Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved

[PoliticAverse]

Analysis US watchdog the FCC formally approved new net neutrality rules on Thursday for America. But you're out of luck if you want to know exactly how your access to the internet will be now be governed.

Despite getting the green light, the exact rules have not been revealed and will remain a mystery for some unspecified length of time. "We will publish the order on our website as soon as next two steps are completed," said FCC chairman Tom Wheeler when quizzed after the vote.

"First, we have to get the dissents in, and second have to look at those dissents - and we are required to be responsive to the dissents. Then we will put it on the web. And at that point also file it with the Federal Register." He refused to give a timeframe for that process.

Read the rest at: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/

[newfie11]

1. Another secret

We the people aren't shown what's in TPP and now this!
Enough with the damn secrets, just give us the facts!

[BeanMusical]

5. setec astronomy

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. ain't that the truth... n/t

[BeanMusical]

53. Yep.

[joshcryer]

2. So they are following the procedure.

Which they do for every single new FCC rules that are made.

Here is the page on which the documents are posted: http://www.fcc.gov/documents

Here is one of the oral dissent summaries: http://www.fcc.gov/document/summary-commissioner-pais-oral-dissent-internet-regulation

The regulation to prevent disclosure of the documents until final proceedings are completed is regulated by Title 47 §19.735-203: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f8e1485a7584ff0c6e57af4d82b127e9&node=se47.1.19_1735_6203&rgn=div8

[PoliticAverse]

3. "or otherwise as authorized by the Commission" which specifically allows the info to be disseminated

if they authorize it.

[joshcryer]

4. And if you look at the summary Pai posted, they aren't.

They are only allowing summaries for now (read the really fine text between the black bars at the top, his full dissent is not even allowed; I'm sure the speech is on CSPAN though; all the errata would not be included in his spoken words, of course).

[Scuba]

6. Secret laws, secret rules, secret police, secret courts. Only the People are not allowed secrets.

[joshcryer]

7. This is FCC procedure.

You have a right, as a citizen, to appeal any ruling. Any. Go do it. They'll be forced to comply and reply to you with why they disagree with you.

Of course, you'll be unlikely to do that, and more unlikely to find a problem with the new ruling.

As if you even sent a comment to them under your name regarding net neutrality. I'm sure my name is in the 4 million. Is yours?

[Scuba]

8. FCC procedures require secrecy, apparently 'cause they don't think we can handle the truth.

Yeah, my name is in the 4 million. As for finding a problem in the new ruling, who knows? It's a fucking secret!

[joshcryer]

9. No, they simply don't want leaks before the final rule change.

That is obviously because if people "leaked" false rule changes and they were implemented they'd be open to a lawsuit.

It's in the fucking rules of procedure, just as any administrative action, you don't release the new rules until they're finalized. That's how administrative law works.

Lucky for you, if you have a problem with the new ruling, you have absolute power to appeal it, as a citizen. Did you know that? Go ahead and appeal it if you are so inclined.

I have doubts you are in the list of names of the 4 million who responded.

[Scuba]

14. That is obviously because if people "leaked" false rule changes and they were implemented ..."

Huh? WTF? If they were implemented they wouldn't be false.

Your entire statement lacks logic. If the rules were made public there would be no leaks, no conjecture.

But lucky for me, if I have a problem with the new rule that I'm not allowed to see, I can appeal it. Again, huh? WTF?

Major fail for you.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. I don't see how your first paragraph makes sense

And isn't it the case that other agencies publish notices of proposed new rules with a period for comments? Usually months?

[joshcryer]

20. Title 47 §19.735-203

The public comment period has nothing to do with proposed rules, the rules can come in any form. The Obama administration wrote them up (which, incidentally Pai dissented on, since they weren't "public&quot .

The public comment period is to assess where the public stands on a given issue. In this case it was whether or not the internet should be net neutral, the public stated that it should be, therefore the FCC responded, in kind.

If the proposed rules which were voted upon are disagreeable to the public, they may submit their own disagreements which the commission will take under advisement.

As it stands now though there is so much in the public commentary that it's unlikely the commission hasn't listened to the public as far as implementation of those rules.

