5 ms·

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 pos

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 3y 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 3y 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
    FWIW, virtually the whole document is "the Order" (in draft form--the final order has not been released yet). The FCC is a little unusual in that it regards the entirety of their written orders as legally binding (the normative parts, at least). > 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. You're probably looking for the "Final Rules" text. That's in Appendix A which starts on page 397. Again, though, the FCC would take the position that the whole final order is binding (once it's released and published in the federal register)--not just those formal rules. Yes, this does make it very challenging to understand the FCC's rules! Source: IAA FCC lawyer.
- runnerup 3y ago
  > No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document. You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well. Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401). It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like: > Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program. Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order. There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.
  - nobody9999 3y ago
    >You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well. Yep. That's me. I smell bad and like jazz too. The order is reclassifying ISPs (or as named in the document, Broadband Internet Access Services -- BIAS) under Title II of the FCC Act of 1934 (as amended repeatedly over the past 90 years). I believe the below is the pointy end of the stick and the first sentence (set apart for specific folks -- see below) is, in fact, the order. Since I'm already rude, obnoxious and wrong, I'll wonder aloud at folks' reading comprehension skills as well. Part III (section 25) states: We reinstate the telecommunications service classification of BIAS under Title II of the Act. Reclassification will enhance the Commission’s ability to ensure Internet openness, defend national security, promote cybersecurity, safeguard public safety, monitor network resiliency and reliability, protect consumer privacy and data security, support consumer access to BIAS, and improve disability access. We find that classification of BIAS as a telecommunications service represents the best reading of the text of the Act in light of how the service is offered and perceived today, as well as the factual and technical realities of how BIAS functions. Classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with Commission and court precedent and is fully and sufficiently justified under the Commission’s longstanding authority and responsibility to classify services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as necessary. We also ensure that consumers receive the same protections when using fixed and mobile BIAS by reclassifying mobile BIAS as a commercial mobile service.

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 3y 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 3y 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
  FWIW, virtually the whole document is "the Order" (in draft form--the final order has not been released yet). The FCC is a little unusual in that it regards the entirety of their written orders as legally binding (the normative parts, at least). > 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. You're probably looking for the "Final Rules" text. That's in Appendix A which starts on page 397. Again, though, the FCC would take the position that the whole final order is binding (once it's released and published in the federal register)--not just those formal rules. Yes, this does make it very challenging to understand the FCC's rules! Source: IAA FCC lawyer.
runnerup 3y ago
> No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document. You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well. Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401). It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like: > Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program. Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order. There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well. Yep. That's me. I smell bad and like jazz too. The order is reclassifying ISPs (or as named in the document, Broadband Internet Access Services -- BIAS) under Title II of the FCC Act of 1934 (as amended repeatedly over the past 90 years). I believe the below is the pointy end of the stick and the first sentence (set apart for specific folks -- see below) is, in fact, the order. Since I'm already rude, obnoxious and wrong, I'll wonder aloud at folks' reading comprehension skills as well. Part III (section 25) states: We reinstate the telecommunications service classification of BIAS under Title II of the Act. Reclassification will enhance the Commission’s ability to ensure Internet openness, defend national security, promote cybersecurity, safeguard public safety, monitor network resiliency and reliability, protect consumer privacy and data security, support consumer access to BIAS, and improve disability access. We find that classification of BIAS as a telecommunications service represents the best reading of the text of the Act in light of how the service is offered and perceived today, as well as the factual and technical realities of how BIAS functions. Classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with Commission and court precedent and is fully and sufficiently justified under the Commission’s longstanding authority and responsibility to classify services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as necessary. We also ensure that consumers receive the same protections when using fixed and mobile BIAS by reclassifying mobile BIAS as a commercial mobile service.