SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-takes-300-pages-to-redefine-neutrality dept.
The bloom may have already fallen off the Net Neutrality rose. As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled):
When Google's Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama's demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for "net neutrality" learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.
Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.
It seems as though, in their zeal to "stick it" to the ISPs, most proponents didn't consider that when you allow 3 unelected people to issue rulings on something as large and ubiquitous as the Internet, bad things can happen:
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: "If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that's already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past."
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, warned: "When you see this document, it's worse than you imagine." The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:15AM
Not sure why the regulations aren't public now, given that apparently they now have the force of law.
And certainly we [the unimportant people] have no real idea of whether or not the new regulations are good or bad for us, given that we haven't seen them. Everyone should know by now that the title of a bunch of laws can say one thing, but actually do something quite different [see Patriot Act]. Only once we see them, and then see how they are actually applied, will we know if they are what we want. And that will only take a couple of years...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Ryuugami on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:06AM
Not sure why the regulations aren't public now, given that apparently they now have the force of law.
I don't know if it's an actual rule or just a tradition, but it seems they only release the rules somewhat later, with all the edits and opinions included... and the people loudly protesting the "secrecy" are the ones holding it back. In other words, business as usual.
Via Techdirt [techdirt.com] (emphasis mine):
Despite claims by neutrality opponents that this is some secret cabal specific to net neutrality, the agency historically has never released rules it votes on until well after the actual vote. It's a dumb restriction that's absolutely deadly to open discourse, but it's not unique to one party or to this specific issue.
(...)
"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:10PM
Thats just par for the course. How many times now have Republicans shut down the government and blamed it on Democrats? And that's just the first thing that comes to mind. That said, I wish DHS would get shut down but even if it did I wouldn't cheer Republicans for doing it because regardless of the result its still just another damn temper tantrum that they'll never have the integrity to claim, and they're not trying to shut it down because its totalitarian bullshit but just to try to make the president look bad.
(Score: 4, Informative) by goody on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:34PM
The regulations aren't public right now because the two Republican commissioners, the ones who were complaining about it not being public prior to vote, are withholding their document edits. So the FCC can't release it yet. Ajit Pai complained about the lack of transparency but failed to mention the FCC never releases rulemakings prior to a vote, and the FCC released an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) that received public comment, prior to the rulemaking. They followed standard FCC procedure, and Pai is just being a jerk so he can score political points with the right.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:58PM
It's not like how we regulate our communications industries has anything to do with national security, does it? (as compared to those secret TLA NDAs or whatever) What rational excuse do they use for not making public the exact wording of laws people are bound by?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"