Let it be known, Bush moved ISPs from Title II to Title I in 2005. The net neutrality thing has been nonsense from the get go. ISPs were Title II from the beginning. It wasn't until Bush deregulated thus opening up the possibility for "corporate fast lanes" that this has become an issue again. This is a reclassification to Title II, nothing more, nothing less.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. 1. Are you stating that other agencies don't release the exact wording of proposed

rule changes well in advance, have a public comment period, and respond to comments, before finalizing the change?

2. Title 47 §19.735-203 seems to simply say that secret things need to be kept secret until they're officially released. I'll look at it again after my coffee, but I don't see where it precludes releasing the proposed text before it becomes law.

3. You didn't address my comment on your first paragraph.

[joshcryer]

39. 1. They do not.

2. Correct.

3. Company A implements expensive rule changes based on rumors. Rumors turn out to be false. Company A sues the government for false rule changes hurting its bottom line.

It's pretty damn fucking simple, the new rules are not new rules until they say they're new rules, it covers everyones asses.

Maybe someone will leak them today or tomorrow or soon because I know the trolls are going to just run with this fucking utter dreck. Title 47 §19.735-203 prevents the new rules from being released until they're officially released. What more is there to be said. I tried to justify it, perhaps I failed, but that's the fucking reality.

Fuck the FCC for following procedure, right?

[MannyGoldstein]

48. 1. They do

For example, when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C was written, the proposed rules were placed into the Federal Register as proposed rules:

http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2007-2/050907a.pdf

(the actual proposed rules begin on p. 44)

Comments were accepted for several months, then the final rules published in the CFR along with an extensive analysis of hundreds of comments that had been received.

So yes, it is done.

3. Are you really going with that? Company files suit, goes to court:

Company: "We did something because we heard a rumor instead of looking at the CFR, so the government owes us money!"
Judge: "ROFL!"

P.S. You don't have to curse.

[geek tragedy]

49. The FCC published the NPRM on Net Neutrality in May 2014.

Please note that the NPRM is not the same as the final rule, which is not made public until it is published in the Federal Register.

you better believe it

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Sorta - but the new rules are said to be totally different from the old

The changes from NPRM to final rule are - in all cases that I've seen before - mainly clarifications and not a whole lot in the way of changing intent.

Do you feel that the FCC didn't change its intent very much? Or that it's OK to have a very large change in intent from NPRM to final?

[geek tragedy]

57. "the new rules are said to be totally different from the old" you Better Believe It!

the only person saying it is . . . you. And we all know why you are saying it.

As you acknowledged, the final rule follows the form of the NPRM with a few tweaks. That's how admin law works.

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

If the changes are major, the agency may publish a supplemental proposed rule. If the changes are minor, or a logical outgrowth of the issues and solutions discussed in the proposed rules, the agency may proceed with a final rule.

So, you decide to claim that "it's being said" that the new rules are totally different than the NPRM. Based on nothing but your desire to complain.

Swing and a miss. And completely misstates what is allowed under the APA.

First you complain that the final rule is being kept a secret. Which is a bullshit complaint, as demonstrated by the fact a rule isn't published until it's final.

Now you're complaining because you claim to know what rule is, and that it's really bad and different from the NPRM. Despite that being a legal impossibility.

Which is it Manny? is the final rule a big secret nobody knows, or do you know what its contents are?

Which anti-Obama spin are you trying to put on this?

[MannyGoldstein]

58. So the NPRM included net neutrality?

And reclassification of Internet service?

Wow!

The entire news media seems to have gotten that wrong.

I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me for thinking that every media outlet was correct on those points.

P.S. Sophomoric logic coupled with personal attacks and obscenity may be highly valued by a certain group on DU, but it's not normally regarded as adult behavior.

[geek tragedy]

59. No, the news media got it right. Only you managed to get it wrong.

I provided the link to the FCC's NPRM on Net Neutrality, which includes the reclassification proposal, in my post to which you responded.


