Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

addicted wrote: post #28
wsh wrote: post #9

This isn’t a surprise: comments are meant to ensure that rule-making agencies consider relevant information before making a final decision; they aren’t an opinion poll. See the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(c): After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or w…

Are you suggesting that only legal arguments or facts are relevant? So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?

> So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?

Political appointees are entirely within their power to ignore such comments.

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Pick up your phone. Call the number on this page https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact. Put your phone on mute and speaker and do something while you’re on hold. Wait.

Talk to someone and calmly explain your views. If you are emotional, summarise the EFF’s in your own words https://act.eff.org/action/congress-don-t-sell-the-internet-.... Get confirmation that your name and views have been recorded. Now call your Congressmen and tell them the same thing, as well as that you called the FCC.

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#33

Post by mc32 »

notacoward wrote: post #16
shmerl wrote: post #14

Current FCC plans run afoul of anti-trust law since they would allow monopolistic ISPs who own the physical network and services like video, to harm competitors (which provide over the top services that have to go through the above physical network) by using data caps, interconnection blocking and other anti-competitive approaches. How is that not a serious legal argument?

One answer might be that it's a serious legal argument not under the FCC's purview . FCC has an interest in keeping communications media from discriminating, but anti-competitive behavior and many other aspects of what we think of as net neutrality fall under FTC instead. It was always a bit of a stretch for FCC to be taking the lead on this. It might even be better to let FTC lead on this, because they have authorit…

If true this might inform big tech's position with respect to net neutrality. It seemed a bit off that the FBs, Googs, and other big user facing tech cos would want the FCC and not the FTC in charge.

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#34

Post by shmerl »

mc32 wrote: post #33
notacoward wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One answer might be that it's a serious legal argument not under the FCC's purview . FCC has an interest in keeping communications media from discriminating, but anti-competitive behavior and many other aspects of what we think of as net neutrality fall under FTC instead. It was always a bit of a stretch for FCC to be taking the lead on this. It might even be better to let FTC lead on this, because they have authorit…

If true this might inform big tech's position with respect to net neutrality. It seemed a bit off that the FBs, Googs, and other big user facing tech cos would want the FCC and not the FTC in charge.

I think the reason is dysfunction of FTC. They claim they handle such cases on individual basis instead of establishing clear rules. It doesn't sound like an efficient approach to me.

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#35

Post by yladiz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31
addicted wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that only legal arguments or facts are relevant? So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?

> So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant? Political appointees are entirely within their power to ignore such comments.

Are you sure? To change or reverse a rule within the government pretty much every agency has to take into account public comments for a period of time before the change.

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#36

Post by wsh »

addicted wrote: post #28
wsh wrote: post #9

This isn’t a surprise: comments are meant to ensure that rule-making agencies consider relevant information before making a final decision; they aren’t an opinion poll. See the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(c): After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or w…

Are you suggesting that only legal arguments or facts are relevant? So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?

I’m suggesting only that form-letter comments or statements of support or opposition, unaccompanied by substantive facts, analysis, or argument, don’t do much to develop the administrative record, which is the point of taking public comment in rulemaking proceedings.

Agencies must consider the comments, but as 'JumpCrisscross points out, they don’t have to accept the commenters’ views. The outcome is determined not by submitting the most or best comments, but by electing Senators and Representatives to enact statutes defining agencies’ authority and responsibilities, and by electing a President to appoint their officials.

If you’re new to administrative procedure, you might find it interesting to read though the entire dockets in some less-notable proceedings, to get an idea of how it usually works: an agency issues a notice of proposed rulemaking; interested parties make comments (and sometimes reply comments) with their views, data, analyses, and legal arguments; and then the agency issues a final rule, usually explaining how they considered and accepted or rejected the commenters’ positions.

It’s rare for comments to cause a proposed rule to be abandoned entirely, but they often influence the myriad details—definitions, exceptions, compliance deadlines, technical specifications—that make administrative regulations a practical tool of representative government.

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#37

Post by weirdstuff »

wsh wrote: post #36
addicted wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that only legal arguments or facts are relevant? So an actual analysis (which would necessarily include predictions that are not certain) of the impact of a decision is irrelevant?

I’m suggesting only that form-letter comments or statements of support or opposition, unaccompanied by substantive facts, analysis, or argument, don’t do much to develop the administrative record, which is the point of taking public comment in rulemaking proceedings. Agencies must consider the comments, but as 'JumpCrisscross points out, they don’t have to accept the commenters’ views. The outcome is determined not b…

Kind of makes actual democracy obsolete I suppose; we seemingly now require technocratic governance and do not require attention towards other public sentiment outside of technical/legal analysis. I get this perspective, but I think it's very exclusionary and dismissive.

Limiting input to that which addresses procedural questions or point-of-order effectively narrows conversation so that other perspectives outside of that window is made irrelevant.

Effectively pushing the public out of policymaking. (Good riddance to all that white noise!)

Re: FCC ignored your net neutrality comment unless you made ‘serious’ legal argument

#38

Post by dailyvijeos »

Online comments are like online petitions: ostensibly “listening” to keep the masses from calling/mailing their representatives or the FCC directly. Persuasion requires messages that are difficult/impossible to ignore: culturally and politically.

Moore’s mock funeral for an HMO patient denied a live-saving transplant worked because it was over-the-top and so widely covered.

Post reply on HN