realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Oh? There is a rule that they don't have to tell people what the heck they just passed?
Net Neutrality
- Thread starter cheryl
- Start date
Sportello
Well-Known Member
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
The article had nothing on the need for secrecy.
The was a public comment section where some one said how they thought the process worked.
Did you think that was part of the article?
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Since you and at least one other member don't quite seem to be able to grasp the way the FCC works, I really don't think it is my obligation to explain it to you. You wouldn't believe anything I told you, anyway.
You can always watch the news conference that was held to explain the ruling. I'm sure you can find it without my help.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
You don't have to explain an insinuation that you made.
But you could post an actual link to the reason these 330 pages have not been released.
Unless you really do deserve that TROLL moniker.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
From the link I posted, and from the Q&A available to anyone who cares:
It is not normal for the FCC to release a draft order before it's voted on. The supposed "blackout" is just a Republican shouting point.
We should be getting it soon.
Tom Wheeler said at the after-vote Press Q&A that they,
Q: Jim Puzzanghera of the L.A. Times;
"I wanna try again on some amount of specificity to when the order might be public. Of course, until it's public, it is a secret plan, just in terms of dictionary definition. How long would it typically take for an order of this length to be made public?"
A: Jon Sallet, FCC General Council;
"It's not a secret plan, Jim. It's a part of a process.
The process began with a public notice of proposed rulemaking,
a lengthy process of obtaining public comment,
the normal process of deliberation,
now we're going to go into the normal process by which commissioners issue, for example dissents, and the commission, for example, responds to those dissents.
And I want to explain that last piece...
For example, a recent DC Circuit opinion said that it was an obligation of a regulatory commission to engage in the arguments that were presented to it including the statements of any dissenting commissioners.
So we will work, as I said, as quickly as possible. It's not possible to give an average here or at least it's not possible for me to give an average. But our goal is to get the process moving forward so that the whole order can be released, with of course all commissioner statements; it can be sent to the Federal Register, published in the Federal Register and then these rules will become effective 60 days after that publication."
Follow up Q:
"Do the lengths of the dissent, does that factor in here? The longer the dissent does [*] that more than you need to respond to?"
A:
"It's not a question of the length of the dissents. It's a question of this... and let me read from the DC Circuit opinion to which I earlier referred,
This is the DC Circuit saying, and I'm eliminating internal quotemarks and citations, 'It most emphatically remains the duty of this court to ensure that an agency engage the arguments raised before it, including the arguments of the agency's dissenting commissioners.'
We will do that as quickly as we can."
[*] I think there was a me/him/or CSPAN glitch
It should be noted that the commissioners also voted for "Editorial Privilege". Which means that they can go back over the Order and clean up any typos, footnotes, references, attributions, etc. Basically spit-and-polishing the, up until now, draft document. That does not mean they can go back and make fundamental material changes.
That may or may not add time to it's release. *shrug*
It is not normal for the FCC to release a draft order before it's voted on. The supposed "blackout" is just a Republican shouting point.
We should be getting it soon.
Tom Wheeler said at the after-vote Press Q&A that they,
- Must get dissents in from the two dissenting commissioners
- They'll have to look at them, There's a Court opinion that requires the majority to be responsive to the dissents.
- Then they will publish on the web and file with the Federal Register for publication.
Q: Jim Puzzanghera of the L.A. Times;
"I wanna try again on some amount of specificity to when the order might be public. Of course, until it's public, it is a secret plan, just in terms of dictionary definition. How long would it typically take for an order of this length to be made public?"
A: Jon Sallet, FCC General Council;
"It's not a secret plan, Jim. It's a part of a process.
The process began with a public notice of proposed rulemaking,
a lengthy process of obtaining public comment,
the normal process of deliberation,
now we're going to go into the normal process by which commissioners issue, for example dissents, and the commission, for example, responds to those dissents.
And I want to explain that last piece...
For example, a recent DC Circuit opinion said that it was an obligation of a regulatory commission to engage in the arguments that were presented to it including the statements of any dissenting commissioners.
So we will work, as I said, as quickly as possible. It's not possible to give an average here or at least it's not possible for me to give an average. But our goal is to get the process moving forward so that the whole order can be released, with of course all commissioner statements; it can be sent to the Federal Register, published in the Federal Register and then these rules will become effective 60 days after that publication."
Follow up Q:
"Do the lengths of the dissent, does that factor in here? The longer the dissent does [*] that more than you need to respond to?"
