Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Government The Internet

Why the FCC Is Likely To Ignore Net Neutrality Comments and Listen To ISPs 140

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
Jason Koebler writes: Time and time again, federal agencies like the FCC ignore what the public says it wants and side with the parties actually being regulated — the ISPs, in this case. Research and past example prove that there's not much that can be considered democratic about the public comment period or its aftermath. "Typically, there are a score or so of lengthy comments that include extensive data, analysis, and arguments. Courts require agencies to respond to comments of that type, and they sometimes persuade an agency to take an action that differs from its proposal," Richard Pierce, a George Washington University regulatory law professor said. "Those comments invariably come from companies with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars at stake or the lawyers and trade associations that represent them. Those are the only comments that have any chance of persuading an agency."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why the FCC Is Likely To Ignore Net Neutrality Comments and Listen To ISPs

Comments Filter:
  • No shit really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @05:42PM (#47470615)

    I am shocked, Shocked I say.

    • Re:No shit really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fyngyrz (762201) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:14PM (#47470881) Homepage Journal

      Yep. Just like the rest of the government. Citizen input is an illusion at best, and even then, only one that takes in the highly gullible and blindly nationalistic.

      And to the mods: The A/C's comment was harshly sarcastic, but that is entirely appropriate in this circumstance. Modding the A/c (parent) comment down is stupid. It's topical, accurate, and to the point. Mod it back up. Mod mine down instead if you must mod something down just to vent your spleens, or whatever your problem is.

    • Re:No shit really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by preaction (1526109) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:16PM (#47470887)

      Well, not that shocked.

    • Re:No shit really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darinbob (1142669) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @09:33PM (#47471955)

      If you want public comments, you want them from knowledgeable members of the public. That's a good thing on the surface. The problem is that the most knowledgeable members of the public in a subject area are very often the same people affected by the regulations. Thus, the experts on nuclear energy production are usually employed or funded by nuclear energy producers. In this case, the experts on network interactions on the large scale are often from the very big network providers or network transport companies, and experts with a neutral position or neutral technical perspective will be relatively rare.

      So what's the alternative? I don't see one. Either the corporations control it all, or the government relies upon so-called experts with a change of inadvertently causing regulatory capture, or the government attempts to regulate without expert advice. None of those are good. Essentially right now we have the worst possible system, except for all the other systems.

      • by doccus (2020662)
        "the worst possible system, except for all the other systems" LOL!
      • by nobodie (1555367)

        This, my friends is the core of the issue. The solution, the one that worked in the 40s, 50s and 60s was a skilled literate and dedicated Civil Service. My father was a part of that civil service, he was skilled in providing and transporting petroleum products to the armed forces in combat and worked war games for the army, often traveling to the Pentagon to support the games. His background? WWII from Normandy to Berlin (the "fighting 25th") and the Korean "Police Action" from beginning to end as well. He

    • by CauseBy (3029989)

      "Why the FCC Is Likely To Ignore Net Neutrality Comments and Listen To ISPs"

      Because fuck you, peon.

  • This just in... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Moheeheeko (1682914) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @05:44PM (#47470625)
    Government agency run by former lobbyists support current lobbyists. In related news it's reported that water makes things wet.
    • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @05:50PM (#47470657)

      In related news it's reported that water makes things wet.

        Not necessarily [wikipedia.org].

    • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HermMunster (972336) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:04PM (#47470805)

      Herein lies the kicker. Yep, Wheeler was placed there specifically for that purpose. It's an old Scientologist trick. They couldn't get the OK as far as their tax exempt status so they got their own people hired into those positions in order to make the decision in their favor. And, you know what? You can't do anything about it other than try to show proof that they did so with that intent, the intent to subvert the democratic process. It is a subversion of it but they know you can't do anything about it, so all they have to do is feign the desire to have the public concern heard even if they never intended to listen, and then make the decision in the ISP's favor. Wheeler, and his masters, knows that once the decision is made it will take Congress to counteract it. Then of course you have the President and the Vice President both of which favor the big corps that pay for this lobbying.