Here it is again so you can try to read it this time.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

Here's a snippet:

We now
seek further and updated comment on whether the Commission should revisit its prior classification
decisions and apply Title II to broadband Internet access service (or components thereof). How would
such a reclassification approach serve our goal to protect and promote Internet openness? What would be
the legal bases and theories for particular open Internet rules adopted pursuant to such an approach?
Would reclassification and applying Title II for the purpose of protecting and promoting Internet
openness impact the Commission’s overall policy goals and, if so, how?
150.
What factors should the Commission keep in mind as it considers whether to revisit its
prior decisions? Have there been changes to the broadband marketplace that should lead us to reconsider
our prior classification decisions?

here is a contemporaneous news media discussion of that proposal:

http://www.thenation.com/article/179934/fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-explained

On May 15, the Federal Communications Commission voted to move forward with their proposed rules for net neutrality, the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. The proposal, which will now be open for public comment for four months, would dramatically change the Internet. The new rules would allow Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon or AT&T to charge websites like Facebook and Twitter for faster service. This has a whole range of consequences for you, the avid Internet user. We’ve put together this explainer to help you understand what the proposal means and how you can tell the FCC what you think about the proposed rules.

...
In January of this year, the DC Court of Appeals agreed with Verizon and said that the FCC can’t stop Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against websites or any other Internet traffic unless the Internet is reclassified as a public utility. But the court also said the FCC does have some authority to implement net neutrality rules so far as it promotes broadband deployment across the country.

The FCC took that small window of opportunity and worked on a new proposal over the last few months. On Thursday, they voted to present the proposal to the public for comment, which is what’s on the table now. It’s called a notice of proposed rule-making.

You are grossly, and cynically, misrepresenting what the news media has been reporting.

You should expect harsh responses when you cynically misrepresent easily-verified facts, and in doing so contradict yourself, in pursuit of a generally disruptive and non-constructive agenda here.

Glad to have been able to educate you on the past 10 months of activity regarding this issue that is so vital to progressives.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Looks like a split decision

I forgot that the nprm did call for net neutrality - but it didn't reclasify, as you claim. Or to translate into language that you can grasp:

The FCC did NOT reclassify Internet service as you disgustingly claimed in your incredible poop-stained illiterate attack on all that is decent and holy in this world in which you're pathetically trying to eat babies, etc.

Reclassification is quite a different path, which is why my cynical hate-filled death-post from Hell claims that the final rule will be quite different from the nprm.

[geek tragedy]

68. Did you read the excerpt re: reclassification

I posted?

[MannyGoldstein]

69. That's not part of the proposed rule

Just part of the commentary. Or to translate for you:

Only a hate-filled asswipe Liberal blue meanie would obviously and so cynically misrepresent that this was part of the proposed rule in order to eat babies and poop on all minorities everywhere.

[geek tragedy]

70. Sigh.

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 09:18 PM - Edit history (3)

Title II classification is not part of the rule. Rather, it is a source of authority upon which the agency can rely to enact the rule.

Just like authority under the Commerce Clause is not enacted by any legislation.

The goal of this proceeding is to find the best approach to protecting and promoting
Internet openness. Per the blueprint offered by the D.C. Circuit in its decision in Verizon v. FCC, the
Commission proposes to rely on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.2 At the same time,
the Commission will seriously consider the use of Title II of the Communications Act as the basis for
legal authority. This Notice seeks comment on the benefits of both section 706 and Title II, including the
benefits of one approach over the other. Under all available sources of legal authority (including also
Title III for mobile services), the Commission seeks comment on the best ways to define, prevent and
punish the practices that threaten an open Internet. We emphasize in this Notice that the Commission
recognizes that both section 706 and Title II are viable solutions and seek comment on their potential use.

It is an interpretive determination that was explicitly contemplated in the NPRM. It did not appear in the proposed rule because it was the basis for the authority to enact the rule, not something to be enacted pursuant to the rule.

So, unanimous decision. Better luck next time. Glad I could help teach you about admin law as well as this pending rule. Your grasp on policy would greatly improve if you approached them without the goal of complaining about the Obama administration.

[ND-Dem]

61. alice in wonderland logic

[woo me with science]

10. [phone] Secrecy. The MO of our new authoritarian, looting government.

