3 ms·
Sure. I agree with this, of course. But I suppose I don't see the harm in taking action now, even if these are early days, to make our views known. (Though, as
by pdabbadabba 13y ago
Sure. I agree with this, of course. But I suppose I don't see the harm in taking action now, even if these are early days, to make our views known. (Though, as I said, I don't like this particular strategy.)
Lobbying in Washington does not begin after an NPR has been issued. Why should we behave differently? The NPR is an important regulatory document because it typically indicates the Commission's favored outcome and plays an important role in framing the debate.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> But I suppose I don't see the harm in taking action now, even if these are early days, to make our views known. I agree with that -- I just think that the action should be focussed on what regulation should or should not contain, not on treating the regulatory agency involved as an enemy. > Why should we behave differently? Attacking people who are decision-makers that have historically been (and overtly still are) supportive of the position you espouse based on media rumors of provisions that might be in a plan that they are preparing is behaving differently than the firms that lobby before a concrete proposal in the form of an NPRM is released. Compare that attacks on Wheeler and the FCC to the Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. letter.
- pdabbadabba 13y agoIt would seem that we were never actually disagreeing about anything--as I've said repeatedly, I think the throttling proposal is a bad idea.