5 ms·

"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates" It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt t

"This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates" It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? "and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US." Tell me how more regulation will lead to more competition and a better Internet for the consumer. "I'm finding it hard to believe that the regular HN crowd has suddenly turned virulently anti Title II. This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD." Most people were afraid to talk about it because the HN community typically down votes everyone to hell that has opposing opinions. I gave up awhile back because nobody would listen, but I'm not giving up today. "This definitely smells like a coordinated campaign to spread FUD." It seems you won't even listen to the opposition and are trying to discredit anyone that is against this government regulation as "FUD". It sounds like you are the astro-turfing one. What happened to open and honest discussions?

cratermoon 12y ago
> We haven't been able to see one of them How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  It's not. Things need to change.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP. Its actually pretty much all regulatory bodies -- its just there is no formal "vote" in regular executive branch hierarchies before a regulatory action is adopted. But they still don't publish the internal drafts that are considered before they are adopted (they do sometimes publish NPRMs before final rules, but the FCC did that in this case, too.)
    - baddox 12y ago
      I would love to change the rules that all independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. The SOP is really bad.
  - cratermoon 12y ago
    How many times in the past did the FCC vote on internet or broadcast policies using the same process as this one resulting in regulations that protected special interests at the expense of consumers?
Varcht 12y ago
Apropos "Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House" : http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-mill...
chetanahuja 12y ago
"What happened to open and honest discussions?" I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below: "Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)" by dragonwriter As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday: --- > 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. --- Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them, it's a pretty safe bet that your opinions and desire for "open and honest discussion" carries as much weight as those of party hacks screaming at each other on cable news.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style > Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points Attack the argument -- not the person.
  - chetanahuja 12y ago
warfangle 12y ago
> There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. The FCC published the proposal in May. You've had 9 months to comment on it.
- tzs 12y ago
  Wrong proposal. That's the proposal they dropped after seeing the comments.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Its the only actual formal proposal that there has been. Yes, its true that it (based on the outlines provided) it differs substantially from what has been considered in recent weeks and adopted. That's the point of having an advance notice for comments as part of the regulatory process. OTOH, its also quite common for the subsequent published act after a call for comments on a proposal to be the final decision, even if it differs substantially from the original proposal.
itbeho 12y ago
"Tell me how more regulation will lead to more competition and a better Internet for the consumer." I would bet our internet bill will start to look like our phone bill with lots of little fees and taxes tacked on. One of them will probably be titled something like "Affordable Internet Access Tax".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
iNate2000 12y ago
Re: lack of competition: In my neighborhood there is only one real broadband ISP: Comcast. The recent re-definition of "broadband" may have caused some other providers to improve some of their offerings.
anigbrowl 12y ago
It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? No, because this is the norm - the commissioners draw up a proposal, vote on it, then it's published in the Federal Register as a 'notice of proposed rulemaking,' witht he text of the proposed rule in full, and there is a comment period. Following that, the FCC publishes a 'notice of adoption of final rule,' which may or may not include changes based on the submitted comments. the process is summarized here: http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking Most people were afraid to talk about it because the HN community typically down votes everyone to hell that has opposing opinions. Spare us the ad hominem attacks. Substantive arguments generally do just fine on HN. Rayiner, for example, has been making substantie arguments against the idea of Title II classification for months and it hasn't done his standing any harm whatsoever. What happened to open and honest discussions? It's not honest to pretend that this rulemaking process is somehow different and worse from the normal one that has been in place for years.
- baddox 12y ago
  > No, because this is the norm Yes, the norm concerns me.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I don't buy it. What's wrong with the existing procedure, specifically? Why is it not adequate to view and comment on it at the time it is published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule? This is, after all, the whole point of the Federal Register. Where was the pressure to change this rulemaking procedure over the last X years before this particular issue came up?
    - baddox 12y ago
      I have no experience in how to aggregate opinions in order to make policy decisions. I don't directly have a problem with the specific procedure. My concern comes from the historical results of US regulatory agencies, which I am not impressed by. I do not know if the public commenting process has a significant effect on those results.

cratermoon 12y ago

> We haven't been able to see one of them How is that different from the other FCC policies? It's only the opposition echo chamber repeating the "secret Obama plan to control the Internet" spin.

paulhauggis 12y ago
It's not. Things need to change.
- warfangle 12y ago
  Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Then be prepared to change the rules that _all_ independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. Because this is SOP. Its actually pretty much all regulatory bodies -- its just there is no formal "vote" in regular executive branch hierarchies before a regulatory action is adopted. But they still don't publish the internal drafts that are considered before they are adopted (they do sometimes publish NPRMs before final rules, but the FCC did that in this case, too.)
  - baddox 12y ago
    I would love to change the rules that all independent regulatory bodies with a voting commission operate under. The SOP is really bad.
- cratermoon 12y ago
  How many times in the past did the FCC vote on internet or broadcast policies using the same process as this one resulting in regulations that protected special interests at the expense of consumers?