And we are deluged with the same, predictable propaganda instructing us to cheer.

[joshcryer]

12. Oh, it's you.

[woo me with science]

21. The rude ROFL smiley response and predictable attempt at personal smear

from DU's resident corporate talking points dispensers, when they cannot make a legitimate argument.



Spare the bids to cheer until the people can see what we're getting.

If we have learned ANYTHING from this administration, it is not to cheer shiny PR announcements of accomplishments on behalf of the people until AFTER we can actually see them.

True to form, the publicity blitz and bids for cheering happen NOW, before we are even permitted to see the thing.

Secret government assaults the people. We have seen that over and over and over again.

This administration has perfected the dishonest PR strategy of claiming loudly and publicly that they intend to do something and gaining the PR benefits of the announcement, but then quietly turning around and doing the opposite.

They did it with ACA and the public option.
They did it with that beautiful speech about reining in the MIC, followed immediately by two new major wars and a TRILLION dollar ramping up of nuclear arms.
They did it with Obama's despicable speeches claiming to support whistleblowers, although Chelsea Manning was a victim of torture and Edward Snowden pursued by forcing down the plane of a head of state.
They did it when they lied and promised that big banks would be under indictment in the fall of 2013.
They are trying to do it now with the despicable TPP.
And now SECRET "net neutrality" deals.

No, we need to see it first.

It's a pattern. Publicize and seek credit for lying intentions, but keep the process secret and end up screwing the people in the end.

We need to see this agreement before one iota of cheering is warranted.

Ignore the Third Way propaganda
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

[joshcryer]

33. This is the function of administrative law.

You are so out of touch it is actually disturbing that you have any credibility here. There is not one agency in the United States Government that allows pre-ruling documents to be seen by the public.

Only after the ruling has been made are public policy administrative rules shown. That is a fact. This fact exists purely because people like yourself like to twist policy administrative law and try to pull some cat out of the bag and shit on everyday people who do this for a living. They are required to keep the public policy wording private because if they don't it could all go to shit. It's only after the policy change that they release the new rulings.

If you don't like it, then sorry, that's how it works. They're not going to fall for dirty tricks to cause them to be snowballed by the right wing whenever they make positive rule changes.

[oneshooter]

23. Jury results

On Fri Feb 27, 2015, 06:10 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Oh, it's you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6286482

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

If this post isn't rude, then whatbis?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 27, 2015, 06:16 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Agree, also content-free, but rude does not rise to the level of hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, that's snarky, not rude. Don't use the jury system to fight your battles. Answer or ignore.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are far worst said on DU about gun owners. Grow a thicker skin.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Senseless and vindictive alerting

[joshcryer]

27. Thanks, believe me, I know it's coming.

The poster in question said "The oligarchy and their purchased administration treat us like blithering idiots."

Only blithering idiots and corporate shills will claim this was not the plan all along.

United oligarchy, not gridlocked democracy.

Can we, as a nation, stop pretending now, please? Because the constant LYING is hurting my brain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5806365

Perhaps he was speaking of himself. Tom Wheeler brought us net neutrality in its totality and all they have to grasp upon is that the rules have not yet been published. A week or two from now when the new rules are published, we won't here a peep. But they have to try to denigrate the process. A process that involves thousands of policy wonks and secretaries and various legislative lawmakers. They're all in the conspiracy, dontchaknow!

[woo me with science]

11. To the Greatest Page. This is important.

Secret government is unacceptable. We have been burned over and over and over again.

[joshcryer]

13. You have no clue how administrative law works.

No clue. Absolutely clueless. To the point of a parody.

[Scuba]

15. Yet it's you who argues that if we don't like the rules we can't be allowed to see, we can appeal.

Clueless.

[joshcryer]

17. You can't see them until they're official.

Clueless, indeed. Title 47 §19.735-203. Objective fact.

Give it a fucking week for fucks sake, Jesus Christ, you're inventing outrage because you don't know how public policy fucking works. There are people, getting low level salaries if not minimum wage, writing up the relevant policy responses according to law, and you're complaining that it's "secret."

