Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday February 04 2017, @05:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the transparent-and-neutral dept.

FCC Tries Something New: Making Proposals Public Before Voting on Them

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai yesterday announced a seemingly simple step to make the FCC's rulemaking process more open to the public: the FCC intends to release the full text of rulemakings before they're voted on instead of days after the vote.

Pai and fellow Republican Michael O'Rielly repeatedly complained about the secrecy of rulemakings when Democrat Tom Wheeler was chairman. Wheeler followed the practice of previous chairs by publicly releasing a summary of the proposed rules a few weeks before the FCC's meetings, while negotiations over the final text of orders continued behind closed doors. The actual text of rulemakings wasn't released until after the vote. In the case of net neutrality, Pai complained three weeks before the vote that he couldn't share the full text of the draft order with the public. The full text wasn't released until two weeks after the vote.

"Today, we begin the process of making the FCC more open and transparent," Pai said yesterday. He then released the text of two proposals scheduled for a vote at the commission's meeting on February 23, one on allowing TV broadcasters to use the new ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard and another on "giving AM radio broadcasters more flexibility in siting their FM translators."

[...] This would certainly make it easier for journalists to report on the impacts of rulemakings before they're voted on. Congressional Republicans pressed Wheeler to make releasing the text of orders in advance a standard practice, and there is pending legislation that would make it a requirement. But Wheeler said during his chairmanship that such a practice would cause long delays in rulemakings. Wheeler told Republicans in Congress in May 2015 that making the full text public in advance could make it easier for opponents to kill proposals they don't like.

[...] While Pai hasn't yet committed to making the pre-vote release of orders permanent, O'Rielly said he's confident that the pilot project will go smoothly. "If this initial attempt goes well—and I see no reason why it wouldn't—I think we will all find this to be a significant upgrade in terms of quality of feedback, quality of process, and ultimately quality of the commission's work product," O'Rielly said. O'Rielly acknowledged that the change "may make our jobs a bit more challenging," but he added that "it is the right thing to do for the American people, the practitioners before the commission and the professional press who report on commission activities."

Source:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-tries-something-new-making-proposals-public-before-voting-on-them/

FCC Rescinds Claim That AT&T and Verizon Violated Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission's new Republican leadership has rescinded a determination that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality rules with paid data cap exemptions. The FCC also rescinded several other Wheeler-era reports and actions. The FCC released its report on the data cap exemptions (aka "zero-rating") in the final days of Democrat Tom Wheeler's chairmanship. Because new Chairman Ajit Pai opposed the investigation, the FCC has now formally closed the proceeding.

The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sent letters to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile USA notifying the carriers "that the Bureau has closed this inquiry. Any conclusions, preliminary or otherwise, expressed during the course of the inquiry will have no legal or other meaning or effect going forward." The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau also sent a letter to Comcast closing an inquiry into the company's Stream TV cable service, which does not count against data caps.

The FCC issued an order that "sets aside and rescinds" the Wheeler-era report on zero-rating. All "guidance, determinations, and conclusions" from that report are rescinded, and it will have no legal bearing on FCC proceedings going forward, the order said.

[...] Pai opposed Wheeler's zero-rating investigation, saying that free data offerings are "popular among consumers precisely because they allow more access to online music, videos, and other content free of charge." He has also vowed to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rules and hasn't committed to enforcing them while they remain in place. "While this is just a first step, these companies, and others, can now safely invest in and introduce highly popular products and services without fear of commission intervention based on newly invented legal theories," Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said today.

Source:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-rescinds-claim-that-att-and-verizon-violated-net-neutrality/


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:57PM (#462932)

    It seems that if you ignore the media and actually look at what Trump (and his appointees) is/are doing, he's actually starting to push America in a very positive direction. He is actively working to make government more transparent and more accountable. For instance one of his executive orders forbids political appointees at any agency from engaging in lobbying activities related to that agency for 5 years after the end of their appointment. That is one of the biggest steps towards closing the revolving door between politics and the corporations that we've had in decades, and revoking that executive order would be politically very difficult.

