From FCC Press Secretary, Kim Hart:[1]
"The deadline for filing submissions as part of the first round of public comments in the FCC's Open Internet proceeding arrived today. Not surprisingly, we have seen an overwhelming surge in traffic on our website that is making it difficult for many people to file comments through our Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Please be assured that the Commission is aware of these issues and is committed to making sure that everyone trying to submit comments will have their views entered into the record.
Accordingly, we are extending the comment deadline until midnight Friday, July 18. You also have the option of emailing your comments to openinternet@fcc.gov and your views will be placed in the public record."
It appears that you have until 11:59:59 Thursday, July 17, 2014 (Washington DC time I'm assuming)... Or did I read the bureaucrat's unclear timetable wrong?
The proceeding number is 14-28 — Gizmodo has a page on this as the direct link, "might not work every time."
[1] I would think that the Federal Communications Commission could do better than to put up a page with 97 coding errors.
Related Stories
TechCrunch reports
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced Friday it would extend the net neutrality reply comment period from September 10 to September 15.
The commission has already received more than 1.1 million comments, which it released to the public last week. That is the largest number of comments the FCC has ever received, with the exception of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004, which garnered 1.4 million comments. With three extra days, net neutrality commenters will likely beat that.
The deadline for the reply comment period was pushed back to match the extension of the initial comment period, which occurred in July after the FCC experienced issues with its website. Because the first comment period was extended three additional business days and the reply period then started later, the FCC extended the period for reply comments.
"To ensure that members of the public have as much time as was initially anticipated to reply to initial comments in these proceedings, the Bureau today is extending the reply comment deadline by three business days," the FCC said in a release.
So keep your comments coming!
Related:
FCC Extends Internet Slow Lane Comment Period
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday July 16 2014, @12:04PM
Note that the FCC Press Secretary said we've have our views "entered into the record," not "taken into consideration," "respected," or even "looked at by a human." Law requires the FCC solicit and accept public comments, but AFAICT does not require it to pay any attention to what the people overwhelmingly want.
I'm cynical about the FCC's respect for public opinion, but I'm leaving a (civil but firm) comment anyway. I can't stand the thought of not speaking out against this at all.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:09PM
NPR had a piece on this this morning and at the end pointed out that only two other events exceeded this count, Media deregulation and the Janet Jackson expose'. I can't speak for the media moment, but if 1.2 million people wrote in to complain about Janet's assets and that the FCC better "Do something about it" they did. I was one who felt that a little flash is good for the population so why punish Janet or the broadcaster.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:01PM
Telecom business really didn't care that much about Janet Jackson.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:04PM
" I would think that the Federal Communications Commission could do better than to put up a page with 97 coding errors."
Hah, send another $40,000,000 and maybe we'll fix the page.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:09PM
Looking at the list, most of them seem to be caused by a single URL that wasn't quoted properly.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:37PM
And virtually all the rest seem to be that whatever code they're using to convert from the source doc to a "web compatible format" (see note at the bottom of the page) is using ALL CAPS for the HTML tags, which is technically wrong - while most browsers don't care, XHTML is case sensitive, [w3.org] and the page is declared XHTML.
So, there are really two bugs, not 97 - one is a content (probably not coding) bug with a URL improperly quoted, and one a coding error on HTML tag case usage in their document converter, which wouldn't even be an error if they were producing HTML 4 docs and not XHTML.
Before we throw stones, Soylent News is HTML4.01, and yet the base code appears to generate several XHTML-style self-closing tags (<tag />), which aren't legal in HTML 4.01. And that's ignoring that we have a bunch of the same "badly quoted URL's causing errors," which I'm assuming is user/moderator content, not site coding problems.
Producing stylistically correct HTML is hard.
(P.S. I was going to post the offending code with the upper-case tags here, but I don't appear able to get slashcode to respect either the <pre> or the <code> tags)
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:36PM
Most of them are from a google translate url, like AC said. The only one i saw that is a real mistake is a self closing "a" tag like <a href="blah" />link text</a> They shouldn't close it the first time.
The rest of the errors are doc type related and nobody cares about that. Img tag not defined, src attribute of img tag not defined and so on. There are even a few "errors" about undefined tags inside javascript comments. We super don't care about that : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 16 2014, @01:24PM
> [1] I would think that the Federal Communications Commission could do better than to put up a page with 97 coding errors.
That's what happens when you "starve the beast" by cutting budgets instead of "taming the beast" by insisting on good governance.
(Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:47PM
Can you just imagine if you paid a security company to guard your house, and all they ever did was to have fairly regular meetings to debate whether or not to set it on fire.</analogy>