Every little needle you shoot into the process is just crapping on regular everyday people, people literally like you or me, who are writing up all the relevant legislative responses to the Republican dissent to get this fucking over with, because by the rules of procedure they must do so. I know in Pai's case I can trivially debunk half of his bullshit, but it'd take me at least a day of comprehensive research to do so. The other half is probably another day or two. He is so full of shit when he talks about ISP rate charging, for example, because the new rules explicitly exclude ISPs under the new Internet Tax Act. Pai is a liar, but if I was working under Wheeler, I, speculatively, as an agent of the ICC, would have to write a 10-15 page report about how utterly wrong he is.

You just don't get it. You are so out of the scope of administrative legalese it's pointless why I am responding to you. Clueless is literally the defining term here.

[Scuba]

19. My "outrage" isn't about the rules, it's about the secrecy. Why is our government so secretive?

How does this secrecy serve the public? Care to expound on that?

[joshcryer]

24. Rumors = cost.

The FCC does not want to get caught up in some BS whereby some rumors that the FCC were doing something meant that the FCC was doing something and some company spends millions doing something the FCC wasn't going to do.

It's typical administrative disclaimer language. It's not the rule of law until it is the rule of law. The FCC is not allowed, by its own procedure, to finalize a new rule, until it has adequately responded to the dissenters. Therefore it will not be published until that point.

How hard is this to grasp?

[Scuba]

26. There would be no rumors, no conjecture, if the rules were published. Too complicated for you?

How do people dissent when they don't know the rule?

[joshcryer]

29. You should press for them to change Title 47 §19.735-203.

Until you do, they, like every other administration in the federal government, will reserve their right to officiate only when they are ready to officiate the documents.

Or you could call Wheeler's office and ask for a signature to release the final wording yourself.

If you so chose, since that is allowed under Title 47 §19.735-203.

[Scuba]

34. Why are you defending the secrecy? You've been posting and posting but not offered ...

... anything logical. Why the defense?

[joshcryer]

36. What secrecy?

This is how administrative law works. Why do you continue to be obtuse to how administrative law works?

Give it a week or so and you'll have your new rules. Big fucking deal. I bet you won't say a damn word when what Wheeler said turns out to be, you know, the guts of the new rules.

[Scuba]

37. Why does the administrative law require secrecy? What is the benefit of the secrecy?

[joshcryer]

40. Covering their asses.

[Scuba]

42. Does that mean you agree the secrecy is bad for our democracy?

[JimDandy]

43. Some people will never agree that sunshine

is a great disinfectant. They simply hide behind 'it's the law' and 'change it if you want' without ever being the one to call for or even agree that a change is needed.

[Scuba]

45. Seems like the whole argument is "there's no reason for it, it's just our policy."

[Fumesucker]

28. How does one rationally dissent before the wording of the rules is known?

The devil is in the details and as I understand you we aren't allowed to know the details until after the comment period is over.

[joshcryer]

31. What the hell are you talking about?

The final wording of the rules has been known for weeks now.

It's not allowed to be published publicly under Title 47 §19.735-203.

They are required by the rules to respond to the dissenters.

This means that they would not have voted for it unless they felt that all dissenter positions are null.

We can see that Pai's dissent is effectively bullshit, if we simply look at the summaries.

[Fumesucker]

44. Never mind, I thought I could get a straight answer from you

I should have known better.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. You WHAT?

Oh dear Goddess, seek help!

[TheKentuckian]

52. Please provide the final wording that has been known for weeks and I guess we'll go from there.

[ND-Dem]

64. so who's known it 'for weeks' if it's not allowed to be published?

[rtw]

32. Google has seen them

They got input as well. This is not going to be good. Nothing done under the cover of darkness is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan-google-115502.html

[joshcryer]

35. No, no one has seen them, only summaries.

Google is upset about the summaries regarding "edge providers" because the FCC actually seems to be wanting to allow anyone to "plug in" to current infrastructure, and Google doesn't want to allow people to plug in to their gigabit networks.

The only people who are allowed to see the documents, under Title 47 §19.735-203, are lawyers for the FCC, and internal workers who work on rule changes. That is objective fact. Google sent out a preemptive message because they don't want "edge providers" to screw with their data mining (because after all, Google fiber is a grand data mining project, and edge providers would be end points that hurt their efforts).

