6 ms·

The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the dis

The grass is always greener. Seriously though, I think there was a lot of hype built up around net neutrality(for good reason) and it ended up clouding the discussion. Quickly it became a dichotomy, you must be either for Title II and whatever the FCC decides that entails, or you must be against any change to the status quo. Now that we are passed that dichotomy, we are faced with the reality that we have little control over the FCC and how it chooses to enforce regulations. That is understandably making many people nervous. I look forward to the regulations being published and sincerely hope that it works out as many people hoped it would a few months ago, but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet (one only has to look to England to see how real that possibility is) I don't really know anymore, I'm more unsure about all of this than ever - i really hope nothing nasty surfaces because of this decision, but what can we do at this point but sit and wait and then try to change it all again if we object.

supergeek133 12y ago
Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.
- unprepare 12y ago
  I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly if there are any major objectionable pieces of these new regulations
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    Agreed. It's safe to say public pressure got this into place, so hopefully we come back around when we see the rest.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    "this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests" Check the employment history of FCC folks after their term. It is very much like other staff members in various regulatory bodies in DC, they get high paying jobs in the industry for their work.
    - unprepare 12y ago
      Couldn't this be more because politicians appoint people to the FCC? Thus an entrenched politician would appoint (or recommend) a corporate-vetted candidate. The advantage (and again i'm not claiming this to be the reality) would be that that the new FCC employee doesnt need to rely on the corporation to continue working at the FCC, Once they have left the corporation, why would they seek to push pro-corporate regulations? Of course this is all muddled when you see that these people then go BACK to the corporation after their time in the FCC, which leads to well grounded suspicions. Its really a complicated mess; I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous
      - protomyth 12y ago
        "I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous" We elect people to do that. Perhaps if they were forced to do the actual rule making we would not get 1,000 page bills with all of the rule making to be done later[1]. Perhaps they would pass less bills that need regulation if they had to put them in the bill. The staffers at various agencies are doing their apprenticeship for their big payday when they join lobbying organizations or the companies that they were supposed to be watching. It happens enough that it has been suggested multiple times that employment restrictions (basic conflict of interest) should be put in place. The DoD is famous for a lot of this (check Boeing's hiring). "I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous" Because those folks are their friends and future employers (again). 1) yes, I read the ACA because I needed to know the ruling on a specific situation and it was one of those rule making later. It was very frustrating but not very surprising.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. I'd certainly be interested in general proposals for improving regulatory transparency, but I don't see what basis there is for painting this particular decision as something special in that regard, and find it interesting that the people prominent in the media that have been concerned about "transparency" in this process (a) are consistently people that were opposed to net neutrality, (b) became concerned with "transparency" only after it was clear that anti-neutrality policy arguments were failing to gain traction, either at the FCC or with the public, and (c) have not generally voiced similar transparency concerns over any of the other processes (e.g., every other regulatory action of the US government) that uses the same basic process, including not publishing intermediate drafts between an NPRM and a final action on the matter covered by the NPRM that incorporates changes based on subsequent analysis and the public comment on the NPRM.
- wpietri 12y ago
  That is definitely not scary to me. There are a number of things that absolutely shouldn't be directly elected, like the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Supreme Court. Politicians spend much of their time getting re-elected, and they have to focus a great deal on whatever the electorate's current opinion is. That is excellent for things that should respond relatively quickly, and terrible for things that should move deliberately or be countercyclical. It would be way more scary to me to have the FCC commissioners out fundraising from industry all the time like our elected officials do. Right now they're appointed on staggered 5-year terms, which is intentionally longer than the election cycle of the President who appoints them. No more than 3 can be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any regulated business. It's not perfect, but I think it's a great example of how to minimize the ills of direct election while still having it be (indirectly) accountable to the people.
  - TheHypnotist 12y ago
    John Oliver did a nice piece on judges getting elected in the U.S. as opposed to getting appointed. Basically, what you said. Judge's elections turn into politics as usual (money, political ideology, various other unrelated banter) as opposed to, you know, law. While in theory it seems like a good idea, in practice it's not and all of a sudden you have judge's (or in the case at hand, FCC officials) with "interests" other than the law (communications).
warfangle 12y ago
> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. Cable operators themselves, for example, are not responsible for channels that display obscene material - the original transmitter is. That's under Title VI (cable communications) and Title III (radio and television). Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content. As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers. They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence: * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves (this could be interpreted to mean that, as a common carrier, ISPs are not allowed to read the contents of the packets that they transmit, only the headers -- like telephone numbers -- as needed to get the packet to its destination): * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands." You, as an internet user, are not protected from those actions unless your ISP is classified as a Title II common carrier.
- innguest 12y ago
  > Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license. Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we anti-FCC complain about is the problem of not being able to get a license in the first place. You and others like you are always addressing this red herring non-issue of indecency and obscenity. That can only happen if you get a broadcast license. The problem with the FCC is that they are a gatekeeper for getting a broadcast license and it is at that point, when they are deciding whether to give the license that they exert the most dangerous kind of censorship. Not after you have the license.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television I think you mistake "is mandated by Congress" for "loves".
- unprepare 12y ago
  Abosulutely, you are correct - I really meant that they historically have done so, i wasn't really trying to get at their motivations. Congress has mandated the censorship of TV and radio broadcasts, it was not purely invented by the FCC - sorry for any miscommunications.
martin1975 12y ago
They are also looking to relax those rules as well, so you will hear 'fuck', 'piss', etc more often. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017170272 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017170272

supergeek133 12y ago

Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. The FCC is un-elected, that's always scary. Not that our elected officials know better. Haha.

