Will The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote Be Delayed? (Probably Not.)

Will The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote Be Delayed? (Probably Not.)

FCC Tom Wheeler 310x

Two conservative FCC commissioners want the vote delayed until the end of March.

The FCC is due to vote on the commission's net neutrality plan later this week, but two of the commissioners at the agency want to see the vote delayed by 30 days.

FCC commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajit Pai asked for the vote delay via an FCC press release, and say the delay is crucial as "...the future of the entire Internet at stake." Along with a vote delay, O'Rielly and Pai want the FCC's full report on new open Internet rules released to the public.

"We respectfully request that FCC leadership immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it," said the commissioner duo in a statement today. "...after the Commission reviews the specific input it receives from the American public and makes any modifications to the plan as appropriate, we could proceed to a final vote."

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's full 332-page proposal has not been seen by anyone outside of the FCC, which instead released a truncated summary of the proposal on its website.

Commissioner Pai released a statement earlier this month calling for the release of the full report, saying chairman Wheeler's plan was really "President Obama's 332-page plan," suggesting that Wheeler's plan came from the office of the President. "Instead of allowing the American people to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President's plan places that decision in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy," said Pai.

While chairman Wheeler has not issued a formal response, he did take to his Twitter account today, saying "[The] FCC received more than 4 million comments on #OpenInternet during past year that helped shape proposal. It's time to act." Based on that response, the odds of a delay being approved don't appear favorable.

So is this a legitimate push for transparency by some of the FCC's commissioner membership? Not necessarily. The Republican-controlled Congress has net neutrality ideas of its own, so a delay could give the legislative bodies the time they need to pass their own set of laws and regulations.

Even if the vote isn't delayed and proceeds as planned, you can be sure this isn't the end of the debate, both for Congress, and the FCC.

Source: FCC

Permalink

Translation: the conservative/pro-ISP side wants more time to mount a longer campaign to try and shove (lying) commercials in prime time and get people to think Big Brother is going to tax their internet into oblivion.

Frankly, they are right about one thing. it SHOULD be released to the American public to weigh in on, a delay, maybe, depending upon it's content.

Eh, I'm not too concerned with not seeing the whole proposal before the vote. If there's something in it that the Internet doesn't like, Tom Wheeler and Company will all be out of a job before the next election cycle, new laws or no.

I say full steam ahead. Don't give the opposition time to mount an effective defense. And besides, the consensus is that Obama's stance on net neutrality is pretty close to what we want. I don't care if the proposal is all his idea.

DeepReaver:
Frankly, they are right about one thing. it SHOULD be released to the American public to weigh in on, a delay, maybe, depending upon it's content.

I have to concur. They have nothing to lose by releasing the full report, regardless of the vote, or a delay.

Devin Connors:
"Instead of allowing the American people to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President's plan places that decision in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy," said Pai.

Normal "American people" don't have a choice of broadband providers, Pai. Which particular "American people" are you referring to, here? Cable companies? Let's translate:

"Instead of allowing Cable companies to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President's plan places that decision in the hands of the people's representatives..."

SinisterDeath:

DeepReaver:
Frankly, they are right about one thing. it SHOULD be released to the American public to weigh in on, a delay, maybe, depending upon it's content.

I have to concur. They have nothing to lose by releasing the full report, regardless of the vote, or a delay.

Thing is, releasing the report before the vote will give them time to pick out something out of context and parade it around as the worst thing ever. Republicans don't care about transparency and letting the public "weigh in", they tried to cram though anti-neutrality proposals quickly and without fuss, then Wheeler smartly allowed people to comment on it for three months before the pendulum swung in our direction, and now they're panicking because they counted the chickens before they were hatched. They wouldn't be able to prepare the report for full release before the vote, which is later this week, anyway, so it would have to come with a delay in the vote.

captcha: weasel words.

Meh, not worth reporting on these days. It's out of everyone's hands, all we can do is watch.

hentropy:

SinisterDeath:

DeepReaver:
Frankly, they are right about one thing. it SHOULD be released to the American public to weigh in on, a delay, maybe, depending upon it's content.

I have to concur. They have nothing to lose by releasing the full report, regardless of the vote, or a delay.

Republicans and Democrats don't care about transparency and letting the public "weigh in"...

I fixed that for you. ;p

Double post.

What's all this politics doing in my apolitical escapist?

Oh, and fuck that. Government controls are the only way to start getting these idiots in line. The Internet is a utility, no different than water or electricity, and it ought to be placed under strict government controls as such.

Baresark:

Republicans and Democrats don't care about transparency and letting the public "weigh in"...

