Judge Forces America's FCC To Seek New Public Feedback on Its Net Neutrality Repeal (engadget.com) 47
"Earlier this week, the FCC successfully defeated Mozilla's attempt to undo the commission's repeal of net neutrality," reports Engadget.
"But, while siding with the body, judges have asked the FCC to determine if repealing the law to prevent a multi-speed internet has had any negative consequences." That includes checking if net neutrality repeal has harmed public safety, reduced spending in infrastructure or hampered the Lifeline program. Consequently, the FCC will launch a period where the public and interested parties can share their views on the process. This is not an opportunity to re-litigate net neutrality repeal, but it is an opportunity to examine if the FCC acted properly and with regard to its broader obligations. The court, for instance, has directed the body to see if repeal has harmed public safety and reduced investment in critical infrastructure...
The Register claims that the FCC is behaving churlishly, burying its request for comment in a wordy title that does not reflect its true intentions. But FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel published a statement asking people to "make some noise" and write in. Rosenworcel says that the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality was on the "wrong side of history" and that the public should demand an "open internet."
Those wishing to make a comment can do so on the FCC's Electronic Filing System, entering 17-108 (Restoring Internet Freedom) in the proceedings box. The deadline for comments is March 30th.
"But, while siding with the body, judges have asked the FCC to determine if repealing the law to prevent a multi-speed internet has had any negative consequences." That includes checking if net neutrality repeal has harmed public safety, reduced spending in infrastructure or hampered the Lifeline program. Consequently, the FCC will launch a period where the public and interested parties can share their views on the process. This is not an opportunity to re-litigate net neutrality repeal, but it is an opportunity to examine if the FCC acted properly and with regard to its broader obligations. The court, for instance, has directed the body to see if repeal has harmed public safety and reduced investment in critical infrastructure...
The Register claims that the FCC is behaving churlishly, burying its request for comment in a wordy title that does not reflect its true intentions. But FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel published a statement asking people to "make some noise" and write in. Rosenworcel says that the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality was on the "wrong side of history" and that the public should demand an "open internet."
Those wishing to make a comment can do so on the FCC's Electronic Filing System, entering 17-108 (Restoring Internet Freedom) in the proceedings box. The deadline for comments is March 30th.
How to post (Score:5, Informative)
HOW TO POST:
1. Enter 17-108 in the first field
2. Fill the other fields as usual. Keep your comment brief and to the point and make it unambiguous, no sarcasm.
3. Click submit.
4. Wait for the submit confirmation page to load, then click confirm.
Done!
Re:How to post (Score:5, Interesting)
You have until March 30th to submit a response (although I wouldn't leave it until the last minute), so that's up to 5 weeks to think carefully about what you want to say and the key points you want to make, write a draft, proof read it, and only *then* submit it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. The FCC may tally a count of how many identical messages it receives, but nobody is going to read them anyway. Really, only novel and unique comments are going to attract any attention, and then only if they happen to be well written, clearly reasoned, and factual.
So unless your point is just to vent, be nice, respectful and reasonable or the flunky reading your comment will just file it in the bit bucket and not read it in the first place. After that, realize that it is extremely unlikel
Yeah, don't be churlish... (Score:2)
churlish | \ chr-lish \
Definition of churlish
1: of, resembling, or characteristic of a churl : VULGAR
2: marked by a lack of civility or graciousness : SURLY
he didn't like the churlish tone in his voice
— Margaret Truman
outrage is among your more churlish emotions
— Robert Goldsborough
It would be churlish not to congratulate her.
3: difficult to work with or deal with
It is not a vote. It's to be informative (Score:2)
The main reason a form letter is pointless is because the comments process is very much NOT a voting process.
As the summary says, "this is not an opportunity to re-litigate net neutrality repeal".
Rather, the regulatory comments process is about pointing out things the agency doesn't already know, or making suggestions they haven't thought of. I've had more than one of my comments incorporated into regulations, so it is effective - if you understand what it is and use it for what it can do.
An example of som
Re: How to post (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
By all means, comment... But realize that it's pretty meaningless if your intent is to bring back NN. Some low level flunky at the FCC *might* read what you type, but I seriously doubt any of it will reach a commissioner. The comment thing never really amounts to anything anyway.
Remember the topic here is about the effect of reversing a regulation that never really took effect in the first place, so I seriously doubt anybody here can name one negative outcome that is verifiable fact and not theory. By al
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Let's not let the spambots win this time.
HOW TO POST:
1. Enter 17-108 in the first field
2. Fill the other fields as usual. Keep your comment brief and to the point and make it unambiguous, no sarcasm.
3. Click submit.
4. Wait for the submit confirmation page to load, then click confirm.
Done!
Let's not let the spambots win this time.
HOW TO POST:
1. Enter 17-108 in the first field
2. Fill the other fields as usual. Keep your comment brief and to the point and make it unambiguous, no sarcasm.
3. Click submit.
4. Wait for the submit confirmation page to load, then click confirm.
Done!
Let's not let the spambots win this time.
HOW TO POST:
1. Enter 17-108 in the first field
2. Fill the other fields as usual. Keep your comment brief and to the point and make it unambiguous, no sarcasm.
3. Click submit.
4. Wait for the submit confirmation page to load, then click confirm.
Done!