      • by rsborg (111459) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:34PM (#47470989) Homepage

        Herein lies the kicker. Yep, Wheeler was placed there specifically for that purpose. It's an old Scientologist trick. They couldn't get the OK as far as their tax exempt status so they got their own people hired into those positions in order to make the decision in their favor. And, you know what? You can't do anything about it other than try to show proof that they did so with that intent, the intent to subvert the democratic process. It is a subversion of it but they know you can't do anything about it, so all they have to do is feign the desire to have the public concern heard even if they never intended to listen, and then make the decision in the ISP's favor. Wheeler, and his masters, knows that once the decision is made it will take Congress to counteract it. Then of course you have the President and the Vice President both of which favor the big corps that pay for this lobbying.

        The amusing thing is that if you remove mention of a specific agency or actor, the above tactic is what all the big corporations and industry groups are using to subvert the public interest to serve their profit interest and this infestation of governmental agencies works regardless of who is in power (as long as you contribute to both parties - or at least the party in power).

        There's even a term for it: Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org]

      • And there's no shortage of Congress folk who will spread their legs really wide for telecom. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is probably the spreadiest:

        http://motherboard.vice.com/re... [vice.com]

    • by Agares (1890982)
      Lies all lies! (please note the sarcasm)
  • by mlauzon (818714) <`mlauzon' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @05:47PM (#47470643) Homepage
    '...time and time again, federal agencies like the FCC ignore what the public says it wants and side with the parties actually being regulated...' This is because the FCC -- just like the CRTC here in Canada -- are run by former employees of the companies, and will side with their former employer every time, as they'd rather help them than the public at large. It boils down to conflict of interest, but nothing is ever done about it.
    • Regulatory agencies and lobbying are usually sugar-coated versions of corruption for the benefit of the general public.

    • by suutar (1860506) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:36PM (#47471013)

      The important aspect is not so much that the companies are _former_ employers as that the companies are _future_ employers.

      • by mysidia (191772)

        that the companies are _former_ employers as that the companies are _future_ employers.

        This is problematic. When you sign up for a regulatory agency to participate in the agency legislating the regulations, there should be a mandatory period of at least 10 years after you leave during which you cannot be employed by anyone in the industry you regulated, and especially, accepting any reward or promise of potential future employment should be illegal.

        • by suutar (1860506)

          I think this would put a hefty dent in the existing problem, but it brings up a new problem of what're they gonna do for a living during those 10 years? I haven't come up with a viable answer for that; all the income sources I can think of come down to: regulated industry - that's what we're trying to prevent; government (pension) - turns the job into a vacation factory (work for FCC for a year, get 10 off); nonregulated industry - best case, but depends on them having enough skills that aren't focused on h

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @05:51PM (#47470681)

    ...where she stops, everybody knows. They are going to listen to the ISPs because the current head of the FCC is the former head of a communications lobby group, and the current head of a communications lobby group is the former head of the FCC.

  • Really? Amazing, if you staff a regulation body with the people from organizations that are supposedly being regulated by that body, it fails? Really? Who could have possibly imagined that!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:56PM (#47471149)

      This is a very natural (and I believe very intended) consequence of the drumbeat campaign in this country against people who work for the government. The notion at the outset was that government work is supposed to be compensated well but not lavishly, there's supposed to be job stability, and retirement stability. The idea is that you give up a lot when you work for the government: a good deal of your privacy, the ability to earn a lot of bonus money and other incentives, and of course dealing with blood pressure raising rules more than a bit.

      The idea was you trade the possibility of becoming extremely rich for the probability of being comfortable. Some personalities prefer that sort of arrangement, and government work has its share of superstars and super losers just like any organization.

      Enter the right wing: we need to stop raises, get rid of job security, get rid of pensions, and generally make working for the government have none of the benefits of the private sector and none of the previous benefits of the public sector either.

