3 ms·

Did problem 1 really need 700 distinct new regulations to be solved?

by nsxwolf 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago
I have yet to see any basis for the "700 distinct new regulations" claim, and given the parallel claim, often from the same posters, that the Order is only on the order of 300 pages, find "700 distinct new regulations" to be highly suspicious, and suspect that if it is even loosely tied to fact, its tied to a count of the number of numbered sections, not the number of things that are in any sense distinct regulations.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  I suspect this is a reference to the number of regulations that current apply to other entities regulated under Title II. Of course, there is more than one category of entity under Title II, each of which faces a different regulatory burden. Broadband ISPs are sure to be yet another category, with different regulatory burdens. In fact we know this, because the FCC has been quite clear that it will use its authority to "forbear" from subjecting broadband ISPs to many of the requirements that typically apply under Title II. So you're exactly right: there is no support for the "700 regulations." It's total nonsense.
- jcrawfordor 12y ago
  As far as I can tell, the 700 regulations is complete nonsense from people who did not read the release thoroughly. I have the news release sitting right in front of me, and on the 3rd page under the heading "Legal Authority:..." it says: "the Order refrains - or forbears - from enforcing 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 associated regulations that are not relevant to modern broadband service." That's your over 700 right there. This is the only place that I can find that number anywhere. The people who are talking abuot "over 700 new regulations" are party to a misunderstanding of hilarious proportion, making it clear that they have not RTF(news release).
  - guelo 12y ago
    It's not a misunderstanding. It is part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. And I don't find it hilarious.
wwweston 12y ago
This is a probematic comment in any forum, but I'd think it'd be especially unwelcome in a forum filled with programmers. Because even assuming it's true that there are 700 new distinct regulations, programmers should know better than to use regulations as a pejorative or high numbers of them as a proxy bugaboo. We're people whose job includes filling text editors with regulations specifying the inputs, tranformations, and actions of a program. Defining entities and creating specifications and rules for how they behave is how we make systems. 700 lines of code is generally a pretty low number for doing anything complex. 700 pages of code wouldn't write you a bot to regulate network communications businesses. If the current FCC produces that much writing about how they plan to do things, it says nothing about the quality of their plans.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Yes but by drawing that parallel, you have to realize that programmers represent totalitarian dictators. Software isn't a democracy. America is.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    Even democracies run better with unambiguous rules.
  - wwweston 12y ago
    I don't know what your job is like, but at mine, I'm accountable to various technical leadership, PMs, UX, and ultimately the client, from which all authority to commit code that goes to production is derived. :) And the FCC is an agent deriving its authority to regulate from legislation and working under elected executive authority. So I'm not sure what the connection with totalitarian dictatorship is.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      You write the rules that govern exactly how every aspect of the program runs. If a part of the program runs in a way that your government doesn't approve of, it gets modified or ripped out and replaced with code that does follow the rules exactly. You don't let the code decide for itself whether it should loop or not, you tell it exactly when it should loop and exactly when it should continue. Totalitarian governments don't exist of just one person, either.

Did problem 1 really need 700 distinct new regulations to be solved?

by nsxwolf 12y ago

Did problem 1 really need 700 distinct new regulations to be solved?

I have yet to see any basis for the "700 distinct new regulations" claim, and given the parallel claim, often from the same posters, that the Order is only on the order of 300 pages, find "700 distinct new regulations" to be highly suspicious, and suspect that if it is even loosely tied to fact, its tied to a count of the number of numbered sections, not the number of things that are in any sense distinct regulations.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
I suspect this is a reference to the number of regulations that current apply to other entities regulated under Title II. Of course, there is more than one category of entity under Title II, each of which faces a different regulatory burden. Broadband ISPs are sure to be yet another category, with different regulatory burdens. In fact we know this, because the FCC has been quite clear that it will use its authority to "forbear" from subjecting broadband ISPs to many of the requirements that typically apply under Title II. So you're exactly right: there is no support for the "700 regulations." It's total nonsense.
jcrawfordor 12y ago
As far as I can tell, the 700 regulations is complete nonsense from people who did not read the release thoroughly. I have the news release sitting right in front of me, and on the 3rd page under the heading "Legal Authority:..." it says: "the Order refrains - or forbears - from enforcing 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 associated regulations that are not relevant to modern broadband service." That's your over 700 right there. This is the only place that I can find that number anywhere. The people who are talking abuot "over 700 new regulations" are party to a misunderstanding of hilarious proportion, making it clear that they have not RTF(news release).
- guelo 12y ago
  It's not a misunderstanding. It is part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. And I don't find it hilarious.

wwweston 12y ago

This is a probematic comment in any forum, but I'd think it'd be especially unwelcome in a forum filled with programmers. Because even assuming it's true that there are 700 new distinct regulations, programmers should know better than to use regulations as a pejorative or high numbers of them as a proxy bugaboo. We're people whose job includes filling text editors with regulations specifying the inputs, tranformations, and actions of a program. Defining entities and creating specifications and rules for how they behave is how we make systems. 700 lines of code is generally a pretty low number for doing anything complex. 700 pages of code wouldn't write you a bot to regulate network communications businesses. If the current FCC produces that much writing about how they plan to do things, it says nothing about the quality of their plans.

freehunter 12y ago
Yes but by drawing that parallel, you have to realize that programmers represent totalitarian dictators. Software isn't a democracy. America is.
- wtallis 12y ago
  Even democracies run better with unambiguous rules.
- wwweston 12y ago
  I don't know what your job is like, but at mine, I'm accountable to various technical leadership, PMs, UX, and ultimately the client, from which all authority to commit code that goes to production is derived. :) And the FCC is an agent deriving its authority to regulate from legislation and working under elected executive authority. So I'm not sure what the connection with totalitarian dictatorship is.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    You write the rules that govern exactly how every aspect of the program runs. If a part of the program runs in a way that your government doesn't approve of, it gets modified or ripped out and replaced with code that does follow the rules exactly. You don't let the code decide for itself whether it should loop or not, you tell it exactly when it should loop and exactly when it should continue. Totalitarian governments don't exist of just one person, either.