4 ms·

"Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled. "I believe the process t

"Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled. "I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said. "I would have preferred a delay."" --------------------------------- But... she voted yes anyway. WTF?

ColinDabritz 13y ago
For whatever reasons, she must have felt moving forward with a rule was better than not, regardless of the process issues. I may disagree with the decision, but I understand her position.
- Alupis 13y ago
  "I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future" Yet she did not consider the future one bit.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> But... she voted yes anyway. WTF? She doesn't think the actual NPRM represents the best way to acheive the objectives it seeks to serve, but agrees with the objectives. As an NPRM isn't an adopted regulations, its a proposal which sets out objectives, provides concrete proposed steps, and seeks public comment on those steps and alternatives to them, it may make sense to vote for an NPRM (especially when you believe that there is a large and active community that will provide alternatives) when you agree with the objectives but have strong disagreements on some elements of the implementation, rather than voting no and preventing any rulemaking directed at the objectives from proceeding. She would prefer to delay and get a better (from her perspective) proposal before the public, but would rather have the process moving forward that will allow adopting rules than have the process stalled. The three that voted for the NPRM are the three commissioners that, differ as they might on the details, believe that the FCC should be pursuing net neutrality ("Open Internet") regulation, the two that voted against are the two that think that the FCC should not and that things like paid prioritization and all the other things net neutrality seeks to restrict should be permitted without restriction. Much of the news coverage has inverted reality and portrayed the proposal as a change to permit paid prioritization, but it is a change (in relevant part) to prevent it, within the constraints imposed by the D.C. Circuit when they struck down the last FCC order intended to do that.

ColinDabritz 13y ago

For whatever reasons, she must have felt moving forward with a rule was better than not, regardless of the process issues. I may disagree with the decision, but I understand her position.

Alupis 13y ago
"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future" Yet she did not consider the future one bit.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> But... she voted yes anyway. WTF? She doesn't think the actual NPRM represents the best way to acheive the objectives it seeks to serve, but agrees with the objectives. As an NPRM isn't an adopted regulations, its a proposal which sets out objectives, provides concrete proposed steps, and seeks public comment on those steps and alternatives to them, it may make sense to vote for an NPRM (especially when you believe that there is a large and active community that will provide alternatives) when you agree with the objectives but have strong disagreements on some elements of the implementation, rather than voting no and preventing any rulemaking directed at the objectives from proceeding. She would prefer to delay and get a better (from her perspective) proposal before the public, but would rather have the process moving forward that will allow adopting rules than have the process stalled. The three that voted for the NPRM are the three commissioners that, differ as they might on the details, believe that the FCC should be pursuing net neutrality ("Open Internet") regulation, the two that voted against are the two that think that the FCC should not and that things like paid prioritization and all the other things net neutrality seeks to restrict should be permitted without restriction. Much of the news coverage has inverted reality and portrayed the proposal as a change to permit paid prioritization, but it is a change (in relevant part) to prevent it, within the constraints imposed by the D.C. Circuit when they struck down the last FCC order intended to do that.