8 ms·

The FCC is so swamped with net neutrality comments, it’s extending the deadline

198 points by nazgul 12y ago

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I'm actually a little proud of democracy today. Even cynical old me :-)
isaacdl 12y ago
Perhaps they need to pay their ISP for the premium package? :)
- infogulch 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    What does aviation have to do with this?
    - infogulch 12y ago
      "premium bandwidth for government agencies" Nothing, I picked a random different agency that started with "federal".
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
api 12y ago
"How do we frame this so we can still screw the public on behalf of our lobbyist paymasters?" Takes time to figure that out.
- infogulch 12y ago
  "There are so many comments against this, it would look bad if we went through with it anyway." "I know! Generate a bunch of fake comments in favor of the change, and it will look like we made a hard decision instead of blatantly spurning the public!" "Great idea! But it will take a couple days to generate them and comments close tomorrow, so we'll have to fake an outage as well to give ourselves time."
  - ertdfgcb 12y ago
    I know you're joking, but there's no way they'd do this because it'd be painfully obvious that all of the positive comments came in right at the very end, because all of the comments are publicly available[1]. [1]: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=1...
- exelius 12y ago
  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).
Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
The site is down, but you can speak to a human by calling +1 (888) 225-5322, then pressing 1, 4, 0.
- danielhonigman 12y ago
  What happens then? Are they just there to take down your opinion?
  - benburleson 12y ago
    Give it a try; report back.
felixrieseberg 12y ago
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.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I'm actually a little proud of democracy today. Even cynical old me :-)
SurfScore 12y ago
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.
- ProAm 12y ago
  Realistically no. Government in America is crafted to serve business. EDIT Not sure why the downvotes. Historically it's been true. Most wars we have been involved with have been to serve an industry or spend much of the budget on defense (after WWII anyhow). Citizens United was created to treat companies as people. Obamacare, while started with good intentions, ultimately created a gift for insurance companies. Lobbyist run much of Washington and local governments, and are rarely funded by your average citizen. Cases like net neutrality may be denied/shutdown today, but it's a topic that will show up year after year, under a different name, with different verbiage by the end goal will be the same. I don't see this working out for the average American citizen. Take it for what it is but money talks, especially in politics.
- matchu 12y ago
  The FCC is kind enough to list the number of comments publicly, which is valuable in itself. Most letter-writing campaigns and petitions go unacknowledged, but it's a lot harder for the FCC to dismiss comments that they themselves solicit and publish.
- rhino369 12y ago
  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.
- rosser 12y ago
  As noted by another top-level comment, the comments submitted to the FCC during this period become part of the record, and can be used subsequently by courts in ruling on the legality or implications of the FCC's decisions.
trhway 12y ago
i hope they don't have "fast lane" for the "fast lane" proponents' comments (donations, etc...)
tomjen3 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    This is spot on. Especially when there is ample evidence that citizen action can defeat big company interests. See: the entire environmental movement. Or the entire labor movement.
cryoshon 12y ago
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.
- xbryanx 12y ago
  You're right. It isn't enough. But neither is silence. It's certainly worth my 95 seconds to participate in this democracy in some fashion. Wouldn't you be outraged that the FCC didn't listen to you when you spoke, rather than being outraged that they didn't listen to you when you were silent?
- freehunter 12y ago
  >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 12y ago
    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.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line There's multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increases on the line on both sides of this debate. Sure, there's the cable/telcos on one side -- but there's (among others) the Internet Association companies on the other.
rayiner 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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._Federal_Communications_Commission_%282014%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._...
  - AnIrishDuck 12y ago
    > 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.
cenhyperion 12y ago
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.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  The president is a malicious actor who is also a lame duck-- he's protected corporate interest at every step, and this step in his presidency will likely be no different. He campaigned on promoting net neutrality, and has of course stayed aloof/ineffectual/silent/absent during net neutrality's fulcrum moment so far. As for Wheeler, he was a lobbyist before he had this job, and will likely return to lobbying after his tenure as director ends. Wheeler also proposed the fast-lane, aka the death of net neutrality, which passed a vote. In summary: a lobbyist who lobbied for the cable companies he is now "regulating" and who is now pushing a proposal against net neutrality. Where do you think his allegiances really are? He's acting strongly and specifically against our collective interests regardless of anyone's personal judgments. Our voices matter only in the sense that we can use our voices to organize with each other and effect change as a bloc by raising money and threatening the status quo.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >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.
dbpokorny 12y ago
It is dangerous to go alone! take this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen
stretchwithme 12y ago
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.
slantedview 12y ago
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.
eglover 12y ago
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.

