The FCC Is Still Tweaking Its Net Neutrality Repeal (techcrunch.com) 68
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: You may think, from the pomp accompanying the FCC's vote in December to repeal the 2015 net neutrality rules, that the deed was accomplished. Not so -- in fact, the order hasn't even reached its final form: the Commission is still working on it. But while it may be frustrating, this is business as usual for regulations like this, and concerned advocates should conserve their outrage for when it's really needed. The "Restoring Internet Freedom" rule voted on last month was based on a final draft circulated several weeks before the meeting at which it would be adopted. But as reports at the time noted, significant edits (i.e. not fixing typos) were still going into the draft the day before the FCC voted. Additional citations, changes in wording and more serious adjustments may be underway. It may sound like some serious shenanigans are being pulled, but this is how the sausage was always made, and it's actually one of Chairman Ajit Pai's handful of commendable efforts that the process is, in some ways at least, more open to the public. The question of exactly what is being changed, however, we will have ample time to investigate: The rules will soon be entered into the federal register, at which point they both come into effect and come under intense scrutiny and legal opposition.
Let wait for actual NN news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like we waited for the tax cut bill to see what was in it? No, my friend, that will no longer work for us.
Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks. Status quo for legislation is to make last minute revisions to major bills substantially changing them. Trump's doing it. Obama did. Dubya did it. They all do it. It happens regardless of what party is in control of Congress. Business as usual. Get over it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar to how the TPP was handled, and much of the reason why people got so angry over that. It's not business as usual. (Though I think it's a little less uncommon for an international treaty than it is for a domestic bill.)
Re: (Score:2)
The tax bill that the parent was talking about was not handled the same way. That was kept under wraps until the last minute, so that the public wouldn't find out about it and wouldn't have enough time to organize opposition.
It was introduced into the House on 11/02/2017, evidence [congress.gov]. You call that the last minute? Explain your claim please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Are you asking for a reference? [nytimes.com] If you just search for "Republican secret tax bill" you'll find plenty.
It's not secret if it's advertised in same way that ALL house bills are advertised. It clearly wasn't hidden and still isn't hidden. NYTimes is full of shit. The claim might be something like they didn't advertise it in a "reasonable time" whatever that means but they are not obligated to do anything like that per the US Constitution. I went back and looked through bills like ACA and what you find it ACA was being discussed for far longer than 6 months. It was introduced in the house and then 6 months
Re: (Score:2)
but they are not obligated to do anything like that per the US Constitution
No one has claimed that they did something illegal.
I think you may have missed the point here. Yes, the ACA was introduced and then discussed for six months before it was passed. Thus, people had six months to scrutinize it in detail before the vote. It was a large and important bill, with much to go over. This is the expected procedure.
For the tax bill that we're discussing, it was introduced in the house and then voted on two weeks later. It was introduced in the senate (with many amendments) and th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The final version of the ACA that they signed was received less than 24 hours before they had to vote on it, and it was 1100+ pages. Nancy Pelosi famously said "you have to sign it so we can find out what's in it" grinning ear to ear.
All we need to know are two things:
1) How does the legislation process work per the US Constitution?
2) Was the legislative process of the US Constitution followed?
If it turns out #2 was not followed then said legislation would be unconstitutional and could be challenged in the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter what the NYTimes OPINION is. It matters what is legal per the laws of the land. If the NY Times doesn't like the laws of the land they can do one of three things:
1) Challenge it in the Suprem
Open to the public? (Score:3)
it's actually one of Chairman Ajit Pai's handful of commendable efforts that the process is, in some ways at least, more open to the public
It may have been open to the public, but there were massive numbers of fake responses posted condemning the hackjob "net neutrality" regulation. All this implementation did was create an opportunity to skew the perception of what the public wanted through a misinformation campaign. We still need real net neutrality in law, not a regulation that three people can overturn.
Re: (Score:1)
Half a million Russian email addresses were used citing legitimate US identities who were not the submitters of the comment. Chairman Pai refused to investigate even these, or help State Attorneys investigate the identity fraud for people in their state. Adjit has said he is not filtering identifiable fake comments and is considering the substance.
What's the betting, he colluded with telcos to skew the submissions hiring Trump's foreign troll/hack friends?
Re: (Score:2)
Half a million Russian email addresses were used citing legitimate US identities who were not the submitters of the comment. Chairman Pai refused to investigate even these, or help State Attorneys investigate the identity fraud for people in their state. Adjit has said he is not filtering identifiable fake comments and is considering the substance.
What's the betting, he colluded with telcos to skew the submissions hiring Trump's foreign troll/hack friends?
Who would waste time investigating forged email addresses? I get spam constantly. I also own a domain and I get flooded with bounced emails using my domain as a return address. There's no point in wasting time on it
Re: (Score:1)
It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here (Score:2)
> We still need real net neutrality in law, not a regulation that three people can overturn
I commend you for having the courage to say that here, to agree completely with exactly what chairman Pai has been saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly what he has been saying. I would be fine with the regulation staying in place until a law replaced it.
Re: (Score:3)
I would be fine with the regulation staying in place until a law replaced it.
You have a 6" water pipe in your basement. It cracks. Water spews forth. It's a high priority thing to get fixed. You buy some of this FlexWrap tape, wrap the pipe, and the water leak stops. This is a temporary fix, but now that it is in place the priority of the real fix drops a couple of notches as you start dealing with other issues.
