3 ms·

I've been saying this since it was announced. The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over b

I've been saying this since it was announced. The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed). What else is in there? Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? We need more transparency, especially in something as important as this.

tzs 12y ago
> The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed) No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan. The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not. > Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? Adopting Title II with forbearance now does not really make it significantly easier for a future FCC to use the powers that this FCC is forbearing. If this FCC does not adopt Title II, all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332. "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. We can see and comment on it after the proposal is already pretty much a done deal. Would you like to be able to comment on the new president (rather than vote) after they are being sworn into office? I think not. "all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II." Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Taken from this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman... "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good. Again, why are we trusting the same government that has been spying on us for so long. Did the Snowden leaks teach us nothing? I'm still waiting for an argument as to why more transparency, especially when it comes to something as important as regulating the Internet, is not important.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    > Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. Remember that time when the FCC made available for public comment new rules regarding internet fast lanes? Remember when, after receiving so many comments that their database crashed, they decided that it might not be a good idea? > Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Well, considering broadband was once under the purview of Title II and now is not and now the FCC is considering it again.... how much of a grasp do you have on history? > "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." Well, good for them. Unfortunately, that's not how commissions work. The commission votes to release a proposal for comment. If that vote passes, it's released for comment. They then vote on whether to enact it based on comment, or revise the proposal and then vote again on whether or not to release it for public comment. FCC rule proposals are not enacted without a public comment period.
  - tzs 12y ago
    > 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332. The actual regulations are 8 pages. Then there are 79 pages of citations to the Communications Act. The rest is a summary of the public feedback and the reasoning for Wheeler's decisions. [1] I think 8 pages counts as much shorter than 332. > Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. There are no new powers. The FCC has always had the power to decide if ISPs should be regulated under Title I or Title II. Hence, the current FCC deciding to regulate under Title II with forbearance does not make it easier for a future FCC to regulate under Title II without forbearance. > There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good. They will go public with the proposal, as soon as they HAVE a proposal. Right now, the FCC does not have a proposal. Tom Wheeler has a proposal. It doesn't become the FCC's proposal until the full Commission votes. Then it gets published, and we have at least 30 days to comment. If 30 days is not enough, it can be extended. That's what happened last year, when Wheeler's first proposal (which didn't use Title II) was passed by the Commission and made public. They received so many comments they greatly extended the comment period. After the comment period is when the FCC makes the decision to accept the proposal as law or not. Last year, the did not, and went back to the drawing board to come up with something that addressed the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the commenters. [1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210 http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissio...

tzs 12y ago

> The FCC has a 332 page plan to regulate the Internet (which the public does not have a chance to even look over before it is passed) No, the FCC does not have a 332 page plan to regulate the internet. Tom Wheeler has a plan, although it is much much shorter to 332. The 300+ pages is for a document that includes his plan, a long explanation of the reasons and the authorities for each part, and a long look at the large number of comments that were received after last years FCC plan. The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not. > Even if the current administration doesn't use the power they will now be given, whose to say it won't happen in the future? Doesn't this bother anybody? Adopting Title II with forbearance now does not really make it significantly easier for a future FCC to use the powers that this FCC is forbearing. If this FCC does not adopt Title II, all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II.

paulhauggis 12y ago
"The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332. "The FCC will have a plan if the Commissioners vote in a couple day to make adopt Wheeler's plan, at which point it will then be available for public comment so that we can all see it and comment. After that, the FCC decides to adopt it or not." Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. We can see and comment on it after the proposal is already pretty much a done deal. Would you like to be able to comment on the new president (rather than vote) after they are being sworn into office? I think not. "all that changes is that future FCC would have to adopt Title II." Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Taken from this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman... "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good. Again, why are we trusting the same government that has been spying on us for so long. Did the Snowden leaks teach us nothing? I'm still waiting for an argument as to why more transparency, especially when it comes to something as important as regulating the Internet, is not important.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > Which means the people don't really have a say in the matter. Remember that time when the FCC made available for public comment new rules regarding internet fast lanes? Remember when, after receiving so many comments that their database crashed, they decided that it might not be a good idea? > Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. Well, considering broadband was once under the purview of Title II and now is not and now the FCC is considering it again.... how much of a grasp do you have on history? > "Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment." Well, good for them. Unfortunately, that's not how commissions work. The commission votes to release a proposal for comment. If that vote passes, it's released for comment. They then vote on whether to enact it based on comment, or revise the proposal and then vote again on whether or not to release it for public comment. FCC rule proposals are not enacted without a public comment period.
- tzs 12y ago
  > 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332. The actual regulations are 8 pages. Then there are 79 pages of citations to the Communications Act. The rest is a summary of the public feedback and the reasoning for Wheeler's decisions. [1] I think 8 pages counts as much shorter than 332. > Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no. There are no new powers. The FCC has always had the power to decide if ISPs should be regulated under Title I or Title II. Hence, the current FCC deciding to regulate under Title II with forbearance does not make it easier for a future FCC to regulate under Title II without forbearance. > There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good. They will go public with the proposal, as soon as they HAVE a proposal. Right now, the FCC does not have a proposal. Tom Wheeler has a proposal. It doesn't become the FCC's proposal until the full Commission votes. Then it gets published, and we have at least 30 days to comment. If 30 days is not enough, it can be extended. That's what happened last year, when Wheeler's first proposal (which didn't use Title II) was passed by the Commission and made public. They received so many comments they greatly extended the comment period. After the comment period is when the FCC makes the decision to accept the proposal as law or not. Last year, the did not, and went back to the drawing board to come up with something that addressed the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the commenters. [1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissioner-public-is-being-misled-about-net-neutrality-plan-20150210 http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissio...