4 ms·

This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is i

This "we haven't even seen the rules yet" line is really just a meaningless talking point promoted by NN opponents. In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. But that does not mean the process is not transparent: the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments. The commissioners and their staff then look over the comments they have received, draft an order that responds to the important points raised in the comments, vote on it, and then make it public as a binding rule. Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some, and maybe it's not the best way to make rules. But there is nothing at all abnormal about it -- this is simply the process that we call "notice-and-comment rulemaking" which Congress enshrined in law almost 100 years ago when it passed the Administrative Procedures Act. Anyone who tells you that this is weird, or that the Commission is trying to pull a fast one by waiting to publish the rules, is either misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead you. As for the meeting itself: of course it's theater. The real policy work doesn't happen in the meeting, it happens in the formal notice and comment proceeding that has been happening on paper for many many months. The meeting is primarily a political opportunity.

tertius 12y ago
Rather than being out of the ordinary it needs to pause applause until we know what the rules are. I can't make a solid determination if I agree until I have seen the rules. From what I know already I'm not in favor. I.e. the trepidation felt vs. those who are pro-titleII.
paulhauggis 12y ago
"the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments" As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. "Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some" This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  > As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. It's not as though the game is totally over. Parties can (and will) petition for reconsideration, and then there will be challenges in court if people think that the Commission has overlooked important issues. End then there's always Congress... > This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives. Fair enough. But I don't know that this is a valid ground for criticizing the FCC. Edit: While it's true that the Commission's decisions are often not exactly the same as its proposals, it is prohibited by law from making a rule on a subject not implicated by the issues raised by the Commission's proposals (the technical term is "logical outgrowth"). Why isn't this good enough? What is to be gained by circulating the actual rules before they are enacted that is not already accomplished by 1) extended period for public comment on the issues, with full knowledge of the regulatory options under consideration and 2) the possibility of a petition for reconsideration or court challenge after the rules are issued?
elihu 12y ago
Minor correction: the Administrative Procedures Act was enacted in 1946, which I wouldn't consider to be "almost 100 years ago". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act I agree with what you say, though.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
>In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. It's mostly irrelevant what the 'norm' is. Either the process is actually transparent or it's not. Dropping xxx pages after passage is not really transparent. In fact, the 'norm' is usually what we want to be moving away from. The problems that we are trying to solve exist in the 'norm'. It used to be the norm that the Roman Church could come in, try you for heresy on hearsay and then execute you, all with no real evidence and decided by an inquisitor. Just because that was a normal occurence, doesn't make it right or transparent.
- lmm 12y ago
  We don't have to fix everything at once. And if someone is making a big fuss about the transparency of this particular regulation, while ignoring the hundreds of regulations that are passed every year in the same way, then it's right to ask whether they have ulterior motives.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Which of those other regulations got this much discussion on HN?

tertius 12y ago

Rather than being out of the ordinary it needs to pause applause until we know what the rules are. I can't make a solid determination if I agree until I have seen the rules. From what I know already I'm not in favor. I.e. the trepidation felt vs. those who are pro-titleII.

paulhauggis 12y ago

"the Commission has been conducting an open proceeding for months (years, really) where they have explained their proposals to the pubic, and allowed anyone in the country to submit comments" As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. "Perhaps this is counterintuitive to some" This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
> As we all have seen in the past, the proposals they explain and the final rules that become law are usually different. We should be able to see these proposals. It's not as though the game is totally over. Parties can (and will) petition for reconsideration, and then there will be challenges in court if people think that the Commission has overlooked important issues. End then there's always Congress... > This just illuminates why this process needs to be changed. "counterintuitive" is a nice way of describing our lack of freedom and the lack of transparency in choices that will directly effect all of our lives. Fair enough. But I don't know that this is a valid ground for criticizing the FCC. Edit: While it's true that the Commission's decisions are often not exactly the same as its proposals, it is prohibited by law from making a rule on a subject not implicated by the issues raised by the Commission's proposals (the technical term is "logical outgrowth"). Why isn't this good enough? What is to be gained by circulating the actual rules before they are enacted that is not already accomplished by 1) extended period for public comment on the issues, with full knowledge of the regulatory options under consideration and 2) the possibility of a petition for reconsideration or court challenge after the rules are issued?

elihu 12y ago

Minor correction: the Administrative Procedures Act was enacted in 1946, which I wouldn't consider to be "almost 100 years ago". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act I agree with what you say, though.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

>In the world of government regulation, is is absolutely the norm for regulations to be voted on before being made public. It's mostly irrelevant what the 'norm' is. Either the process is actually transparent or it's not. Dropping xxx pages after passage is not really transparent. In fact, the 'norm' is usually what we want to be moving away from. The problems that we are trying to solve exist in the 'norm'. It used to be the norm that the Roman Church could come in, try you for heresy on hearsay and then execute you, all with no real evidence and decided by an inquisitor. Just because that was a normal occurence, doesn't make it right or transparent.

lmm 12y ago
We don't have to fix everything at once. And if someone is making a big fuss about the transparency of this particular regulation, while ignoring the hundreds of regulations that are passed every year in the same way, then it's right to ask whether they have ulterior motives.
- LLWM 12y ago
  Which of those other regulations got this much discussion on HN?