      What this promotes is the revolving door. It promotes corruption. It promotes regulatory capture. It promotes people doing whatever they have to do in order to get back what was taken from them.

      This was very, very intentional on the part (primarily) of right wing and libertarian types whose mantra should be "government is broken, and in case you find someplace it actually works just put us in charge and we'll break it for you". Those of you who hire people: would you really seriously let someone work for you whose opening in a job interview is to tell you that he or she doesn't believe in your organization, its mission, or anything about it? I think not. Yet that's exactly how a lot of people elect their politicians these days.

      Let's face it: government can be oppressive and controlling, and in fact these days is very much so where ordinary people are concerned at least. It is ALSO the only force that can stand up to monied interests when it is controlled by the people it represents. We don't have that now. The solution is to take back government and force it to do what we want. Throwing it away or gutting it simply gives power over to the huge corporations and the ultra wealthy that you cannot control by any other means.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @05:54PM (#47470705) Homepage Journal

    And corporations are people, my friend...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:00PM (#47470755)

      And corporations are people, my friend...

      "I'll Believe Corporations Are People When Texas Executes One"

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:18PM (#47470909)

        "I'll Believe Corporations Are People When Texas Executes One"

        http://www.corporatesecretary.... [corporatesecretary.com]

        "In January 2005, Texas revoked TA’s certificate of authority for failure to pay its annual franchise tax...Sometime thereafter, one of the loans that First Community had purchased went into default. Subsequently, First Community was unable to recover on the loan due to TA’s breach of the dealer agreement. In 2007, First Community brought suit on TA’s breach of the dealer agreement and won a judgment against TA and against TA’s president individually...The judgment against the company’s president was upheld on appeal because Texas statutes provide that if a corporation loses its certificate of authority, the directors and officers are liable for any debts on the part of the corporation thereafter.

        • In January 2005, Texas revoked TA’s certificate of authority for failure to pay its annual franchise tax

          Any state will do that - it's hardly an "execution". In my state it's a whopping $150 per year that goes to $400 if you fail to pay by the designated date. They don't do an administrative dissolution until much later.
    • So if someone were to open a million numbered companies, then is each one like a little slave baby that has all the rights of a person, but not the self determination?

      • In its landmark 5-4 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out years of campaign finance law by ruling that corporations and labor unions have the same First Amendment freedom of speech rights as individuals in using their funds to support or oppose candidates for election. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens raised an interesting, if somewhat sarcastic question: does this mean corporations can vote now?
        "Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech," wrote Justice Stevens.

        -- So, Can Corporations Vote Now? [about.com]

        • by Anonymous Coward

          What I want to know is... will the next republican president try and appoint a corporation to the SCOTUS? If you look at the rules for who may be appointed a judge.. there are NONE, only that they be confirmed. You could put a literal chimp on the court, as long as you can get it confirmed.

          It wouldn't surprise me at all if all this corporate personhood bullshit was setup to start placing corporations as members of SCOTUS - the current CEO of which would sit in as the representative. The powers that be co

        • by suutar (1860506)

          Why would they want to? Comcast can get a lot more done by throwing money at lobbying than by adding one more vote to the congressional race in whatever district they're incorporated in. Sure, I suppose if they were granted the right they'd have someone go cast that vote, but it's not important enough for them to actually work towards.

    • RE: To whomever modded this post "Flamebait" -

      Thank you. If only we could publicly point that shit out when politicians say it on the campaign trail.

  • Henry Ford quipped. "If I asked the American people what they wanted, they would have said - faster horses".
    • by fyngyrz (762201)

      Which is exactly what he gave them. What is an engine rated in? Horsepower. Eats less hay, though, and doesn't crap directly on the street.

    • by exomondo (1725132)

      Henry Ford quipped. "If I asked the American people what they wanted, they would have said - faster horses".

      How is that analogous? He didn't ask the people "do you want cars or faster horses".

