6 ms·

> Safeguard National Security – The Commission will have the ability to revoke the authorizations of foreign-owned entities who pose a threat to national securi

> Safeguard National Security – The Commission will have the ability to revoke the authorizations of foreign-owned entities who pose a threat to national security to operate broadband networks in the U.S. The Commission has previously exercised this authority under section 214 of the Communications Act to revoke the operating authorities of four Chinese state-owned carriers to provide voice services in the U.S. Any provider without section 214 authorization for voice services must now also cease any fixed or mobile broadband service operations in the United States. That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok.

pdabbadabba 2y ago
> That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok. This is just a press release. The actual decision is more than 400 pages long and will come out in the next few days. Here's the draft of the order released three weeks ago: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf (Of course, parts of this will inevitably be vague as well.) The timing is almost certainly a coincidence. They started the process of adopting these rules as soon as they could after democrats regained a majority of seats on the FCC last year and got them done as fast as they could.
- reaperman 2y ago
  I'm not sure that's the order itself or just a very detailed "fact sheet" about the orde. It seems like it references the content of the order in great detail, allowing someone to figure it out, but I don't see the raw text of the rule there unless I just don't understand what FCC rules look like. I read a lot of FTC rules and court documents, but this the first time I'm looking for the full text of something the FCC voted on or was something close to it (like an earlier version of the exact document they voted on).
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf
    - reaperman 2y ago
      Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.
      - nobody9999 2y ago
        >Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave. No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document. Or are you unable to read past the first line of the first page?
        reaperman 2y ago
        Regarding the last line of your post, you may want to spend some time reading the HN commenting guidelines[0] and edit if you feel it's the right thing to do. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I did read a very thorough sample of the document. When I'm trying to find an actual "order" / "rule" / whatever, I'd be drawn to something like > V. "REPORT AND ORDER: OPEN INTERNET RULES" on page 264 and figure that might be the order. But all throughout that section it constantly has paragraphs that just contain language that obviously isn't an order / ruling / regulation, like on page 265: > The Internet serves as a cornerstone for free expression, fostering a diverse and inclusive digital space where individuals can share ideas, opinions, and information without undue influence or interference. It promotes the exchange of diverse perspectives, ultimately enriching society by exposing individuals to a wide range of thoughts and experiences. As the Supreme Court noted in 1997, the Internet enables any person to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” That's not a rule, that's just talking about stuff in general. When I read the FTC document about non-compete, it has hundred of pages like this, but then at the end of the document it has a clear section of legalese that contains the actual technical content of the rule. This document from the FCC does not have any section like that -- every section is mostly non-binding descriptive language, and I'm having trouble figuring out what, precisely, this ruling / order enacts, because this document spends most of its time justifying the action rather than actually enacting.

pdabbadabba 2y ago

> That seems rather vague. The timing is also rather interesting, given the forced divestiture of TikTok. This is just a press release. The actual decision is more than 400 pages long and will come out in the next few days. Here's the draft of the order released three weeks ago: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf (Of course, parts of this will inevitably be vague as well.) The timing is almost certainly a coincidence. They started the process of adopting these rules as soon as they could after democrats regained a majority of seats on the FCC last year and got them done as fast as they could.

reaperman 2y ago
I'm not sure that's the order itself or just a very detailed "fact sheet" about the orde. It seems like it references the content of the order in great detail, allowing someone to figure it out, but I don't see the raw text of the rule there unless I just don't understand what FCC rules look like. I read a lot of FTC rules and court documents, but this the first time I'm looking for the full text of something the FCC voted on or was something close to it (like an earlier version of the exact document they voted on).
- nobody9999 2y ago
  https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf
  - reaperman 2y ago
    Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave.
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >Yes that is just the "FCC FACT SHEET" as it says in the top title of the document. It is not the actual rule/action. It is also the exact same link that the poster just above me already gave. No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document. Or are you unable to read past the first line of the first page?
      - reaperman 2y ago
        Regarding the last line of your post, you may want to spend some time reading the HN commenting guidelines[0] and edit if you feel it's the right thing to do. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I did read a very thorough sample of the document. When I'm trying to find an actual "order" / "rule" / whatever, I'd be drawn to something like > V. "REPORT AND ORDER: OPEN INTERNET RULES" on page 264 and figure that might be the order. But all throughout that section it constantly has paragraphs that just contain language that obviously isn't an order / ruling / regulation, like on page 265: > The Internet serves as a cornerstone for free expression, fostering a diverse and inclusive digital space where individuals can share ideas, opinions, and information without undue influence or interference. It promotes the exchange of diverse perspectives, ultimately enriching society by exposing individuals to a wide range of thoughts and experiences. As the Supreme Court noted in 1997, the Internet enables any person to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” That's not a rule, that's just talking about stuff in general. When I read the FTC document about non-compete, it has hundred of pages like this, but then at the end of the document it has a clear section of legalese that contains the actual technical content of the rule. This document from the FCC does not have any section like that -- every section is mostly non-binding descriptive language, and I'm having trouble figuring out what, precisely, this ruling / order enacts, because this document spends most of its time justifying the action rather than actually enacting.