I fixed that for you. ;p

Trust me, I like to take jabs at all political sides when they deserve it, but the fact is in this particular case that the Democrat-appointee allowed months for the public the weigh in on the issue and the Republican appointees wanted to proceed with the cramming. Now their tune has changed since they're losing. All of those public comments meant nothing to them, I guess. Wheeler also changed his tune significantly after the public and Obama spoke out, so you can't blame him for not caring about that either.

hentropy:
Trust me, I like to take jabs at all political sides when they deserve it, but the fact is in this particular case that the Democrat-appointee allowed months for the public the weigh in on the issue and the Republican appointees wanted to proceed with the cramming. Now their tune has changed since they're losing. All of those public comments meant nothing to them, I guess. Wheeler also changed his tune significantly after the public and Obama spoke out, so you can't blame him for not caring about that either.

You mean after he was fixing to give the cable companies a blow job and his job was threatened because the American PEOPLE were tired of it? Let's not forget the last time a proposal was too important to read before we passed it. We were given a summary and it didn't sound all that bad (much like this case), but when asked what exactly was in the bill we got THIS gem... "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." Nancy Pelosi (D) 2010. Now we find out, after it was passed of course, that half the things we were promised were a lie. Now why, if it was the American people who told Wheeler to fuck off, should they not be able to read the new plan in its' entirety? Kindda smells fishy to me. Next thing you know I'll be being called "stupid" again... "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. ... Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not." Jonathan Gruber.

So excuse me if I don't trust ANY of these fuckers. Let me read the damn thing myself.

hentropy:

Baresark:

Republicans and Democrats don't care about transparency and letting the public "weigh in"...

I fixed that for you. ;p

Trust me, I like to take jabs at all political sides when they deserve it, but the fact is in this particular case that the Democrat-appointee allowed months for the public the weigh in on the issue and the Republican appointees wanted to proceed with the cramming. Now their tune has changed since they're losing. All of those public comments meant nothing to them, I guess. Wheeler also changed his tune significantly after the public and Obama spoke out, so you can't blame him for not caring about that either.

Yeah, I was mostly being facetious. They both do it but on their own issues. There has been plenty of time for the public to weigh in on this. It's not like this is new for pretty much anyone on the internet. Anyone who has wanted to weigh in has and I do hate stall tactics.

Baresark:
Yeah, I was mostly being facetious. They both do it but on their own issues. There has been plenty of time for the public to weigh in on this. It's not like this is new for pretty much anyone on the internet. Anyone who has wanted to weigh in has and I do hate stall tactics.

Eh, but it still seems incredibly fishy to me that they're not releasing the actual law and just posting a summary. As noted, this is rumored to be from the president's office, and the last time this happened we got saddled with the awfulness that was Obamacare.

If he were worried about more stalling, it's not like they couldn't still vote on time. There's nothing there mandating that people have even more time to read and weigh in on the proposal like before. For all we know this could be another similar attempt to what happened initially, but better worded.

Mostly, I can't see being transparent on matters like these as being in any way bad. We're going to be stuck with these rules for what's likely to be quite a long time. Let's not rush these things.

hentropy:
Translation: the conservative/pro-ISP side wants more time to mount a longer campaign to try and shove (lying) commercials in prime time and get people to think Big Brother is going to tax their internet into oblivion.

This is pretty much what it boils down too. I say that the FCC should go full steam ahead, label the Internet as a utility, and tell Comcast and Verizon to go cry a river.

Sarge034:

hentropy:
Trust me, I like to take jabs at all political sides when they deserve it, but the fact is in this particular case that the Democrat-appointee allowed months for the public the weigh in on the issue and the Republican appointees wanted to proceed with the cramming. Now their tune has changed since they're losing. All of those public comments meant nothing to them, I guess. Wheeler also changed his tune significantly after the public and Obama spoke out, so you can't blame him for not caring about that either.

You mean after he was fixing to give the cable companies a blow job and his job was threatened because the American PEOPLE were tired of it?

I've never been a fan of Wheeler, but I'm not going to dwell on his demeanor over the years if he's doing the right thing now. Also, I'm not interested in debating Obamacare (as someone whose life has been greatly secured by it, I'm a little biased). Believe it or not, the FCC is not the Congress and the new rules are not a law that can be filled with earmarks and giveaways. If the actual rules that pass deviate radically from the summary and things Wheeler has been saying, then I will be the first to be pissed off, and I won't be the only one. The guy will lose his job for lying, not telling the truth.

Xeorm:
Let's not rush these things.

Net neutrality has been a festering and undecided issue since the Bush administration. We have debated and asked for things and sat on our thumbs on the issue while the rest of the world is guaranteeing it without much debate. It has in no way been "rushed".

Problem here is that what this vote means is voting between being raped in the anus or raped in the mouth.

If you side with the proposal, you are effectively siding with an appointee who gained his position for years of dutiful service as a Washington lobbyist on behalf of major media pure profit industries like Comcast, AT&T, ect, that effectively destroys all the consumer protections that they have been railing against for literally decades.

