The FCC is so swamped with net neutrality comments, it’s extending the deadline
washingtonpost.comNote that comments to the FCC are a little different than a letter to your Congressman, in that they have legal significance. The comments become a part of the record that may be reviewed by a court if the agency's rules are challenged. The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to set aside agency rules that are, among other things, "arbitrary and capricious." In issuing final rules, agencies will generally respond to the major issues raised by the comments, because otherwise parties may challenge the rule in court arguing that the agency acted arbitrarily by ignoring a major aspect of the issue.
On a general note, I don't get the cynicism as to the FCC's intentions here. The FCC already passed net neutrality rules, and those rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit. Internet companies have argued that the FCC could implement net neutrality if they regulated internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, but the FCC desperately wants to find a way to avoid doing that. Not because it doesn't want net neutrality, but because Title II is a big regulatory regime with a lot of baggage.
You have to understand that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. There is a general regulatory paradigm that's in vogue at the FCC. The FCC has been thrilled with the results of its "light touch" approach to cellular wireless regulation. That's the mantra of post-Clinton liberals: "we'll have regulations, but lightweight ones." Title II is an FDR-era piece of legislation that is anything but lightweight. Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies should operate in the modern era.
Indeed. The FCC is actually on the public's side on this one. For all we know, the FCC has opened things up to public comment on purpose, to prove to the courts that striking down the FCC Network Neutrality rules was a bad idea.
The "enemy" to network neutrality was the DC Circuit court. The FCC wants network neutrality, but it lost the power to make such a rule earlier this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._...
> The "enemy" to network neutrality was the DC Circuit court. The FCC wants network neutrality, but it lost the power to make such a rule earlier this year.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the D.C circuit was correct, and that the FCC doesn't have the right authority under the Title I of the Communications Act. The guilty party is congress, which left the FCC the choice between using the warhammer that is Title II and the inappropriate use of Title I (general provisions).
They need effective tools to regulate correctly, and Congress arguably hasn't given them any. Though nothing says they have to use Title II for the whole internet. I'd personally like to see something like Title II (common carriage) applied to the last mile, and the return of competing ISPs that can leverage that public infrastructure.
> The "enemy" to network neutrality was the DC Circuit court. The FCC wants network neutrality, but it lost the power to make such a rule earlier this year.
The DC Circuit made the right decision. The FCC was trying to classify Comcast and Verizon as "information services" which is the classification used for something like a website or an email server. The FCC is not supposed to have that much authority over actual information services.
The problem is the current state of the law. The FCC can either classify broadband as a telecommunications service with all that entails, or classify it as an information service and have insufficient authority to do anything meaningful. There is no intermediate option available, which is what everybody really wants. The ideal would be to change the law to give the FCC the ability to regulate last mile providers in some ways without full Title II classification, but it's unlikely such legislation would pass in the Republican-majority House of Representatives when the status quo is a lack of regulatory authority under the existing classification. It might actually be more likely to pass after reclassification, because it could then be sold as in practice reducing the FCC's authority rather than increasing it. But that would essentially be a rewrite of the Communications Act, which is not anything you can expect to happen in the short term.
"Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies should operate in the modern era."
You end with FUD. Your credibility is at risk.
As I said, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Silicon Valley sees this issue as a "necessary exception" to a generally "hands off" regulatory regime as to the internet, as Sam Altman articulated the other day, but I think this is more subtle than how your average politician views the situation. Selling this as a party-line, regulation versus deregulation issue is easy.
To highlight what I see as an impedance mismatch between Silicon Valley and Washington, take YC's comment to the FCC. There is a line in there "we should treat the telcos like the utilities they are" or something to that effect. That resounds here on HN, but made me cringe. The failures of utility regulation are a source of embarrassment to both sides of the aisle. Whether we're talking about rolling brownouts or ancient sewer systems dumping waste into rivers, nobody is really happy with how utilities are regulated in the U.S. So why evoke that association? You're guaranteed to alienate all but the hardcore "consumer protection" contingent of liberals, which are a dying breed.
I don't think it's a tough argument that conservatives would be opposed to it, as Title II is undeniably more restrictive (that's why it's being proposed as a means to regulate last-mile Internet in the first place!)
As for the second part, Title II reclassification is controversial enough that even the EFF didn't support it until very recently, and even then only under the assumption that the FCC would practice forebearance[0].
Finally, while I very strongly disagree with many of the things rayiner has posted on this issue in the past (including the interpretation of some of the evidence he cites), it's clear that he has done his research and knows what he's talking about. As far as semi-anonymous/psuedonymous online forum discussions go, that's a reasonable enough amount of credibility for me.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-wh...