Let's not let the spambots win this time.
HOW TO POST:
1. Enter 17-108 in the first field
2. Fill the other fields as usual. Keep your comment brief and to the point and make it unambiguous, no sarcasm.
3. Click submit.
4. Wait for the submit confirmation page to load, then click confirm.
Done!
Great, it's working, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Da, comrade. Please to be keeping up the good work.
Re: (Score:1)
Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"But, while siding with the body, judges have asked the FCC to determine if repealing the law to prevent a multi-speed internet has had any negative consequences."
FCC Honcho: It did prompt you to force us to have another public round of feedback that we'll ignore and, instead, continue to do what's best for the corporations we used/hope to work for... That's bad -- for us, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
But FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel published a statement asking people to "make some noise" and write in. Rosenworcel says that the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality was on the "wrong side of history" and that the public should demand an "open internet."
Sorry, did we say "FCC Comissioner"? That should have read "former FCC Comissioner". Just signing her severance check now...
Re: (Score:1)
FCC Honcho: It did prompt you to force us to have another public round of feedback that we'll ignore and, instead, continue to do what's best for the corporations we used/hope to work for... That's bad -- for us, anyway.
Just another day of economic slavery, sad watching humanity and the world being destroyed by the endless greed of an evil upper class. How can people be so stupid, why don't we realize how much the scumbags at the top have stolen from us all?
Re: Well ... (Score:1)
Re: Well ... (Score:1)
Iâ(TM)m beginning to wonder. Everybody was chicken little, screaming with their heads chopped off that the sky would fall. The only thing I have seen, not only as a consumer, but also as a small ISP/ITSP is a massive jump in entry level service. As a consumer its great. I have seen $60/mo recurring go from 40-50Mbps to 200Mbps. Suddenly fiber has become available with synchronous upload/dl speeds as high as 1G/1G for anywhere between $100 - $200/mo; a fraction of its cost 3 years ago. As a small ISP i
Re: (Score:3)
"But, while siding with the body, judges have asked the FCC to determine if repealing the law to prevent a multi-speed internet has had any negative consequences."
FCC Honcho: It did prompt you to force us to have another public round of feedback that we'll ignore and, instead, continue to do what's best for the corporations we used/hope to work for... That's bad -- for us, anyway.
I'm glad you understand the situation here. The Public Comment section of the FCC's website is designed to elicit feedback about the policies being considered by the commissioners. It's not there to provide a way for the public to vote on these decisions.
As the NN rules have already been revoked and that decision is not being reconsidered what's the point? At this point the Public Comment for this issue is about HOW the FCC reached this decision and the procedures it used. It has nothing really to do
Just clean up the dirt (Score:2)
Get rid of Ashit Pile and you'll clean up the air pretty fucking quickly.
Re: Just clean up the dirt (Score:1)
He has a non-Western European name, which can be punned extensively True Americans. What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
He has a non-Western European name, which can be punned extensively True Americans. What's not to like?
You reallly think us TrueAmericans (and us Fake Americans) don't pull similar wordplay on standard USA names? You clearly never went to an elementary or high school in the US.
Type Away! (Score:1)
Anything that keeps people occupied in rambling about their theories about this worn out topic in a way that we all don't have to see crowding our forums is a good thing.
The government does good in providing write-only input boxes like this.
It's demonstable (Score:1)
There were already violations of net neutrality that had to be fought. Just take a look at a list of those and now you'll know how the public was impacted as these restrictions no longer exist.
Re: the endgame (Score:2)
Re: the endgame (Score:1)
Re: the endgame (Score:1)
What authority does the judge have to do this? (Score:1)
Congress gave the FCC certain regulatory authority. The judge's job is to determine ...
- Does the FCC's NN decision and its enactment processes fall within that regulatory authority Congress gave to the FCC and federal law?
- Is the regulation Constitutional?
That's all. Judges are not there to make or modify regulations because somebody is getting the short stick.
My $0.02 is that regulations of this magnitude should require Legislative approval.
On a related topic, does Congress have the Const
Moot point without CDA 230. (Score:1)
Fighting so that packets are given equal prioritization means nothing if the content of said packets are heavily restricted and censored.
Re: Moot point without CDA 230. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It is more likely the FCC website blocked your ISP, but either way you could always try it from a different connection, or through a VPN.
The White House is also posturing on this (Score:2)
The fact that selling customer data is lucrative for the ISPs is not a surprise, it's the positive spin on it that I find amusing.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you'll find that judges didn't have to get involved the first time. This had actually been very well thought out at great length by people better and smarter than you and me, well before either of us had even heard of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just asking to be dominated by by disconnected DC demagogues.
Biggest Issue (Score:2)
the report conclusion is already known (Score:1)
Seriously? (Score:2)
hypocrisy (Score:1)
Does anyone else find it incredibly hypocritical that on the one hand, Google spends a lot lobbying for net neutrality to force telecom carriers to act as neutral platforms making no distinction between content, but meanwhile Youtube is a giant monopoly that claims the right to censor whatever content it damn well pleases? We need net neutrality for social media monopolies. How do you justify a double standard where the lower levels of the stack are forced to be neutral platforms, but the higher levels ar