Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts The Internet

Judge Forces America's FCC To Seek New Public Feedback on Its Net Neutrality Repeal (engadget.com) 47

Posted by EditorDavid from the pulling-back-the-throttle dept.
"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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Forces America's FCC To Seek New Public Feedback on Its Net Neutrality Repeal More

Judge Forces America's FCC To Seek New Public Feedback on Its Net Neutrality Repeal

Comments Filter:

  • How to post (Score:5, Informative)

    by spiritplumber ( 1944222 ) on Monday February 24, 2020 @04:36AM (#59759762) Homepage
    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!

    • Re:How to post (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday February 24, 2020 @04:50AM (#59759792) Homepage
      To add to the above, I'd strongly suggest that you do NOT use a form letter for things like this, and especially so in this specific instance. Given the FCC's previous modus operandi, they'll simply jettison any of those they can identify which do not agree with their preferred point of view as part of their "commitment to ensuring no abuse by spambots", while somehow allowing all the genuine spambot posts that support their position to get overlooked.

      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.

      • 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

        • 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

      • 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

    • Anyone else having an issue with their cell phone keyboard not providing the ENTER/RETURN key on the name field? It feels like the FCC did a study on how to block as many submissions as possible with a horrible UX. Had the whole comment typed out...now I'll have to redo on my laptop. Grr.

    • 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

    • it doesn't take my name or my zip code even with the extension. I feel like this form is designed to discourage people.

    • 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.

    • How to squash public input: The form says this at the bottom: "Note: You are filing a document into an official FCC proceeding. All information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the web." I'm not willing to expose myself that way. Am I a coward?

  • Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday February 24, 2020 @04:47AM (#59759786)

    "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.

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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?

      • Fear does a great job of making people illogical and ignorant. While all politicians manipulate (its the nature of governing), *some* politicians manipulate through fear far more than others and hopefully there is a special place in hell for them :D

    • 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

    • "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

  • Get rid of Ashit Pile and you'll clean up the air pretty fucking quickly.

    • He has a non-Western European name, which can be punned extensively True Americans. What's not to like?

      • 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.

  • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • 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

  • The fight for "Net Neutrality" is completely moot if CDA 230 protections are wiped out.

    Fighting so that packets are given equal prioritization means nothing if the content of said packets are heavily restricted and censored.
  • Amusingly, the White House is claiming [arstechnica.com] that killing Net Neutrality has raised incomes by $50 billion / year. And that killing privacy in 2017 has been likewise lucrative.

    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.
  • Most people don't understand the issue.
  • Allowing the FCC to write their own report will just allow them to find one or two corners that support them and elect to state that the overall effect was a net positive. If they are forced into a corner they may acknowledge that there are some disadvantages, but the overall report will saw it has had great benefits to mankind.
  • I hate to say this and it honestly makes me sad to have to but... Sithpi and his sponsors at the cellular and cable companies have already put more than enough money into this process of subverting the public good to win the day. This is simply window dressing or lipstick on a pig for the show of it. In the end Cadet bone spurs administration will run to the supreme court, the one they packed, and the writing there is on the wall. We get fucked, the internet providers and phone companies get DEEPER in o

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close