      • The analogous part is asking the people for opinion and the rejection thereof.
        Q.E.D.
        • by exomondo (1725132)
          But Henry Ford didn't ask the people for opinion, nor did he - as is being done with net neutrality - present a choice and ask for feedback on that.
          • by dcw3 (649211)

            Are you picking nits because it's not an actual analogy? It's still germane to the discussion as Ford's opinion appears to be that the people didn't really know what was good for them until it was presented by the experts/innovators. Uninformed opinion being basically useless.

            • by exomondo (1725132)
              No I'm saying this isn't a case of "the people not knowing what's good for them". Uninformed opinion in that case was not even being presented with options, anybody can see why the idea of faster horses loses to cars if presented the options but why should net neutrality lose out?
  • by Daimanta (1140543) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:00PM (#47470759) Journal

    Two words: Regulatory Capture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

  • by felrom (2923513) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:00PM (#47470763)

    Turn the EFF into the NRA of online rights. If the EFF had 5,000,000 dues paying, donating, voting, vocal, invested members, we wouldn't be having these discussions about ISPs writing their own laws. The hardest part is already done: organizing some people who know what they're doing into what is now the EFF.

    People just need to decide that their rights are worth at least $25/year.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is the truth, because here's the nut.

      We are a "Republic", a "Representative Democracy", not a Direct Democracy. We elect the representatives to REPRESENT us. The assorted government agencies do not need to "listen" to us directly, they need to listen to our Representatives.

      The NRA is effective because it can rally it's base to interact with the Representatives in Washington. It doesn't take millions of people to swing local elections, it takes a few hundred or thousand.

      If the EFF was able to become the

    • by Guppy06 (410832) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @09:26PM (#47471921)

      The NRA has its deep pockets and resultant clout not (necessarily) from numerous individual private members but from effectively being an arms industry trade group, the USCoC of arms manufacturers and dealers.

      And so long as we continue to have the kinds of wealth disparities we haven't seen since 1929, catering to rich corporate interests (with varying levels of populist veneer) is the only way to get enough money to actually influence policy.

      • by heypete (60671)

        The NRA has its deep pockets and resultant clout not (necessarily) from numerous individual private members but from effectively being an arms industry trade group, the USCoC of arms manufacturers and dealers.

        The NSSF [nssf.org] is the arms industry trade group. The private arms industry in the US is relatively small compared to, say, the oil, tobacco, alcohol, etc. industry and doesn't have anywhere near the same political clout as those industries. The largest source of income for the NRA is membership dues, and it's from their 5+ million members that they derive their political clout.

        • by Guppy06 (410832)

          The largest source of income for the NRA is membership dues

          http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

          While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

          The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... [theatlantic.com]

          But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom"

    • I pay them every month. If you are reading this, are you paying your share?
      • Yup. Everyone else who agrees should to.

      • by dcw3 (649211)

        I shouldn't have to pay to keep my constitutional rights.

        • No, in an ideal world you wouldn't. But, the founders of our country knew the biggest threats would always come from the government itself. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." I pay the EFF to be vigilant for me, just like members of the NRA do.
    • by dcw3 (649211)

      You might have to hold a gun to their heads to collect.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:00PM (#47470767)

    Like Netflix has done, and YouTube is starting to do. Point out which ISP's are not providing you with the bandwidth YOU bought to download the content YOU requested.

    Google can even do better. In order to not detract from the bandwidth YouTube has available for an ISP users, it can stop crawling web sites on the ISP's network. After Verizon or Comcast sees that none of their hosted platforms are indexed on Google, then Google can offer to sell them separate 'hi-speed' indexing peering points.

  • Provide Solutions. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TechyImmigrant (175943) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:08PM (#47470829) Journal

    When you respond to a call for comments from a federal agency, don't say it sucks. Say what's wrong and provide solutions.
    Solutions should come in the form of exact text changes that the editor can copy and paste into the document. People are lazy. Text talks.

    See this: http://csrc.nist.gov/publicati... [nist.gov]

    In my comments, each comment comes with a resolution..
    E.G.