unprepare 12y ago
I agree On one hand- the FCC is non-elected and thus the people have less control of them On the other hand, this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests. Time will tell with this decision i suppose, whats important from my perspective is that change happens quickly if there are any major objectionable pieces of these new regulations
- supergeek133 12y ago
  Agreed. It's safe to say public pressure got this into place, so hopefully we come back around when we see the rest.
- protomyth 12y ago
  "this also means they don't need to seek funding for running a campaign which theoretically could insulate them from what we see with our elected officials currently pandering to business interests" Check the employment history of FCC folks after their term. It is very much like other staff members in various regulatory bodies in DC, they get high paying jobs in the industry for their work.
  - unprepare 12y ago
    Couldn't this be more because politicians appoint people to the FCC? Thus an entrenched politician would appoint (or recommend) a corporate-vetted candidate. The advantage (and again i'm not claiming this to be the reality) would be that that the new FCC employee doesnt need to rely on the corporation to continue working at the FCC, Once they have left the corporation, why would they seek to push pro-corporate regulations? Of course this is all muddled when you see that these people then go BACK to the corporation after their time in the FCC, which leads to well grounded suspicions. Its really a complicated mess; I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous
    - protomyth 12y ago
      "I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous" We elect people to do that. Perhaps if they were forced to do the actual rule making we would not get 1,000 page bills with all of the rule making to be done later[1]. Perhaps they would pass less bills that need regulation if they had to put them in the bill. The staffers at various agencies are doing their apprenticeship for their big payday when they join lobbying organizations or the companies that they were supposed to be watching. It happens enough that it has been suggested multiple times that employment restrictions (basic conflict of interest) should be put in place. The DoD is famous for a lot of this (check Boeing's hiring). "I only meant that there is a logical reason why having non-elected persons creating regulations can be advantageous" Because those folks are their friends and future employers (again). 1) yes, I read the ACA because I needed to know the ruling on a specific situation and it was one of those rule making later. It was very frustrating but not very surprising.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Yep, that's all most of us want. Transparency. I'd certainly be interested in general proposals for improving regulatory transparency, but I don't see what basis there is for painting this particular decision as something special in that regard, and find it interesting that the people prominent in the media that have been concerned about "transparency" in this process (a) are consistently people that were opposed to net neutrality, (b) became concerned with "transparency" only after it was clear that anti-neutrality policy arguments were failing to gain traction, either at the FCC or with the public, and (c) have not generally voiced similar transparency concerns over any of the other processes (e.g., every other regulatory action of the US government) that uses the same basic process, including not publishing intermediate drafts between an NPRM and a final action on the matter covered by the NPRM that incorporates changes based on subsequent analysis and the public comment on the NPRM.
wpietri 12y ago
That is definitely not scary to me. There are a number of things that absolutely shouldn't be directly elected, like the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Supreme Court. Politicians spend much of their time getting re-elected, and they have to focus a great deal on whatever the electorate's current opinion is. That is excellent for things that should respond relatively quickly, and terrible for things that should move deliberately or be countercyclical. It would be way more scary to me to have the FCC commissioners out fundraising from industry all the time like our elected officials do. Right now they're appointed on staggered 5-year terms, which is intentionally longer than the election cycle of the President who appoints them. No more than 3 can be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any regulated business. It's not perfect, but I think it's a great example of how to minimize the ills of direct election while still having it be (indirectly) accountable to the people.
- TheHypnotist 12y ago
  John Oliver did a nice piece on judges getting elected in the U.S. as opposed to getting appointed. Basically, what you said. Judge's elections turn into politics as usual (money, political ideology, various other unrelated banter) as opposed to, you know, law. While in theory it seems like a good idea, in practice it's not and all of a sudden you have judge's (or in the case at hand, FCC officials) with "interests" other than the law (communications).

warfangle 12y ago

> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. Cable operators themselves, for example, are not responsible for channels that display obscene material - the original transmitter is. That's under Title VI (cable communications) and Title III (radio and television). Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content. As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers. They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence: * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves (this could be interpreted to mean that, as a common carrier, ISPs are not allowed to read the contents of the packets that they transmit, only the headers -- like telephone numbers -- as needed to get the packet to its destination): * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands." You, as an internet user, are not protected from those actions unless your ISP is classified as a Title II common carrier.

innguest 12y ago
> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license. Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we anti-FCC complain about is the problem of not being able to get a license in the first place. You and others like you are always addressing this red herring non-issue of indecency and obscenity. That can only happen if you get a broadcast license. The problem with the FCC is that they are a gatekeeper for getting a broadcast license and it is at that point, when they are deciding whether to give the license that they exert the most dangerous kind of censorship. Not after you have the license.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> but someone rather late in the process pointed out to me that the FCC loves to censor things like television I think you mistake "is mandated by Congress" for "loves".

unprepare 12y ago
Abosulutely, you are correct - I really meant that they historically have done so, i wasn't really trying to get at their motivations. Congress has mandated the censorship of TV and radio broadcasts, it was not purely invented by the FCC - sorry for any miscommunications.

martin1975 12y ago

They are also looking to relax those rules as well, so you will hear 'fuck', 'piss', etc more often. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017170272 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017170272