    And the "Muslim ban" is nothing of the sort. You can read the executive order here [whitehouse.gov]. It's a 3 month moratorium from a small handful of high risk nations (and 4 months for refugees) while an actual immigrant vetting system is established. For instance one specific topic of the bill was the issue that right now we're still openly allowing people who endorse honor killings, or those who believe their religious law overrides American law in. These sort of views are incompatible with life in the United States or any modern and secular nation for that matter. There are only a limited number of people allowed to migrate into the US and each time we allow these sort of people in we give fewer opportunities for the next Elon Musk struggling to just get into a country that he thinks fits his ideals and aspirations better than his present one.

    Anyhow, just bizarre for me. I'm extremely liberal, but I'm also pragmatic, realistic, and try so much as I possibly can to judge things in a reasonably objective and independent fashion.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @09:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @09:31PM (#462941)

    He is actively working to make government more transparent and more accountable.

    Oh puhlease.

    Ajit Pai is only accountable to the telco companies, the guy used to be assistant general counsel to Verizon before he went into government. He's spent his entire tenure on the board of the FCC fellating the telco cock.

    Meanwhile the minority president is removing the safeguards on bank lending that were put in place after the housing bubble. [nytimes.com] Who stands to benefit from another real-estate bubble? One guess. Hint: Somebody who won't reveal his tax returns. Transparency!

    And letting coal mines pollute streams. [bloomberg.com]

    And letting oil companies secretly bribe foreign governments. [bloomberg.com]

    And removing protections that stop 'financial planners' from ripping off grandmothers. [investopedia.com]

    And the ‘Unprecedented’ Plan to Staff Cabinet Without Ethics Vetting [nbcnews.com] The republicans want to rush the nominations through the senate before the background investigations are complete. Transparency!

    And the "Muslim ban" is nothing of the sort.

    A ban on 7 muslim majority nations with special exceptions for minority religions is totally not a ban on muslims. Nope, not at all.

    For instance one specific topic of the bill was the issue that right now we're still openly allowing people who endorse honor killings, or those who believe their religious law overrides American law in.

    Because we have such a terrible problem with people doing that. Oh wait, we do. All the fundies who want to let churches fund political campaigns and the minority president has promised to let them. [washingtonpost.com] And of course his promise to appoint a supreme court justice who will let their religion determine what women can do with their own bodies. [theintercept.com] The guy has brought christian 'sharia' into the white house.

    I'm extremely liberal

    If you really are liberal, then you are an extremely misinformed liberal.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:07PM (#462952)

      Like the nytimes, bloomgerg, nbcnews, washington post, and the intercept are the most objective, non-biased sources news sources, right? Of course politically biased "journalism" is nothing new in USA. Try looking up Yellow Journalism, Muckrakers, and the like in the history of the press.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:43PM (#462957)

        What's your point?
        Are you disputing the factual content of those articles?
        There is no room for interpretation, those are all legislative actions that either trump or his republican congress have taken.
        I simply picked the first articles that came up in google when searching for each item.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:13AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:13AM (#463041)

          You're a fucking moron. Every story, every legislation, is subject to interpretation. Everything that happens in Washington, happens because someone has an agenda. Every bribed senator, congressman, and appointed official is subject to interpretation. Just because you personally believe everything you read from some given source, doesn't make that source reliable. If you're not aware that main stream media gobbles progressive cock, and begs for more, then you're simply out of touch with reality. Progressive media tells you what to think, and you think it, then parrot it. GTFO, idiot.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:02AM (#463037)

      You are mostly just parroting what the media tells you. I try to avoid doing this. For instance on Dodd Frank. How much do you actually know about the bill? I've on occasion been directly involved in issues that had substantial media coverage. Other times, I have been knowledgeable in the fields they're reporting on. Even prior to the media completely jumping the shark goes, they're reporting was rubbish. Now a days it's 100% politicized and hyperbolized. And you're simply repeating what they say. This is not smart.

      Something I'm noticing is that the roles of the parties seem to be switching once again. In the past conservative thinking generally entailed a lack of ability to grasp nuance: essentially seeing everything in black and white terms. The sort of thing you're doing now. You have to demonize everything you don't agree with. And have to refer to a moratorium, which is a temporary stay, as a religious ban. It reminds me of conservative media referring to Mass effect as a digital rape simulator because it had sex-alluded scenes and it was digital. You could inform them of the facts, but they weren't particularly concerned with that - they had to demonize anything that went against their world view.