198 points by nazgul 12y ago

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

I'm actually a little proud of democracy today. Even cynical old me :-)

isaacdl 12y ago

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

infogulch 12y ago
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 12y ago
  What does aviation have to do with this?
  - infogulch 12y ago
    "premium bandwidth for government agencies" Nothing, I picked a random different agency that started with "federal".
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

api 12y ago

"How do we frame this so we can still screw the public on behalf of our lobbyist paymasters?" Takes time to figure that out.

infogulch 12y ago
"There are so many comments against this, it would look bad if we went through with it anyway." "I know! Generate a bunch of fake comments in favor of the change, and it will look like we made a hard decision instead of blatantly spurning the public!" "Great idea! But it will take a couple days to generate them and comments close tomorrow, so we'll have to fake an outage as well to give ourselves time."
- ertdfgcb 12y ago
  I know you're joking, but there's no way they'd do this because it'd be painfully obvious that all of the positive comments came in right at the very end, because all of the comments are publicly available[1]. [1]: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=1...
exelius 12y ago
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).

Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago

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

danielhonigman 12y ago
What happens then? Are they just there to take down your opinion?
- benburleson 12y ago
  Give it a try; report back.

felixrieseberg 12y ago

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.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

I'm actually a little proud of democracy today. Even cynical old me :-)

SurfScore 12y ago

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.

ProAm 12y ago
Realistically no. Government in America is crafted to serve business. EDIT Not sure why the downvotes. Historically it's been true. Most wars we have been involved with have been to serve an industry or spend much of the budget on defense (after WWII anyhow). Citizens United was created to treat companies as people. Obamacare, while started with good intentions, ultimately created a gift for insurance companies. Lobbyist run much of Washington and local governments, and are rarely funded by your average citizen. Cases like net neutrality may be denied/shutdown today, but it's a topic that will show up year after year, under a different name, with different verbiage by the end goal will be the same. I don't see this working out for the average American citizen. Take it for what it is but money talks, especially in politics.
matchu 12y ago
The FCC is kind enough to list the number of comments publicly, which is valuable in itself. Most letter-writing campaigns and petitions go unacknowledged, but it's a lot harder for the FCC to dismiss comments that they themselves solicit and publish.
rhino369 12y ago
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.
rosser 12y ago
As noted by another top-level comment, the comments submitted to the FCC during this period become part of the record, and can be used subsequently by courts in ruling on the legality or implications of the FCC's decisions.

trhway 12y ago

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

tomjen3 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  This is spot on. Especially when there is ample evidence that citizen action can defeat big company interests. See: the entire environmental movement. Or the entire labor movement.

cryoshon 12y ago

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.

xbryanx 12y ago
You're right. It isn't enough. But neither is silence. It's certainly worth my 95 seconds to participate in this democracy in some fashion. Wouldn't you be outraged that the FCC didn't listen to you when you spoke, rather than being outraged that they didn't listen to you when you were silent?
freehunter 12y ago
>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 12y ago
  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.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > the problem is that we're fighting multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increase on the line There's multi-billion dollar companies with their future profit increases on the line on both sides of this debate. Sure, there's the cable/telcos on one side -- but there's (among others) the Internet Association companies on the other.

rayiner 12y ago

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 12y ago
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._Federal_Communications_Commission_%282014%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._...
- AnIrishDuck 12y ago
  > 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.

cenhyperion 12y ago

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.

cryoshon 12y ago
The president is a malicious actor who is also a lame duck-- he's protected corporate interest at every step, and this step in his presidency will likely be no different. He campaigned on promoting net neutrality, and has of course stayed aloof/ineffectual/silent/absent during net neutrality's fulcrum moment so far. As for Wheeler, he was a lobbyist before he had this job, and will likely return to lobbying after his tenure as director ends. Wheeler also proposed the fast-lane, aka the death of net neutrality, which passed a vote. In summary: a lobbyist who lobbied for the cable companies he is now "regulating" and who is now pushing a proposal against net neutrality. Where do you think his allegiances really are? He's acting strongly and specifically against our collective interests regardless of anyone's personal judgments. Our voices matter only in the sense that we can use our voices to organize with each other and effect change as a bloc by raising money and threatening the status quo.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>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.

dbpokorny 12y ago

It is dangerous to go alone! take this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen

stretchwithme 12y ago

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.

slantedview 12y ago

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.

eglover 12y ago

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.