> I don't think it's a tough argument that conservatives would be opposed to it,
Well, lots of conservatives (including 2/5 of the FCC) are entirely opposed to any regulation toward neutrality, whether under Title I or Title II or any other basis (and, in fact, many support Congress acting to eliminate any potential basis under which the FCC might adopt pro-neutrality regulations), so, sure, the proposed conservative opposition is not controversial at all (OTOH, its not much a basis for opposing any particular approach if you support the goal of neutrality regulation, since there is strong conservative opposition to the idea of pro-neutrality regulation, independent of the specific authority or mechanism.)
The site is down, but you can speak to a human by calling +1 (888) 225-5322, then pressing 1, 4, 0.
What happens then? Are they just there to take down your opinion?
Give it a try; report back.
Perhaps they need to pay their ISP for the premium package? :)
Except the FAA already paid for an exclusive in the "premium bandwidth for government agencies" category. To get in, they have to pay double the normal premium rate.
What does aviation have to do with this?
"premium bandwidth for government agencies"
Nothing, I picked a random different agency that started with "federal".
In case you haven't done so, do submit a comment. It's easy to be cynical about its impact, but this is currently the official way of making your voice heard.
Does the number of comments really change anything? Not criticizing just wondering. This seems like a letter-writing campaign without the added inconvenience of an office full of paper.
The FCC is supposed to address all the arguments made for and against a proposed rule.
However, there is no way they address every single letter. They'll just summarize what all the public comments argument and address that.
So unless you come up with some new groundbreaking comment, it has no effect.
I want my NETFLIX! comments won't do shit.
The FCC is kind enough to list the number of comments publicly, which is valuable in itself. Most letter-writing campaigns and petitions go unacknowledged, but it's a lot harder for the FCC to dismiss comments that they themselves solicit and publish.
> Does the number of comments really change anything?
My understanding of regulatory proceedings is that the number and substance of the comments tends to play a role but (in a way, somewhat opposite of many legislative proceedings) the substance is a lot more significant than the numbers. The purpose of the comment period isn't to get a pulse of popular opinion, its to assure that the policy analysis underlying the regulatory action is able to consider all relevant information, including information that may not have been apparent to the commission's staff.
The individually most effective comments, then, are probably those like Mozilla's, which not only makes very specific recommendations, directly addressing the points raised in the call for comments, with strong support and analysis behind the recommendations.
As noted by another top-level comment, the comments submitted to the FCC during this period become part of the record, and can be used subsequently by courts in ruling on the legality or implications of the FCC's decisions.
Yes; if a rule making leads to litigation, the number and tenor of public comments can be used as evidence for it against the legitimacy of the final rule.
Realistically no. Government in America is crafted to serve business.
EDIT Not sure why the downvotes. Historically it's been true. Most wars we have been involved with have been to serve an industry or spend much of the budget on defense (after WWII anyhow). Citizens United was created to treat companies as people. Obamacare, while started with good intentions, ultimately created a gift for insurance companies. Lobbyist run much of Washington and local governments, and are rarely funded by your average citizen.
Cases like net neutrality may be denied/shutdown today, but it's a topic that will show up year after year, under a different name, with different verbiage by the end goal will be the same. I don't see this working out for the average American citizen. Take it for what it is but money talks, especially in politics.
This isn't enough. We can't just keep shouting at them and hoping that they'll do as we say-- the FCC does not work for us, it works for the cable companies firstly and the USG secondly. We have to escalate the situation substantially and threaten their funding/power/political structure by bribing the correct people or else we won't get anywhere.
EDIT: Of course I've left the FCC a comment, made a phone call, and talked to my political representatives (in addition to bitching at the president) about this issue anyway. I don't expect that my word is worth anything without a bribe, though.
You're right. It isn't enough. But neither is silence.
It's certainly worth my 95 seconds to participate in this democracy in some fashion. Wouldn't you be outraged that the FCC didn't listen to you when you spoke, rather than being outraged that they didn't listen to you when you were silent?
http://news.ubc.ca/2013/11/08/slacktivism-liking-on-facebook...
This was an interesting analysis, I read about it in Science News. It "feels" like something was done when it wasn't. I applaud your active participation.
I met one of the FCC lawyers at a conference two years ago and asked him to include some of Sam's and others very cogent talking points into the "debate." And I continue to work on my conceptual 'the last mile is a municipal infrastructure problem, not a private sector problem' pitch to local government.
> We can't just keep shouting at them and hoping that they'll do as we say-- the FCC does not work for us, it works for the cable companies firstly and the USG secondly.
You mean, the cable companies that (along with the telephone companies) keep suing the FCC because it keeps issuing pro-neutrality regulations that those companies oppose?
