3 ms·

These consultations are just legally-mandated hoops that the regulators jump through. The fact that you or another individual put forward an interesting or impo

by nickff 6y ago

These consultations are just legally-mandated hoops that the regulators jump through. The fact that you or another individual put forward an interesting or important comment really doesn’t matter at all, no matter what side you’re on. To be clear, I don't believe Wheeler's statements about his motive for changing course; I think he changed because the administration believed it would be politically advantageous.

betterunix2 6y ago
I disagree. Comments cited by the FCC's final report and decision are part of a permanent public record that can be scrutinized, including in lawsuits (such as the one filed by the EFF) and by politicians considering legislative changes in response to regulatory failures. Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details). Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).
- nickff 6y ago
  I think the vast majority of regulators really care, and almost none are paid shills doing it for the money. It seems they're happy to discuss the academic nuances of their positions, but vanishingly unlikely to switch sides.
- austinshea 6y ago
  This is not accurate, and it feels like it is the only clear detail provided in your post: Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).

by nickff 6y ago

betterunix2 6y ago

I disagree. Comments cited by the FCC's final report and decision are part of a permanent public record that can be scrutinized, including in lawsuits (such as the one filed by the EFF) and by politicians considering legislative changes in response to regulatory failures. Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details). Also, it may seem hard to believe, but some regulators do actually care and they do pay attention to expert comments that the FCC (or whoever) receives. Sometimes they will invite the author of a well-research comment to meet with their staff and discuss the issue in more depth. The system is not as completely corrupted by money as people sometimes claim (not that there is no corruption at all; it is almost obvious that deep-pocketed corporations have outsized influence in these processes).

nickff 6y ago
I think the vast majority of regulators really care, and almost none are paid shills doing it for the money. It seems they're happy to discuss the academic nuances of their positions, but vanishingly unlikely to switch sides.
austinshea 6y ago
This is not accurate, and it feels like it is the only clear detail provided in your post: Ajit Pai was forced to publicly dismiss comments containing only facts related to the technical details of the Internet, which made it harder for the FCC to defend its decision in court (as they are supposed to consider those technical details).