Varcht 12y ago

Apropos "Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House" : http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-mill...

chetanahuja 12y ago

"What happened to open and honest discussions?" I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style prepared talking points without regards to actual information presented to you. As an example this was explained to you in another subthread below: "Regulatory orders aren't generally published before being approved by the initiating authority (preliminary notices that are subject to revision before being approved are published when those are approved by the authority, as was the case with the NPRM on this issue published last year. The final decision based on the NPRM and public comment received since the NPRM, is what was voted on today, which will then be published. This is the processed followed by basically every regulatory body for virtually every regulatory action in the US government (sometimes there isn't an advanced notice like the NPRM, however.)" by dragonwriter As just one more examples out of dozens more, here's what tzs explained to you in another thread yesterday: --- > 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. --- Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points while utterly disregarding cogent responses to them, it's a pretty safe bet that your opinions and desire for "open and honest discussion" carries as much weight as those of party hacks screaming at each other on cable news.

Alupis 12y ago
> I just went through your recent comment history and it's pretty clear you're interested in no such thing. You've been blindly repeating Fox News style > Seeing your ad-nauseam repetition of the same talking points Attack the argument -- not the person.
- chetanahuja 12y ago

warfangle 12y ago

> There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. The FCC published the proposal in May. You've had 9 months to comment on it.

tzs 12y ago
Wrong proposal. That's the proposal they dropped after seeing the comments.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Its the only actual formal proposal that there has been. Yes, its true that it (based on the outlines provided) it differs substantially from what has been considered in recent weeks and adopted. That's the point of having an advance notice for comments as part of the regulatory process. OTOH, its also quite common for the subsequent published act after a call for comments on a proposal to be the final decision, even if it differs substantially from the original proposal.

itbeho 12y ago

"Tell me how more regulation will lead to more competition and a better Internet for the consumer." I would bet our internet bill will start to look like our phone bill with lots of little fees and taxes tacked on. One of them will probably be titled something like "Affordable Internet Access Tax".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

iNate2000 12y ago

Re: lack of competition: In my neighborhood there is only one real broadband ISP: Comcast. The recent re-definition of "broadband" may have caused some other providers to improve some of their offerings.

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's disingenuous to call an opposing opinion "astro-turfing" in an attempt to discredit them. There are 700 total rules to the regulation. We haven't been able to see one of them. This doesn't concern you in any way? No, because this is the norm - the commissioners draw up a proposal, vote on it, then it's published in the Federal Register as a 'notice of proposed rulemaking,' witht he text of the proposed rule in full, and there is a comment period. Following that, the FCC publishes a 'notice of adoption of final rule,' which may or may not include changes based on the submitted comments. the process is summarized here: http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking http://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking Most people were afraid to talk about it because the HN community typically down votes everyone to hell that has opposing opinions. Spare us the ad hominem attacks. Substantive arguments generally do just fine on HN. Rayiner, for example, has been making substantie arguments against the idea of Title II classification for months and it hasn't done his standing any harm whatsoever. What happened to open and honest discussions? It's not honest to pretend that this rulemaking process is somehow different and worse from the normal one that has been in place for years.

baddox 12y ago
> No, because this is the norm Yes, the norm concerns me.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I don't buy it. What's wrong with the existing procedure, specifically? Why is it not adequate to view and comment on it at the time it is published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule? This is, after all, the whole point of the Federal Register. Where was the pressure to change this rulemaking procedure over the last X years before this particular issue came up?
  - baddox 12y ago
    I have no experience in how to aggregate opinions in order to make policy decisions. I don't directly have a problem with the specific procedure. My concern comes from the historical results of US regulatory agencies, which I am not impressed by. I do not know if the public commenting process has a significant effect on those results.