That's what the FCC regulations are. They're a temporary fix that removes the impetus to have a long-term real solution.
Look no further than continuing resolutions for ano
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the concept, and hope it works. I just don't give the do-nothings in congress a break for stuff like that, or letting bridges and levies degrade to the point of failure. Stuff like that isn't acceptable, but I hope the gamble pays off in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
what chairman Pai has been saying.
Pai is a liar, so what he says means little. This is a case in point -- he says this like it's a good reason to get rid of NN rules, even though he could easily keep them in place until such legislation is passed.
He doesn't give a shit about process or what's best for the American people. What he cares about is giving a huge gift to the major telecoms.
Re: (Score:2)
> even though he could illegally keep them in place
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "fixing it" so much as "breaking it" unless you have some sort of actual proof that the FCC acted illegally.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, he and his defenders constantly argue that ISP's won't do any of the bad things that they will now be allowed to do - because 'the market' will prevent it. Well, if that's the case, then why change the regulations that prevent it?
If there's something specific that they're willing to admit to wanting to do, present it to the FCC for approval. 'Trust us' is hardly a way to make policy - especially when you seem to be justifying the change by arguing that the status quo is just fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, well say there was a watermelon/bowling ball regulation in place - and prior to that, there were beginnings of watermelon salesmen pushing bowling ball-ish features. You might make the argument that such a regulation was not needed - but you'd be lying...
Re: (Score:2)
We still need real net neutrality in law, not a regulation that three people can overturn.
I'm not sure there's as much advantage there as you might think. As I've mentioned before [slashdot.org], a law can be overturned by a similarly small handful of judges, and once overturned is the status quo for the foreseeable future. As it stands, the FCC commissioners' staggered terms effectively create a horizon of a few years before the pendulum could just as well swing back the other direction, just as it did here. That uncertainty itself is likely to keep businesses from making fundamental changes to their model
Re: (Score:1)
Neutrality at the physical/transport layers is what really matters.
As long as the traffic can flow freely, the people can circumvent censorship---if they care to.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this includes regulations against angry customers going to to their headquarters and shooting up the place?
Of course not.
The point of regulations is to setup a set of rules used across the industry to make sure there is a degree of fairness between the provider and the consumer.
In high infrastructure industries such as ISP the choices for the consumer is limited. Thus in many areas choosing an alternative is not an option. In such areas where there is a near monopoly democratic government regulations a
Re: (Score:2)
Bad advice (Score:3)
Concerned advocates should conserve their outrage for when it's really needed.
So... don't contact your congressional representatives now when your voice might stand out and be heard? Wait until the last minute flood so that your comments can be drowned out more easily by the anti-neutrality bot spam?
I'm sure that'll work well for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We should all just STFU and let Trump and his cadre of profiteering cronies rape America back to the 1950's.
That's cute that you think Trump was the start of it all. The real beginning goes all the way back to the Reagan administration and it was a bi-partisan effort. Read the works of Chris Hedges for more information. Globalization was the ultimate slap in the face pushed forth by folks like the US Chamber of Commerce under the guise of progressivism. You bought it hook, line and sinker. We were promised cheaper goods AND better jobs. We got the cheaper goods but better jobs? Precisely the opposite. Bi-
Re: (Score:3)
1920s , actually.
The 1950s were a time when the middle class was relatively well off and wealth disparity had dropped sharply from it's height in the late 20s. Everything Trump and his cronies are doing is to benefit the 1% and increase that disparity by taking everything they can away from the rest of society.
Re: (Score:2)
So... don't contact your congressional representatives now when your voice might stand out and be heard? Wait until the last minute flood so that your comments can be drowned out more easily by the anti-neutrality bot spam?
I'm sure that'll work well for everyone.
You must be new here. Whining on slashdot is the most effective way to usher positive change into our government, duh! Because government officials are avid readers of slashdot.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's visible to the public, not "open". If it were open, we'd have some say in it (which means it wouldn't be happening.)
Oh gee, you need the truth spoon fed to you instead of seeking it out yourself? You do realize that's precisely what the propaganda pushers expect and use as the means to distort the truth right?
There's no hurry, Ajit (Score:1)
Blind voting? (Score:1)
Did I understand correctly that they actually voted to agree with something which can still thoroughly change? That's the equivalent of having someone sign a check and filling in the amount due after the fact.
More like deciding to go somewhere, then see map (Score:2)
A better analogy is probably that it's like they decide to go to the hobby shop, then they get on Google maps to find the exact route to take.
They decided they don't have the legal authority to enforce the 2015 regulations, then studied what they *can* legally do and decided on a general approach. Now they are finishing up the details of what their regulations will be under the current law, while awaiting Congress passing a NN law (or not).
Sigh. (Score:2)
"The rules will soon be entered into the federal register, at which point they both come into effect and come under intense scrutiny and legal opposition."
Bit late to do anything about them if they are already in effect at that point.
I think that's the entire point of the protests.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree we need it not to be a hack regulation, but most of what you are saying is legitimately nonsense. We need a law that actually follows the rules of real net neutrality, not a regulation that 3 people can overturn.
Freedom is slavery (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a terrible idea written by a terrible power grab attempt by a terrible administration.
Get off my Internet you socialist scum.
This is the exact opposite of a power grab.
The subject headline (Score:2)
On this article, you only needed to keep the first five words of the headline. The remaining words do not add any clarity.
Just sayin'