    The diagram shows inputs to functions including entropy, personalization string, nonce and Additional input. However the text calls out only the
    nonce input as being optional. By omission it leaves the optionality of the other inputs ambiguous. In a specification, where there is a list of items,
    some optional, some mandatory, it is necessary to identify the optional or mandatory nature of every item.
    Also, “depending on the implementation” is redundant and adds no meaning.
    Proposed resolution:
    Replace
    Figure 1 provides a functional model of a DRBG (i.e., one type of RBG). A DRBG uses a DRBG mechanism and a source of entropy
    input, and may, depending on the implementation of the DRBG mechanism, include a nonce source. The components of this model are
    discussed in the following subsections.
    With
    Figure 1 provides a functional model of a DRBG (i.e., one type of RBG). A DRBG shall implement an approved DRBG algorithm and at
    least one approved source of entropy input, and may include additional optional sources including a nonce source, personalization string,
    and additional input. The components of this model are discussed in the following subsections.
     

  • by troll -1 (956834) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:09PM (#47470839)
    I first heard about regulatory capture in an economics class where it was referred to a the Stockholm Syndrome for regulators. It's a well documented phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] It also doesn't help when regulators are guaranteed well paid future jobs within the industries they are currently supposed to be regulating.
  • by mendax (114116) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:17PM (#47470899)

    The government is corrupt, morally bankrupt, and will do what those with the most money want them to do. As someone suggested above, if the EFF was the NRA of Internet it would be a different matter. But, in the end, since this really is an issue of two conflicting corporate interests, and one of these interests just happens to mirror that of the people.

    Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them. The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance. Another possibility is that the content providers the ISP's are throttling will eventually become ISP's themselves, especially Google.

    • by barc0001 (173002)

      "he ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it"

      Until a) they ALL do it to level the playing field and ensure that all ISPs get to bleed the major content providers equally, or b) Comcast finishes buying every last major ISP like they seem to be planning based on their past and pending acquisitions.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You are assuming that people have a choice in ISPs. There are areas around here where, due to lack of competition, the telecom hasn't even layed out nodes and the country side is dialup or satellite at best.

    • by Shadowmist (57488)

      The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance. Another possibility is that the content providers the ISP's are throttling will eventually become ISP's themselves, especially Google.

      Waiting for Google to save us is essentially waiting for something that's not going to happen. Most users are stuck between a choice of one ISP or perhaps two, both of which engaged in the same practices.

    • by steelfood (895457)

      Another possibility is that the content providers the ISP's are throttling will eventually become ISP's themselves, especially Google.

      Google's doing exactly this, and Google's quickly [bloomberg.com] backing off supporting net neutrality. I wouldn't look to them to take the lead. In fact, I'd probably shy away from any relying on corporations. They only do what's in their best interest, which if we're lucky, aligns with public interest. The EFF does good work, but I think the EFF is not very visible and probably could use a new PR/marketing guy along with a ton more money.

      Net neutrality would largely be moot if there wasn't government-granted monopolies

    • by spyke252 (2679761)

      Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them.

      I'm not so concerned for Google or Netflix as I am concerned about startups who would otherwise be able to compete with the content provided by ISPs. What would've happened had Verizon and Comcast slowed down traffic to Netflix when it was first created? What about if it were possible when Facebook, or Google, were born?

      I think it sets a dangerous precedent when one or two companies literally get to decide what new services are good ideas and then create their own, shitty version of it that competes only o

    • Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them. The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance.

      Since we are talking about the US 'market' here; what the fuck are you smoking?

