
The FCC is so swamped with net neutrality comments, it’s extending the deadline - nazgul
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/15/the-fcc-is-so-swamped-with-net-neutrality-comments-its-extending-the-deadline/
======
rayiner
Note that comments to the FCC are a little different than a letter to your
Congressman, in that they have legal significance. The comments become a part
of the record that may be reviewed by a court if the agency's rules are
challenged. The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to set aside agency
rules that are, among other things, "arbitrary and capricious." In issuing
final rules, agencies will generally respond to the major issues raised by the
comments, because otherwise parties may challenge the rule in court arguing
that the agency acted arbitrarily by ignoring a major aspect of the issue.

On a general note, I don't get the cynicism as to the FCC's intentions here.
The FCC already passed net neutrality rules, and those rules were struck down
by the D.C. Circuit. Internet companies have argued that the FCC could
implement net neutrality if they regulated internet service providers under
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, but the FCC desperately wants to
find a way to avoid doing that. Not because it doesn't want net neutrality,
but because Title II is a big regulatory regime with a lot of baggage.

You have to understand that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. There is
a general regulatory paradigm that's in vogue at the FCC. The FCC has been
thrilled with the results of its "light touch" approach to cellular wireless
regulation. That's the mantra of post-Clinton liberals: "we'll have
regulations, but lightweight ones." Title II is an FDR-era piece of
legislation that is anything but lightweight. Regulating the internet under
Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as
centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies
should operate in the modern era.

~~~
dragontamer
Indeed. The FCC is actually on the public's side on this one. For all we know,
the FCC has opened things up to public comment on purpose, to prove to the
courts that striking down the FCC Network Neutrality rules was a bad idea.

The "enemy" to network neutrality was the DC Circuit court. The FCC _wants_
network neutrality, but it lost the power to make such a rule earlier this
year.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_%282014%29)

~~~
AnIrishDuck
> The "enemy" to network neutrality was the DC Circuit court. The FCC wants
> network neutrality, but it lost the power to make such a rule earlier this
> year.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the D.C circuit was correct, and that the FCC
doesn't have the right authority under the Title I of the Communications Act.
The guilty party is congress, which left the FCC the choice between using the
warhammer that is Title II and the inappropriate use of Title I (general
provisions).

They need effective tools to regulate correctly, and Congress arguably hasn't
given them any. Though nothing says they have to use Title II for the whole
internet. I'd personally like to see something like Title II (common carriage)
applied to the last mile, and the return of competing ISPs that can leverage
that public infrastructure.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
The site is down, but you can speak to a human by calling +1 (888) 225-5322,
then pressing 1, 4, 0.

~~~
danielhonigman
What happens then? Are they just there to take down your opinion?

~~~
benburleson
Give it a try; report back.

------
isaacdl
Perhaps they need to pay their ISP for the premium package? :)

~~~
infogulch
Except the FAA already paid for an exclusive in the "premium bandwidth for
government agencies" category. To get in, they have to pay double the normal
premium rate.

~~~
pyre
What does aviation have to do with this?

~~~
infogulch
"premium bandwidth for government agencies"

Nothing, I picked a random different agency that started with "federal".

------
felixrieseberg
In case you haven't done so, do submit a comment. It's easy to be cynical
about its impact, but this is currently the official way of making your voice
heard.

------
SurfScore
Does the number of comments really change anything? Not criticizing just
wondering. This seems like a letter-writing campaign without the added
inconvenience of an office full of paper.

~~~
rhino369
The FCC is supposed to address all the arguments made for and against a
proposed rule.

However, there is no way they address every single letter. They'll just
summarize what all the public comments argument and address that.

So unless you come up with some new groundbreaking comment, it has no effect.

I want my NETFLIX! comments won't do shit.

------
cryoshon
This isn't enough. We can't just keep shouting at them and hoping that they'll
do as we say-- the FCC does not work for us, it works for the cable companies
firstly and the USG secondly. We have to escalate the situation substantially
and threaten their funding/power/political structure by bribing the correct
people or else we won't get anywhere.

EDIT: Of course I've left the FCC a comment, made a phone call, and talked to
my political representatives (in addition to bitching at the president) about
this issue anyway. I don't expect that my word is worth anything without a
bribe, though.

~~~
freehunter
>bribing the correct people or else we won't get anywhere.

I agree, but the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies
with their future profit increase on the line, and they're already bribing
politicians. Can we out-spend them?

~~~
cryoshon
No, but it's the only way we'll win this game while still playing by the legal
and social rules.

Not enough people care, and even if they do care they probably don't have
enough money, even when combined together. With some products, it might be
possible to inflict economic damage against our enemies by boycotting and
hopefully reducing the amount of money they have to lobby, but that's nearly
impossible with the monopolies that the ISPs have built.

We have to try, though-- if only to save ourselves from hypocrisy.

------
lifeisstillgood
I'm actually a little proud of democracy today.

Even cynical old me :-)

------
eglover
It's not that this is necessarily a hot debate, in fact I've seen little
intelligence regarding what it means. It's that the internet is a bitch. It is
of no convenience for "interneters" to click a "Sign this petition" button
that promises what somebody somewhere naively calls "fair internet". ..."I
like fair!"

In the past these internet movements have gone is a direction that is more
about individual freedoms, but like Occupy Wall Street, what it has to say
about Net Neutrality is dead wrong, and I say that because the whole thing is
based on buzzwords and ignorance.

------
stretchwithme
Public comments are the scraps we cling to when we aren't allowed to vote on
things or chose who represents us.

If we had proportional representation, I'd vote for whoever is closest to my
views and best able to represent them.

