FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

> No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document.

You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.

Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401).

It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like:

> Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program.

Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order.

There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.

If I had my way I’d create a unicameral legislature with a combination of multimember districts and at-large party list seats in the vein of Germany’s Bundestag.

On a slightly more reasonable note, I’d be happy with just eliminating all state senates nationwide, similar to Nebraska.

Bicameralism is bullshit

The internet was explicitly privatized and deregulated in 1995 by the Clinton Administration.

It has flourished under private sector control without net neutrality. A 30 year track record of success, yet people are still clambering to have it back under government control.

>But you can't just look at final price with a lower price being good. If some municipal service costs half the price but it costs taxpayers the other half, is that better?

Where, exactly, is that happening?

As I understand it, the vast majority of taxpayer monies for broadband doesn't go to municipally owned networks, but rather to private ISPs. And that's been the case for decades.

And those monies are given with a pinky-swear that this time, we'll actually spend the money on expanding broadband to under-served areas, with a similar likelihood that will happen as the last four or five times taxpayer monies were given to those folks.

Meanwhile, actual municipal broadband[0][1] pays for itself by charging multiple ISPs to access their last mile -- paying for the infrastructure and introducing (often for the first time) competition into the market.

What's more, nearly a third of states have laws[2] blocking/hindering municipal broadband. Most of which are related to model legislation promulgated by groups like ALEC[3]. Many of the artificial roadblocks put up by such laws make municipal broadband (both implicitly and explicitly[4]) more expensive than private broadband

[0] https://broadbandnow.com/municipal-providers

[1] https://www.theverge.com/23763482/municipal-broadband-biden-...

[2] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_...

[4] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/virginia-broadba...

Yes that section tells the audience what their new rules are doing, why they are doing it, and justification for how they’re allowed to do it. From your own quote choice:

> Classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with Commission and court precedent and is fully and sufficiently justified under the Commission’s longstanding authority and responsibility to classify services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as necessary.

This is clearly discussion about the rules in the section X and Appendix A. It’s clearly not an actual rule itself.

The actual rule relevant to your quote is the new Section 8.3 that they are adding to Part 20 of Title 47.

The current part 20 is here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B...

The new part 20 is given on page 398 of the document that you linked. This new section 8.3 is the actual action they take to specifically classify BIAS as a Title II telecommunications service.

> the first sentence is, in fact, the order.

No, it's a more-easily accessible description of the order in something approaching plain English. The new Section 8.3 in Appendix A is the "pointy end of the stick" of the Title II order, to use your terminology. The rest of the document is describing these changes (section X and Appendix A) in more plain English.

The actual order for what you quoted is on page 394:

> 693. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, and 602 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 153, 154(i)-(j), 160, 163, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, 522, and 1302, that this Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED and that Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Parts 8, 20, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.

Specifically, the last little part:

> that Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Parts 8, 20, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.

That is the new rule. It is an actual change to Title 47. The rule is not what you quoted. What you quoted is not part of of any CFR. What you quoted is not federal code. Only Section X and Appendix A make actual changes to the "Code of Federal Regulations".