  • by Bruce66423 (1678196) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:48PM (#47471089)
    Consultation is NOT about demonstrating that there are a lot of people opposed to a decision; that's what the democratic process of the commision, congress etc is for. Consultation properly is to raise specific issues that the bureaucrats haven't thought of, to ensure that the final regulations will achieve what the bureaucrats want it to do, or to identify why the implementation will fail. So lots of identical objections will achieve nothing; a detailed examination of why the regulation will have unintended consequences in area 'X', will get attention - as long as the people tasked with reading them don't give up because there are so many.
  • by AudioEfex (637163) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:51PM (#47471113)

    While I'll agree that largely they are going to be ineffectual anyway, I don't think we help the cause with the current "copy/paste this as your comment" mentality. Just go to any of those public comments sections on the government sites and a massive majority of comments are identical, usually a complete set, one each of a pro and a con argument that someone just simply is told to copy/paste to "help the cause" from whatever side sent them. I just cringe when they also contain awkward wording, or even spelling/grammar errors in the original text - that of course propagate to every single one that someone pastes in. There are so few original comments it all just looks like PR/social media campaigns, not citizens giving actual, thoughtful comments.

    That said, again, yes, I'm sure a lot of folks don't want to waste time because they don't think it matters any way, and it probably doesn't - but like I said, it doesn't help the cause or likely make anyone monitoring/reviewing them pay attention when they have read the same exact comment worded the same exact (often poor) way hundreds or even thousands of times. It's not a vote, it's an invitation to comment - but we treat it like one.

  • The sky is blue.
  • by supersat (639745) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @07:32PM (#47471391)
    The FTC seems like they have the right tools to tackle net neutrality, whereas it's not clear that the FCC does. For example, they could declare that ISPs letting certain peering links saturate to unreasonable levels without disclosure is an unfair and deceptive trade practice. If a customer purchases Internet access, they expect equal access to all of the Internet. They could also declare that cable franchise monopolies interfering with competing video services (like Netflix) is an anti-trust violation.
    • The FTC seems like they have the right tools to tackle net neutrality, whereas it's not clear that the FCC does.

      The right place to do this is congress. Really, simple, a single law, and it's done. I don't think this is an issue enough people care about, though. It's something we care about, but we're kind of a minority.

  • we can still win this fight.
  • The FCC is supposed to answer to Congress. Congress makes the laws that define the scope of FCC responsibilities. The FCC should only listen to the public as it pertains to regulated entities doing something wrong or the FCC not doing its job.

    I do agree that the FCC head should never be a shill for the regulated industries.

    • by flink (18449)

      The FCC is supposed to answer to Congress. Congress makes the laws that define the scope of FCC responsibilities. The FCC should only listen to the public as it pertains to regulated entities doing something wrong or the FCC not doing its job.

      The FCC is an independent agency. Congress defines the scope of it's powers and the president appoints it's chairman and members of the board. However, when exercising those powers within the scope of it's statutory authority the FCC is answerable to no one, not even the president. If the FCC pisses off congress they have the power to redefine the scope of it's statutory authority, but that's about it.

      I do agree that the FCC head should never be a shill for the regulated industries.

      Agreed. If congress had any backbone they would place ISPs under Title II by statute and take the decis

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @08:29PM (#47471665) Homepage

    The chairman of the FCC is a dirty industry insider and does not give a fuck about the American public. All I know is that the next president had better fire his ass and put someone in there that will not game the system.

  • I think the FCC may end up postponing the change in net neutrality because it could have a tremendous effect on the upcoming 2014 Congressional elections if they go against the overwhelming wishes of the people commenting on its proposal.

    • Remember that this "deluge" of comments are spread across the entire nation. You have... what? ~1M comments? That's only about 2200 per legislative district (which now averages a little less than 1M people/district) - this counts astroturf and anti-openness advocates, too. Even being generous here, you probably work out to less than 0.2% of people caring enough to complain. People willing to switch votes over that issue? Less than that. People in safe districts voting for "the other side"? Ha!

      Given the numb

  • If you have ever worked for an agency of government, especially at the Cabinet Level or just below, you know that they have a built-in conflict of interest. Their mission is to promote the interest of the constituants they have, the industries they regulate, and the conflict is that they are charged with, at least in theory, with regulating them. The catch is, and this is built into the Constitution itself, Congress controls the funding of them. If a powerful, well-funded business does not want a regulatio

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...