Understand that the FCC has been getting slapped around in court by cable and telecom companies for over a decade. This rule making did not just come out of nowhere.
I think that the FCC wants to implement some form of net neutrality but feels hamstrung by legislation and court precedent. So collecting a ton of comments is their way to demonstrate that there is huge demand for a rule. This will either back them up in court after they issue the new rule, or it help them to persuade Congress to update the 1996 Act.
>bribing the correct people or else we won't get anywhere.
I agree, but the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line, and they're already bribing politicians. Can we out-spend them?
No, but it's the only way we'll win this game while still playing by the legal and social rules.
Not enough people care, and even if they do care they probably don't have enough money, even when combined together. With some products, it might be possible to inflict economic damage against our enemies by boycotting and hopefully reducing the amount of money they have to lobby, but that's nearly impossible with the monopolies that the ISPs have built.
We have to try, though-- if only to save ourselves from hypocrisy.
> the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line
There's multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increases on the line on both sides of this debate. Sure, there's the cable/telcos on one side -- but there's (among others) the Internet Association companies on the other.
I'm actually a little proud of democracy today.
Even cynical old me :-)
It's not that this is necessarily a hot debate, in fact I've seen little intelligence regarding what it means. It's that the internet is a bitch. It is of no convenience for "interneters" to click a "Sign this petition" button that promises what somebody somewhere naively calls "fair internet". ..."I like fair!"
In the past these internet movements have gone is a direction that is more about individual freedoms, but like Occupy Wall Street, what it has to say about Net Neutrality is dead wrong, and I say that because the whole thing is based on buzzwords and ignorance.
Public comments are the scraps we cling to when we aren't allowed to vote on things or chose who represents us.
If we had proportional representation, I'd vote for whoever is closest to my views and best able to represent them.
A representative that works for everybody in a district doesn't represent anybody in particular, except those who contribute to expensive campaign required to get a majority of the votes.
PR gets rid of the need to win a majority and the ability of lobbyists to buy off a single winner per district.
i hope they don't have "fast lane" for the "fast lane" proponents' comments (donations, etc...)
"How do we frame this so we can still screw the public on behalf of our lobbyist paymasters?"
Takes time to figure that out.
"There are so many comments against this, it would look bad if we went through with it anyway."
"I know! Generate a bunch of fake comments in favor of the change, and it will look like we made a hard decision instead of blatantly spurning the public!"
"Great idea! But it will take a couple days to generate them and comments close tomorrow, so we'll have to fake an outage as well to give ourselves time."
I know you're joking, but there's no way they'd do this because it'd be painfully obvious that all of the positive comments came in right at the very end, because all of the comments are publicly available[1].
[1]: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=1...
How about the fact that net neutrality has never actually been a thing on the Internet? Paid interconnect agreements to ISPs are as old as the Internet itself. To force companies to roll that back at this point would cause catastrophic damage to the Internet as a whole.
Because these agreements are so common place, the best the FCC can really do is put a regulatory structure in place to ensure they're consistently (and legally) applied.
They could add provisions saying something like "the amount of data carried over paid direct interconnects with content owners cannot exceed the amount of data carried through traditional peering arrangements" that would take care of many people's concerns about a "slow lane".
But saying "net neutrality or nothing" requires adopting an idealized, revisionist history of the Internet. The Internet has always been run by large ISPs; it's just that they're large consumer ISPs now so the commercial guys like Level3 are crying about it. Paid data carriage is a fact about the business of the Internet, and if you remove it, capacity will disappear with it until someone figures out another way to make money transmitting data (which will likely involve the consumer paying more).
Talking about paid interconnects is kind of meaningless since transit, backbone-backbone peering, and content-eyeball peering are quite different things.
When you try to save the other party money and they ask you to pay them even more, that's fishy. If anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior has been going on for years and is only now being revealed, that doesn't make it any less bad. Fortunately the FCC is already being motivated to create transparency in this area.
They're not different things and haven't been since the late 90s. All the big media companies have interconnects for CDN purposes; the only difference is that they pay for them (or have settlement-free peering arrangements). Peering disputes like this are as old as the Internet.
When the other party dumps their nice, CDN-backed delivery service in favor of cheap transit from a provider long known to have ~20% packet loss at peak hours, then complains loudly about it, THAT is fishy.
Many people seem to think of the Internet as a big hole that you can throw data into and it magically gets where it's going. Once you start pushing enough traffic, it's YOUR responsibility to ensure you traffic gets where its going, which means spending money on delivery.