A representative that works for everybody in a district doesn't represent
anybody in particular, except those who contribute to expensive campaign
required to get a majority of the votes.

PR gets rid of the need to win a majority and the ability of lobbyists to buy
off a single winner per district.

------
trhway
i hope they don't have "fast lane" for the "fast lane" proponents' comments
(donations, etc...)

------
api
"How do we frame this so we can still screw the public on behalf of our
lobbyist paymasters?"

Takes time to figure that out.

~~~
exelius
How about the fact that net neutrality has never actually been a thing on the
Internet? Paid interconnect agreements to ISPs are as old as the Internet
itself. To force companies to roll that back at this point would cause
catastrophic damage to the Internet as a whole.

Because these agreements are so common place, the best the FCC can really do
is put a regulatory structure in place to ensure they're consistently (and
legally) applied.

They could add provisions saying something like "the amount of data carried
over paid direct interconnects with content owners cannot exceed the amount of
data carried through traditional peering arrangements" that would take care of
many people's concerns about a "slow lane".

But saying "net neutrality or nothing" requires adopting an idealized,
revisionist history of the Internet. The Internet has _always_ been run by
large ISPs; it's just that they're large _consumer_ ISPs now so the commercial
guys like Level3 are crying about it. Paid data carriage is a fact about the
business of the Internet, and if you remove it, capacity will disappear with
it until someone figures out another way to make money transmitting data
(which will likely involve the consumer paying more).

~~~
wmf
Talking about paid interconnects is kind of meaningless since transit,
backbone-backbone peering, and content-eyeball peering are quite different
things.

When you try to save the other party money and they ask you to pay them even
more, that's fishy. If anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior has been going
on for years and is only now being revealed, that doesn't make it any less
bad. Fortunately the FCC is already being motivated to create transparency in
this area.

~~~
exelius
They're not different things and haven't been since the late 90s. All the big
media companies have interconnects for CDN purposes; the only difference is
that they pay for them (or have settlement-free peering arrangements). Peering
disputes like this are as old as the Internet.

When the other party dumps their nice, CDN-backed delivery service in favor of
cheap transit from a provider long known to have ~20% packet loss at peak
hours, then complains loudly about it, THAT is fishy.

Many people seem to think of the Internet as a big hole that you can throw
data into and it magically gets where it's going. Once you start pushing
enough traffic, it's YOUR responsibility to ensure you traffic gets where its
going, which means spending money on delivery.

------
slantedview
Not trying to be cynical, but what's the point? Commenting against the FCC's
plans is like pissing in the wind. The stooges on the deciding committee will
decide as stooges do.

While I don't advocate doing nothing, playing their game their way isn't going
to lead to a win.

------
tomjen3
Unfortunately unless you have either money or the ability to use violence with
impunity they are not going to care.

Not that I would advocate using violence, since it is likely to get you (or
me) in trouble.

~~~
djur
I'm really tired of this defeatist attitude. It's especially common on HN for
some reason.

Think of it this way: "they" want you to be cynical about the usefulness of
democratic action. A necessary precondition for oligarchic takeover of
democracy is that the people decide not to make use of the tools they have
available to retain control.

A formally democratic society where nobody but the rich bothers to advocate
for their own needs is the ideal form of oppression.

~~~
cryoshon
Did you see the study that just came out which stated that money was far more
important than "democratic" channels when looking at political outcomes?

We're cynical about the usefulness of democratic action specifically because
there have been numerous elections without any major changes to our country's
current death spiral.

The poor and middle classes constantly advocate for their own needs (jobs,
money, healthcare) but are consistently beaten by the rich's purchased
politicians.

~~~
krapp
Purely for the sake of devil's advocacy, I'll just point out that there's an
entire other side of the political spectrum in the US which agrees completely
with the rich and their moneyed interests, and which considers things like
'advocacy for the poor and middle class' and 'net neutrality' to be part of
the country's death spiral into socialism. The rich and right-wing get to vote
just like everyone else, and it should be no surprise that business lobbies
for its own self-interest.

------
dbpokorny
It is dangerous to go alone! take this

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen)

------
cenhyperion
It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have
not taken a side in this. Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's
interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of
business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.

Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an
issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future. I'd strongly
encourage anyone who has a stake in this fight (most of HN's audience) to
submit their thoughts to the FCC and your congressional representatives.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're
going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of
the largest lobbyists in Washington.

Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist for National Cable Television Association, and
the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association; genuinely cares what I think?
You can't be serious.

>Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an
issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future.

What are you talking about COPPA/DOPA/COICA/SOPA/CISPA/CIPA/PIPA keeps getting
resurrected, time after time, they've tried everything. Anybody who has been
paying attention is right to be cynical.

~~~
cenhyperion
"I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a
good actor who wants to do the right thing"

Sam Altman - [http://blog.samaltman.com/net-
neutrality](http://blog.samaltman.com/net-neutrality)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>>I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a
good actor who wants to do the right thing. But he is fighting against very
powerful lobbyists and large companies that want to disrupt the freedom of the
Internet. We should help him defend it.

That's not nothing, but is Altman merely being diplomatic and trying to appeal
to Wheeler's good nature, or could he be a dupe? Either could be the case.

I met a few well connected political types myself, and my impression is that
many of them are very good at being likeable. As an example, James Clapper,
Keith Alexander, and George W. Bush; all three are strongly controversial
public figures who have been reported as being likeable people even by staunch
critics who have met them.

Wheeler's long and profitable career investing in and advancing the interests
(as a lobbyist) of wireless and cable companies excludes him from the list of
people who I would expect to advocate for my personal interests in any case
other than when his and my interests intersect, which are few if any.

