Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the like-coughing-up-a-hairball dept.

"We write to request information that will help both us and the public better understand how the Federal Communications Commission managed the record in its recent net neutrality proceeding," begins a letter sent today by all the Democratic representatives on the House Energy and Commerce committee.

The missive notes that the comment period was "notoriously replete with fake comments" and argues that as a result it "raises novel questions about how an agency can properly handle and interpret the public's feedback to make sound policy decisions."

The seven-page memo [PDF] contains no less than 16 pointed questions over how the FCC handled abuse of its comment system, while noting that its subsequent decision to approve the controversial repeal of the nation's net neutrality rules provided "scant detail" on that aspect.

The letter also makes it plain that the lawmakers believe that the legitimacy of the FCC's decision is in doubt. "While we may not support the outcome of this proceeding, we hope you agree with us that transparency in the process is crucial," it reads. "In order to restore public confidence in the integrity of the process and give the American people a better understanding of how the FCC analyzed the comments filed in this proceeding, we request that you provide us information on how the agency reviewed the public comments."

[...] While the letter is unlikely to provide a smoking gun, it does keep up political pressure on the FCC over how it handled the public comment process.

[...] So far, the FCC has demonstrated no intention of investigating what went wrong or how it can be mitigated in future. In fact, in an increasingly partisan atmosphere, even mentioning that the comment process was entirely undermined has become a political statement.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:17PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:17PM (#638276)

    You still haven't addressed the point, why would comment spam be a concern? Just summarize and judge it on its own merits. If strawman has a point, then it has a point.
    If you can just ignore it because of anonymity, why have a public commentary at all? Why not only have well-known president appointed talking heads give comments? Surely they are even more "trusted" than anonymous commenters to spam their views.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:58PM (4 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:58PM (#638295)

    It's only partly about the logical arguments; it's also partially a popularity contest/poll of public opinion. But of course when you ballot-stuff that means you can't get useful numbers out of it. 20 people with the same opinion is 20 votes; one guy submitting the same opinion 20 times should not be 20 votes.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:14PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:14PM (#638303)

      20 same opinions with the exact same points is still a single point, how does it become stronger? I think you are conflating votes with RFCs.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:04PM

        by sjames (2882) on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:04PM (#638338) Journal

        Because 20 people hold that view, not just one. Duh!

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:12PM (1 child)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:12PM (#638342)

        Maybe it's not a literal vote, but I'd still like to see them have the balls to decide against a hypothetical proposition where 99% of the feedback they get is on one side of it.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:17PM (#638416)

          Why not? The FCC is not an elected body, it is kind of the point of having appointed positions. If they are doing against public interests, have Congress or the Court Justices reign them in.