FCC Votes To “Fast Track” Death Of Net Neutrality

By | May. 16, 2014 |
2
Retweet 33 Share 37 Google +1 1 Send via email
The Fight Goes On: FCC Votes to Consider Rules that Could End Net Neutrality (via Moyers & Company)

The vote was taken at the Federal Communications Commission Thursday morning, as drums pounded and hundreds of demonstrators supporting Net neutrality chanted outside FCC headquarters. In a packed meeting room — from which a handful of vocal protesters…

This post was republished using Repost. Please read it on Informed Comment directly: https://www.juancole.com/2014/05/track-death-neutrality.html

——–

The Young Turks: “FCC Votes To “Fast Track” Death Of Net Neutrality”

Posted in Dissent,Economy,Inequality,Internet,Plutocracy,Uncategorized | 2 Responses | Print |

2 Responses

  2. From several years experience at OSHA, A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is not a done deal and opens the docket to opponents–a good thing. Many such proposals have ultimately failed to materialize due to opposition. But, it takes a lot of work and tenacity to successfully oppose a rule. The usual opponents are trade associations and proponents trade unions. You have to wonder who is supposed to play the game on behalf of consumers given how the FCC has become corrupted–steered away from its older mission of protecting public resources from monopolization..

    The most effective opposition actually is the threat of lawsuits after a rule has passed–to be a viable threat requires powerful entities indicating they will sue and having the means to sue.–which would be a protracted legal case for sure. Lawyers working for these agencies who have to sign off on proposed rules tend to back down if the opposition can credibly carry through the threat. In the past, government lawyers have lost a lot of cases where courts have overturned new rules–especially however EPA and OSHA rules…hmm.

    Most of what is said in public hearings can be ignored by agencies putting forth rules because people come in to describe the way they think the world should be — they like to tell regulators what books they should read for instance. Nothing needs to be considered that does not challenge and compromise the specific rationale of the analysis put forth in the notice. You need to argue the numbers and other issues made in the proposed rule in which case agencies are compelled to reconsider. All the oughts and shoulds about the world that do not directly address the usual cost-benefit analysis (the rule is technically and economically feasible is the usual criteria but this is sort of an inverted case.) the rule is based on can be ignored –they will only vaguely say they reviewed the docket and have reconsidered all the issues raised and find no reason to not pass the rule–is the idea.

    In today’s world then, it is difficult for us commoners to challenge a rule because there are general many specialized fields involved as well as results of experiments the layperson does not have the ability to reproduce or challenge and the manipulation of stats. The rule is put forward by numerous bodies of experts and they will indeed use jargon and make declarative statements that are difficult for the layperson to challenge.

    The process thus has always favored money.

Comments are closed.