    • (Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:44AM

      by tonyPick (1237) on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:44AM (#463076) Homepage Journal

      And the "Muslim ban" is nothing of the sort.

      A ban on 7 muslim majority nations with special exceptions for minority religions is totally not a ban on muslims. Nope, not at all.

      We're spinning off topic, but page 8 - 11 of the ACLU filing [aclunc.org] is a remarkably informative read on the history of Trump's Muslim Ban, and various statements from Trump & confidants that it's a muslim ban and the actual wording is an attempt to work around the US Constitution, including this gem, which I'd missed:

      In an interview on January 28, 2017, one of Defendant Trump’s senior advisors, Rudolph Giuliani, left no doubt that the ban on entry from nationals of the Designated Countries was intended to carry out a ban on Muslims, and that the Executive Order was crafted to create a pretextual cover for a Muslim ban. Mr. Giuliani stated: “I’ll tell you the whole history of it. So, when he [Defendant Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:20PM (#463104)

        This may come as a surprise to you, but Trump is not particularly politically correct. For instance in the past LBJ regularly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which he fought hard to help pass, as "the nigger bill."

        The bill is unambiguously and entirely about keeping out radicalized individuals or individuals with views that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the United States - by whatever name Trump may refer to them. I think trying to peer into his motivations is little more than speculation and hearsay. Judge people by their actions; this action is extremely reasonable. If he takes things a step further, I will be the first to go back on my position. But if he doesn't take things a step further and simply continues along the path that it seems he is - which is to work to simply try to improve American security in a fair yet firm approach - would you go back on your views and biases against him? Or will you constantly play a game of "Just wait - I know he's going to turn into Hitler tomorrow!" until the day he leaves office?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:23PM (#463105)

          The pros and cons of posting anonymously. To clarify, the point of the LBJ example is to emphasize that just because somebody speaks of something in a way that has a negative connotation does not necessarily speak to their intent. LBJ played a crucial and unbelievably beneficial role in the civil rights movement in the US even though he would be crucified by the political correctness or death mobs of today.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @03:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @03:54AM (#463282)

          The bill is unambiguously and entirely about keeping out radicalized individuals or individuals with views that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the United States

          Where "views that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the United States" means whateverthefuck the minority president wants it to mean. And that's how bigotry works - bigots always have a rationalization for why their particular flavor of bigotry is justified. Its always bullshit.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 05 2017, @07:53PM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Sunday February 05 2017, @07:53PM (#463168)

      "Ajit Pai is only accountable to the telco companies"
      Except by this action.

      "And letting coal mines pollute streams."

      The EPA did that under Obama.

      "And letting oil companies secretly bribe foreign governments."

      People voted for Clinton who is 100% owned by Saudi Arabia - to the point where she has let several Americans die to keep them happy. This is objectively an improvement.

      "And removing protections that stop 'financial planners' from ripping off grandmothers."

      The marketplace will *eventually* remove bad actors, especially now that the internet exists.

      "is totally not a ban on muslims. Nope, not at all."

      Except if you are a Muslim coming from Britain, Mexico, Canada, etc. there is literally nothing extra special that you will go through. How obtuse can one liberal be? This obtuse, apparently.

      "The guy has brought christian 'sharia' into the white house."

      "Well yeah a muslim just killed 50 people for being gay but remember that time a christian couple refused to bake a cake???" YOUR FALSE EQUIVALENCY IS COSTING INNOCENT PEOPLE - NOT CONVICTED FELONS/MURDERS - THEIR *LIVES.*

      "If you really are liberal"

      I don't care what you are or what you call yourself - you are fully ingesting MSM, and at the same time, probably believed that MSM was corrupt right around the time they backstabbed Bernie.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:01PM (#462951)

    For instance one of his executive orders forbids political appointees at any agency from engaging in lobbying activities related to that agency for 5 years after the end of their appointment. That is one of the biggest steps towards closing the revolving door between politics and the corporations that we've had in decades, and revoking that executive order would be politically very difficult.