> How about the fact that net neutrality has never actually been a thing on the Internet? Paid interconnect agreements to ISPs are as old as the Internet itself. To force companies to roll that back at this point would cause catastrophic damage to the Internet as a whole.
That's not what this is about.
What is it about then? Because that's exactly what these so-called "fast lanes" are.
Not trying to be cynical, but what's the point? Commenting against the FCC's plans is like pissing in the wind. The stooges on the deciding committee will decide as stooges do.
While I don't advocate doing nothing, playing their game their way isn't going to lead to a win.
Unfortunately unless you have either money or the ability to use violence with impunity they are not going to care.
Not that I would advocate using violence, since it is likely to get you (or me) in trouble.
I'm really tired of this defeatist attitude. It's especially common on HN for some reason.
Think of it this way: "they" want you to be cynical about the usefulness of democratic action. A necessary precondition for oligarchic takeover of democracy is that the people decide not to make use of the tools they have available to retain control.
A formally democratic society where nobody but the rich bothers to advocate for their own needs is the ideal form of oppression.
This is spot on. Especially when there is ample evidence that citizen action can defeat big company interests. See: the entire environmental movement. Or the entire labor movement.
Did you see the study that just came out which stated that money was far more important than "democratic" channels when looking at political outcomes?
We're cynical about the usefulness of democratic action specifically because there have been numerous elections without any major changes to our country's current death spiral.
The poor and middle classes constantly advocate for their own needs (jobs, money, healthcare) but are consistently beaten by the rich's purchased politicians.
Purely for the sake of devil's advocacy, I'll just point out that there's an entire other side of the political spectrum in the US which agrees completely with the rich and their moneyed interests, and which considers things like 'advocacy for the poor and middle class' and 'net neutrality' to be part of the country's death spiral into socialism. The rich and right-wing get to vote just like everyone else, and it should be no surprise that business lobbies for its own self-interest.
"they" want you to have this attitude, and do nothing. Your comments re a matter of public record and can be used in a suit. But not if you don't make them...
It is dangerous to go alone! take this
It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this. Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.
Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future. I'd strongly encourage anyone who has a stake in this fight (most of HN's audience) to submit their thoughts to the FCC and your congressional representatives.
>Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.
Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist for National Cable Television Association, and the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association; genuinely cares what I think? You can't be serious.
>Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future.
What are you talking about COPPA/DOPA/COICA/SOPA/CISPA/CIPA/PIPA keeps getting resurrected, time after time, they've tried everything. Anybody who has been paying attention is right to be cynical.
"I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a good actor who wants to do the right thing"
Sam Altman - http://blog.samaltman.com/net-neutrality
>>I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a good actor who wants to do the right thing. But he is fighting against very powerful lobbyists and large companies that want to disrupt the freedom of the Internet. We should help him defend it.
That's not nothing, but is Altman merely being diplomatic and trying to appeal to Wheeler's good nature, or could he be a dupe? Either could be the case.
I met a few well connected political types myself, and my impression is that many of them are very good at being likeable. As an example, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, and George W. Bush; all three are strongly controversial public figures who have been reported as being likeable people even by staunch critics who have met them.
Wheeler's long and profitable career investing in and advancing the interests (as a lobbyist) of wireless and cable companies excludes him from the list of people who I would expect to advocate for my personal interests in any case other than when his and my interests intersect, which are few if any.
The president is a malicious actor who is also a lame duck-- he's protected corporate interest at every step, and this step in his presidency will likely be no different. He campaigned on promoting net neutrality, and has of course stayed aloof/ineffectual/silent/absent during net neutrality's fulcrum moment so far.
As for Wheeler, he was a lobbyist before he had this job, and will likely return to lobbying after his tenure as director ends. Wheeler also proposed the fast-lane, aka the death of net neutrality, which passed a vote. In summary: a lobbyist who lobbied for the cable companies he is now "regulating" and who is now pushing a proposal against net neutrality. Where do you think his allegiances really are? He's acting strongly and specifically against our collective interests regardless of anyone's personal judgments.
Our voices matter only in the sense that we can use our voices to organize with each other and effect change as a bloc by raising money and threatening the status quo.
> It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this
The FCC Chairman -- as part of the 3-2 majority of the commission that keeps adopting pro-neutrality regulations -- has taken a pro-neutrality side repeatedly. The current anger from some neutrality proponents is that the particular approach the majority of the commission has taken to rescue some neutrality provisions from the most recent court decision isn't the mechanism that those proponents prefer (for those that actually are objecting based on the real legal situation) or doesn't just reinstate what the court struck down (for those that are reacting to the content without considering the context).
The former is a real and meaningful objection -- but its simply not the case that the FCC Chair hasn't taken a side.