SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the more-important-than-a-wardrobe-malfunction dept.
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: 2) by Tork on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:26PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:14PM
Are you comparing a forum of angry nerds to an agency whose rules are backed by the federal government's threat of force? Because if so that's utterly preposterous. There is a huge power differential there, and I don't remember hearing any Firefly fans calling for the federal government to start demanding money from any broadcasting channel that didn't air their programming of choice.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday August 26 2014, @09:21PM
I realize I'm being kinda dumb here, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Did the FCC call in an air-strike?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Informative) by JNCF on Tuesday August 26 2014, @09:38PM
The FCC has fined people for broadcasting material they don't like on countless occasions (figuratively). If the FCC fines you and you refuse to pay the fine, the government will take your possessions with force. If you physically resisted the seizure of your property the government would escalate the situation with you until they needed to use deadly force, and then you would die. The FCC doesn't jump straight to an air-strike when a titty hits the television, but the reason that their rules mean anything is because they're ultimately backed up by the barrel of a gun. If they weren't, we'd all ignore them.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:42PM
That's a stretch. To get a license to broadcast on the airwaves you have to follow the terms and conditions. If you don't you pay a fine or lose your license. Next you'll be complaining about McDonads' military might interfering with peoples' freedoms to not wear pants.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:13AM
Right, you pay a fine. But if I told you that your wifi router was against my broadcasting code, and then issued you a fine, you'd laugh and refuse to pay it.
What do you think would happen if you laughed and refused to pay the government's fine?
What if the fine was in excess of the assets available for them to seize without violent confrontation?
McDonald's can tell people to leave their property if they aren't wearing pants,* but they can't fine them for it with the implicit threat that if they don't pay the fine their possessions will be forcefully taken from them. McDonald's lacks the threat of force that the government has. If McDonald's had a greater threat of force than the government, we'd call them the government and they could fine us whenever they wanted. That's what "government" means, it's what we call the group with control over an area. The biggest gang in town.
*And that's only because the government tells them they can.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:32AM
Right, you pay a fine. But if I told you that your wifi router was against my broadcasting code, and then issued you a fine, you'd laugh and refuse to pay it. What do you think would happen if you laughed and refused to pay the government's fine? What if the fine was in excess of the assets available for them to seize without violent confrontation?
If you violated the terms you agreed to uphold then I think you'd suffer the consequences that were explained to you during the process getting the license.
McDonald's can tell people to leave their property if they aren't wearing pants,* but they can't fine them for it with the implicit threat that if they don't pay the fine their possessions will be forcefully taken from them. McDonald's lacks the threat of force that the government has.
Your homework for tonight is to go to McDonalds without pants and refuse to leave, then report back to us.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:51PM
I don't have a broadcasting license of any sort, so I never agreed to their terms. Yet they still reserve the right search my property without a warrant to inspect my wifi router, [wired.com] and fine the piss out of me if I had the balls to operate a "pirate" radio station. Please don't resort to invoking social contracts to explain why this is acceptable.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:18PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