A:
"It's not a question of the length of the dissents. It's a question of this... and let me read from the DC Circuit opinion to which I earlier referred,
This is the DC Circuit saying, and I'm eliminating internal quotemarks and citations, 'It most emphatically remains the duty of this court to ensure that an agency engage the arguments raised before it, including the arguments of the agency's dissenting commissioners.'
We will do that as quickly as we can."
[*] I think there was a me/him/or CSPAN glitch
It should be noted that the commissioners also voted for "Editorial Privilege". Which means that they can go back over the Order and clean up any typos, footnotes, references, attributions, etc. Basically spit-and-polishing the, up until now, draft document. That does not mean they can go back and make fundamental material changes.
That may or may not add time to it's release. *shrug*
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
You just believe all the crap Rachel Maddow feeds you. Don't you?Republicans have been desperately lying about net neutrality, trying to convince us that it's "big government" interference that will destroy our internet experience. As with most Republican propaganda, the exact opposite is true. Thanks in part to President Obama's leadership and to the public making our voiced heard, the FCC just voted to support a free and open internet, a major victory for all of us.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
Go campaign for KOCH-Roach walker--- TRAITOR.....
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Was Rachel Maddow talking about the Koch brothers this week, because you are starting to sound like a one trick pony. And your one trick sucks.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
So @realbrown1, do you understand how the FCC works, and the laws they are bound by, or are you still in the dark?
What can I do to lead you to the light?
What can I do to lead you to the light?
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
I figured this was all about money. You watch, those 330 pages are going to have fees and taxes in them. That's why they are not releasing them until the heat dies down.
More tricks to get more of our money from Odunbo's cronies.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Those 330 pages don't exist.
It will only be about money if the Republican's overturn the rule. That can only happen if they gain the Presidency.
Given the current state of the party, I don't see that happening.
Scott Walker 2016!
Indecisi0n
Well-Known Member
They want to not only charge residential customers for "faster" internet but also charge large bandwidth companies like Netflix more. Looks like that window just slammed shut.
Little guy - 1
Big companies - 100,00,000,234,239.01
We are catching up.
Little guy - 1
Big companies - 100,00,000,234,239.01
We are catching up.
Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality - ARS Technica
Internet providers need the freedom to block and throttle Internet traffic.
US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) this week filed legislation she calls the "Internet Freedom Act" to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's new network neutrality rules.
The FCC's neutrality rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or throttling Internet traffic, prohibit prioritization of traffic in exchange for payment, and require the ISPs to disclose network management practices.
Blackburn's legislation would also wipe out the FCC's decision to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service subject to some of the Title II obligations imposed on wireline telephone and mobile voice. But while Internet providers and some Republicans have claimed to support net neutrality rules while opposing Title II reclassification, this bill would not leave any network neutrality rules in place. That's not surprising, given that Blackburn has been trying to get rid of net neutrality rules for years.
The legislation has 31 Republican cosponsors.
Internet providers need the freedom to block and throttle Internet traffic.
US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) this week filed legislation she calls the "Internet Freedom Act" to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's new network neutrality rules.
The FCC's neutrality rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or throttling Internet traffic, prohibit prioritization of traffic in exchange for payment, and require the ISPs to disclose network management practices.
Blackburn's legislation would also wipe out the FCC's decision to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service subject to some of the Title II obligations imposed on wireline telephone and mobile voice. But while Internet providers and some Republicans have claimed to support net neutrality rules while opposing Title II reclassification, this bill would not leave any network neutrality rules in place. That's not surprising, given that Blackburn has been trying to get rid of net neutrality rules for years.
The legislation has 31 Republican cosponsors.
brett636
Well-Known Member
People were decrying congress for giving the President an internet "kill switch" as an overstep of government authority. Now those same fools are celebrating something that can become far worse. Those in power are never happy with their limits and now they just expanded their authority further...
Net neutrality is something that comes out of a free ISP market. No ISP in their right mind would attempt to "violate" net neutrality lest they lose the services of certain websites and the loss of customers to any of the competition in the area that doesn't "violate" it.
The problem is the market isn't free, local municipalities and states have imposed laws and miles upon miles of red tape ensuring certain ISPs stay in power and any competition has to slog through this bureaucracy before they can even attempt to compete. There's federal deregulation but instead now there's a serious lack of local deregulation.
The problem is the market isn't free, local municipalities and states have imposed laws and miles upon miles of red tape ensuring certain ISPs stay in power and any competition has to slog through this bureaucracy before they can even attempt to compete. There's federal deregulation but instead now there's a serious lack of local deregulation.