[rtw]

38. Confused

Josh,

In reply 31 you state that the final wording has been known for weeks yet in 35 you state no one has seen anything. Regardless of that inconsistency, Google having influence and input at this stage is not good.

[joshcryer]

41. Only FCC officials* have it under Title 47 §19.735-203.

No one, not Google, not a single journalist or corporation, has access to it, unless someone leaked it.

Google's filling was based on a summary that was released, and Google is going to lose that one given Wheeler's statements about anyone being able to plug into the net.

*Congresspeople also likely have a copy of the new rules, as well. They can release the new rules on the Congressional floor if they so choose, before the FCC gets around to it, in a week or two tops.

[woo me with science]

18. Spare the familiar bullying to trust and prematurely celebrate

when this government has betrayed us over and over again using the very same MO of secrecy.

You have nothing here except the same old arrogant script.

[div class="excerpt"Ignore the Third Way talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

[joshcryer]

25. Spare me the faux outrage.

We won, and your spinning will not change that absolute fact.

The ratfucking will not be had here, not today, not ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

[geek tragedy]

46. Some people just need to whine. nt

[Takket]

47. So... what's the deal here?

Ran into a post on line by a self confessed Libertarian saying that the FCC approved net neutrality as a pretext to basically tax the hell out of the internet. He's saying we will be taxed "for each minute of usage" and that we have no idea what is coming or what rules were approved. So what's the deal? Is this RW paranoia or is any of this really possible?????????

Edit: His rant copied below:

President Obama and the FCC now has imposed a Regulating of the internet. For those who see no problem of this you must like not like freedom. The people for net neutrality will say it is to help small businesses compete, but in reality, it it nothing more than the govt finding a way to muscle its way into the internet. Regulate its content, control its content, and then add a slew of new taxes.

The FCC has a 322 page plan about net neutrality and refuses to let the general public view it. I guess this is familar to the Nancy Pelosi quote We have to pass the bill if you want to find out what's in it? Ah, the great transparency of the commiecrats rears its ugly head once again. Soon, we will be remembering when the nanny state actually allowed people the freedom of speech to say and believe what you want. Because those times are effectively over.

And, Hillary will now have a whole new set of taxes she can impose to further the Socialist agenda.

When is America going to fully wake up? When will democrats grow a pair and stand up for their rights as a free american citizen and stop believing politicians who lie and have an agenda? I honestly believe Democrats would rip up the Constitution if they were given the chance. Well, congrats, with net neutrality you just got one step closer to attaining that goal.

Why can you people support Freedom and individual liberty instead of the letter on the ballot box? Republicans were wrong for standing up the Patriot act, if Democrats stand up for Net Neutrality, you will be wrong too. Unless you enjoy less freedom.

What say you? Would you rather live free or not?


When the govt starts adding a dozen new taxes and pay per minute access to your internet are you still going to like this? My goddess, the lack of foresight of people into the bad aspects of a bill is incredible. You have to take that into account, why do people only look at one aspect? Its like the dolts who are all for pipeline or nuclear not mentioning how the envirement could be destroyed.

We must have more foresight into the negative aspect our nations most important bills. Too many people trust their party.

[geek tragedy]

50. Why would you listen to such a ranting nutjob? nt

[obnoxiousdrunk]

51. Because he likes it.

[Takket]

54. because when i came in this thread a lot of people on DU seem worried about the same stuff!

[geek tragedy]

55. Nobody is worried about Hillary taxing America to death, last time I checked nt

[ND-Dem]

60. if it's secret, what are folks dissenting to? do they know?

[onenote]

63. Yes.

The draft order (like a draft judicial decision) was circulated to all of the Commissioners in advance. And like a judicial decision, the final form of the order will evolve based on input from those Commissioners, including dissenting statements that are intended to support those commissioners' votes against adopting the order.

[onenote]

62. 30 plus years of FCC practice here -- if anyone wants to understand the process

As others have sought to explain, the process by which the FCC adopted the Net Neutrality rules is no more or less "secret" than the process by which the FCC and other independent administrative agencies governed by the Administrative Procedure Act adopt rules.

