a corporate shill.
- lists 8y agoExcept it's prohibitively expense to compete in that space hence the regulation.
- root_axis 8y agoOne does not preclude the other. We'll set policies that increase competition among ISPs aside because literally everyone says that they agree with that idea. Moving passed that, what is your specific reasoning for opposing NN, and if you don't mind, could you offer up your definition of NN in practice, just to be sure we're addressing the actual policies and not semantics.
- benlorenzetti 8y agoI agree with you and its annoying when people say you sound like a corporate shill. I don't think it should be federal level government doing net neutrality. I worry about these studies too, because I know my "unique comment" was surrounded by at least a hundred on either side opining the same pro-net neutrality text.
- 8y ago
- testaccount7 8y agoYes
- kanox 8y agoYes, because ignoring comments from internet forums is the right approach.
- Delmania 8y agoRight, this is a poor attempt to save face. Pai was going to repeal net neutrality no matter what, his corporate sponsors/donors/masters demanded that. Now that he's achieved his single goal, now he can pretend to care about everyone else in an attempt to influence the midterm elections.
- pishpash 8y agoOn the one hand, there is the rhetorical question of: Why isn't he impeached for Bribery. On the other hand, he may be acting on his regulatory opinion regardless of bribes, and on that possibility, he doesn't need to heed comments anyway, since they're advisory in nature. Using fake comments as a political shield is unfortunately not a high crime or misdemeanor. Civil officers are political in nature.
- ModernMech 8y ago> Why isn't he impeached for Bribery Who is going to impeach him, exactly? If you haven't noticed, our government is corrupt from the top down. Everyone has their hand in the cookie car, from Trump to Pruitt (well, not anymore but for long enough he did) to Pai. The head of state sets the tone for what is acceptable.
- throwaway5752 8y ago"our government is corrupt from the top down" That's just not true and it doesn't help anything. There are hundreds of thousands to millions of civil servants doing good work at mid/low levels. The top level is as dirty any anything in my lifetime by orders of magnitude.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago>Why isn't he impeached for Bribery. Man, this is reading a lot like Reddit all of a sudden. Citations please?