If you side against it, you are siding with a system that we currently see right now that leaves over 70% of the population serviced by two competing internet providers or less, of which are already cutting the country up into territories like competing cartels and many of which despite customer protest are moving forward with their post net neutrality plans and doing things like throttling specific competitor sites and installing data caps on copper/coax broadband connections where there is no rational reason to justify a cap.

Its a rigged game people. Its not hard to negate freedom of choice when you force a choice of the lesser of two evils so the "people" will just argue against each other on political lines instead of realizing that neither choice is in any way acceptable.

Devin Connors:
"Instead of allowing the American people to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President's plan places that decision in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy," said Pai.

image

When have most Americans ever had a choice in broadband service plans? It's usually the one big company that took your town or dial-up.

Fir those believing we should govern the internet under title 2 (ie like phone lines, csble) I'll have to ask you one simple question. .. how's ate cable working out? How's those land lines? You want non elected officials writing rules without being able to be seen publicly. .. and I remind those wishing to claim arbitrary Alphabet alliances (as if there's a diff they're all politicians) FCC appointees are just as subject to special interests as the rest, more so in some respects as they can't just "ride out" a term. They can be replaced anytime. And just imagine if the "party" you don't like fills the seats with "thier" appointees? Like that idea? Bc that's exactly what will happen year after year. Thus will give the the power to decide what the rules are when they want, and will change with the special interest winds. To think otherwise is utterly nieve

hentropy:
I've never been a fan of Wheeler, but I'm not going to dwell on his demeanor over the years if he's doing the right thing now.

Then you are being naïve or willfully ignorant. When has the logic of "he/she/they is/are helping us now so it's k" EVER ended well? It always ends the same way, things go well in the short term but it comes back to bite you in the ass in the long term. Seriously look it up, the CIA loves this train of thought. Al Qaeda, anyone?

Also, I'm not interested in debating Obamacare (as someone whose life has been greatly secured by it, I'm a little biased). Believe it or not, the FCC is not the Congress and the new rules are not a law that can be filled with earmarks and giveaways.

I was just drawing parallels, any reason you got defensive about it? I was told my rates wouldn't raise, three substantial raises later... I was told I could keep my provider, two forced switches later... Regardless of how you feel the pattern is there. Give a summary, refuse to release the whole proposal, pass it, then tell people what's up. No, this isn't a law that can have earmarks in it you are 100% right. You know what it can have though? It can have restrictions that would technically not jeopardize net neutrality but would still limit who could be an ISP, probably limit it to the existing ones too. That would effectively maintain the monopoly while wearing the mask of the free market. This brings me back to my point about your naiveté. We have not only a man, but a governing organization that have time and time again done things for the ISPs at the expense of the consumers, and now that we're tired of it he changes his tune but refuses to show us the whole proposal? It just feels off. Why not let me become an informed constituent? Why refuse so thoroughly? What are they hiding?

If the actual rules that pass deviate radically from the summary and things Wheeler has been saying, then I will be the first to be pissed off, and I won't be the only one. The guy will lose his job for lying, not telling the truth.

I'm sorry but if people can give fully automatic M4s to Mexican cartels, pass legislation that's technically unlawful, and lie without consequence in office then I have no hope that little ol Wheeler has anything to worry about if this goes south. Either Obama will protect him (a la Holder), or he'll be replaced and quietly move over to an ISP. In the end, just like obamacare, it is much harder to repeal a law then it is to stop it no matter how misleading the descriptions might have been. I'm fucking pissed that due to Holder's incompetence we supplied the cartel with military grade weapons and those weapon have been used to kill Americans on American soil. Did it make a difference? Did my outrage and my anger make a difference? No, it didn't.

Like I said. I don't trust ANY of these fuckers. I just want to read it myself for myself.

Here's to hoping that the plan doesn't suck. It sounds like it's going to happen one way or the other. It sounds like it's already going to happen, so no point in bitching until it

Scars Unseen:

Devin Connors:
"Instead of allowing the American people to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President's plan places that decision in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy," said Pai.

image

When have most Americans ever had a choice in broadband service plans? It's usually the one big company that took your town or dial-up.

What's that from?

Micalas:
Here's to hoping that the plan doesn't suck. It sounds like it's going to happen one way or the other. It sounds like it's already going to happen, so no point in bitching until it

Scars Unseen:

Devin Connors:
"Instead of allowing the American people to choose the broadband service plan that is best for them, the President's plan places that decision in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy," said Pai.

image

When have most Americans ever had a choice in broadband service plans? It's usually the one big company that took your town or dial-up.

What's that from?

A visual novel called G-senjou no Maou(The Devil on G-string). It's a really good read if you're interested in such things.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here