A good starting point for understanding the process is to recognize that independent administrative agencies are both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in nature and how they operate reflects that fact.

Thus, when an agency such as the FCC proposes to adopt rules it begins (as it did with the net neutrality rules) by making public the text of a set of "proposed" rules. In this regard, the agency's process is broadly similar to that of a legislature, where proposed laws are introduced and made public before they are adopted. However, the administrative law process for seeking input from the public is more formal than that of the typical legislature. In particular, when an agency proposes rules (such as the net neutrality rules) it publishes them as part of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the agency solilcits comment (and reply comment) on a wide range of issues, including the agency's legal authority to adopt the proposed rules, the pros and cons of the rules from a standpoint of public policy, and whether the rules should be adopted in the form proposed or should be narrowed, broadened, or otherwise modified in various ways. Those comments/reply comments and other communications, unlike the communications that might occur regarding a legislative proposal, are available to the public for review. They also make up the record on which the legality of the decision adopting the rules will be reviewed.

Once the comments/replies have been received and reviewed by the agency, an order is prepared at the direction of the Chairman. That draft order is discussed amongst the members of the agency, who can expres their support or opposition for the proposals in whole or in part. Ultimately, the Chairman's goal is to obtain the support of a majority of the agency for the adoption of some version of the rules. Rarely is the version ultimately adopted identical to the rules originally proposed, at least where the rules are substantively controversial rather than merely ministerial.

At this point, the process more closely resembles a judicial process than a legislative process. Just as the SUpreme Court hears cases in public and the briefs and record below are publicly available, forging a majority for a particular result and drafting the decision takes place outside of public view and is not disclosed until it is final. We don't learn what the court has decided and then wait around for the justices to write and re-write the opinion and any dissenting or concurring statements. All is revealed only when that process is complete.

So too with the FCC's action. The public does not see the detailed order explaining why the agency is taking the action it is taking, what changes it has made to the originally proposed rules and why, the legal bases for the actions taken, etc. and addressing the comments supporting and opposing the actions proposed and taken until that document has been reviewed and signed off on by each of the Commissioners. Just as the courts don't make public the drafts of their decisions or their preliminary votes on the outcome of a case, neither does the FCC or any other agency.

As a matter of law, the agency is not required to seek out comment on every modification it makes to the rules as originally proposed. To do so would result in a never-ending process. However, the agency has to be able to show that the pubilc was put on notice by the questions it raised in the NPRM and by the comments/reply comments received in response to the NPRM that the agency was considering whether or not to take the actions reflected in the final version of the rules. While it is rare, agencies sometimes do slip up in this regard and take actions that are so far afield from what was originally proposed and from anything that was raised in the NPRM as a subject for comment that the decision is struck down by the courts. The FCC's NPRM in this case posed dozens, if not hundreds, of questions and solicited comment on those questions.

So, in short, the agencies decision-making process contains elements of "secrecy" just as the judicial process contains elements of secrecy. And it contains elements of openness, just as the legislative process contains elements of openness. But just as not everything about the legislative process is public and just as not everything about the judicial proceess is secret, the administrative law process, as a hybrid, has elements of both.

[MannyGoldstein]

65. Thank you!

Very informative!

Based on your experience, is the difference between the NPRM and what we believe will be the final rules any more different, or less different, than is typical?

[onenote]

66. It varies

I don't know that there is a "typical" situation. For example, it's hard to compare a situation where an agency is proposing to amend its rules to one where it is regulating an area for the first time. Also, in some instances, the FCC is implementing a statutory provision that dictates to some degree the wording of the rules. Also, some rulemakings are deregulatory -- intended to eliminate regulation -- while others adopt new rules.

The net neutrality rulemaking has various elements to it and how much substantive variation there is between the originally adopted rules and how much is procedural (how the rules will be enforced) etc. won't be clear until the order is published.

[Man from Pickens]

72. Fing awesome

Another corporate bait and switch - we wanted fairness, we get secret laws known only to a privileged elite instead. And people wonder why I'm cynical as all hell.