    No it wouldn't. Bill Clinton revoked his version of the same lobbying ban on his way out the door. [npr.org] Trump used the same language as Clinton's executive order did. Count on him to revoke it the same way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:03PM (#463101)

      Have you ever asked yourself why Clinton revoked his own order? Or why Obama undermined his? These people were career politicians and incredibly corrupt. They grinded their way up to the top through the 'establishment' and that includes a countless number of favors, debts, and reciprocations. Trump differs from them in at least one enormous way. He went from political zero to president. He's certainly no angel, but he is also not politically indebted. He earned the presidency with everybody, even the republican party, actively trying to undermine him. It's the first time the public has overcome the 'system' in many years.

      The text of the order is great so why reinvent the wheel? Will Trump consciously screw America over on the way out like all presidents for decades have been doing? Maybe, but I think for now at least there's no reason to think that other than bias against him.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:02AM (#463287)

        He went from political zero to president. He's certainly no angel, but he is also not politically indebted

        Which is why he paid back mitch mcconnell by installing his wife as secretary of transportation.

        Letting them beccome lobbyists has nothing to do with owing anything to the party and everything with owing a debt to the people he's relied on. Hell, look at Corey Lewandowski, that guy is already a lobbyist [politico.com] based on nothing more than his access to trump.

        Trump owes tons of people. Furthermore his single biggest qualifier for hiring people is "loyalty" - and that's a two way street. He's going to pay back everybody in his administration and the easiest way for him to do that will be let them make a ton of money farming the swamp.

        You are just being willfully blind. You've got a narrative of trump as some uberman when he's actually more dependent on the people around him ("I hire the best guys") than other presidents.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:12AM (#463361)

          You don't find imply her selection for the role is because she is "Mitch McConnell's wife" as even slightly misleading? This [wikipedia.org] is the Wiki page on "Mitch McConnell's wife." An immigrant from rough conditions to a Harvard MBA with decades of political experience and leadership, years of public service, and more. I find what you just did here as about as classy as the people who chose to refer to Hillary as "Bill Clinton's wife" as opposed to her own person with her own accomplishments. Your statement is not misogynistic, but many of the politically correct folks would call it that. This sort of doublethink has become a major problem in modern politics alongside judging people based on speculation and strawmen.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:20PM

    by Magic Oddball (3847) on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:20PM (#463093) Journal

    It's a 3 month moratorium from a small handful of high risk nations (and 4 months for refugees) while an actual immigrant vetting system is established.

    Unfortunately, wrong on both counts.

    1) A ban intended to protect us from terrorism would target nations that past terrorists (or their forebears) were from, especially the country that's believed to have partly funded the terrorists that struck in in 2001. So, let's check the stats:
    Islamist attacks in US since 2000: 10
    …by native-born Americans: 6
    …by 1 native-born American & 1 green card holder: 1
    …by 1 native-born American + 1 visa holder: 1
    …by people from (or descended from) a banned nation: 0

    From what I can tell, the stats are similar for the attacks in Europe.

    2. We already had a thorough "vetting" system in place [state.gov] for refugees/immigrants, which involves 18-24 months of intensive investigation. Trump hasn't given any indication as to what he feels would do a better job, or even whether he bothered to look into what existing measures were in place.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:44PM (#463098)

      He gave specific examples of things we should be checking for and currently do not. They were included in that message.

      The nice thing about religious zealotry is that we can ask people to simply tell us, for instance, whether they believe e.g. Sharia Law supersedes or overrides US law. If they do, then we trash bin their application and move on. Other things would be views on domestic violence or violence/aggression towards women - again stuff mentioned in the bill. People that still hold these values tend to extol them. For instance you'll have women who refuse to shake the hand of men because of religious reasons, or men who would refuse to allow "their" women to do as much. Many Muslims also believe death is a reasonable punishment for apostasy or that homosexuality should be punished by death. Again these sort of values are in direct contradiction to US values and things we have no reason to embrace. It's like claiming racists rednecks have that as their culture and so we should simply accept that they're racist. It's idiotic double think. Some beliefs -cultural, religions, or otherwise- are simply not acceptable. Under Obama this sort of 'discrimination' was not allowed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:05AM (#463288)

        The nice thing about religious zealotry is that we can ask people to simply tell us, for instance, whether they believe e.g. Sharia Law supersedes or overrides US law. If they do, then we trash bin their application and move on.

        Funny, aren't you one of those assholes with a rage boner for taqiyya?