Slashdot Mirror
Why the FCC Will Probably Ignore the Public On Network Neutrality
walterbyrd writes The rulemaking process does not function like a popular democracy. In other words, you can't expect that the comment you submit opposing a particular regulation will function like a vote. Rulemaking is more akin to a court proceeding. Changes require systematic, reliable evidence, not emotional expressions . . . In the wake of more than 3 million comments in the present open Internet proceeding-which at first blush appear overwhelmingly in favor of network neutrality-the current Commission is poised to make history in two ways: its decision on net neutrality, and its acknowledgment of public perspectives. It can continue to shrink the comments of ordinary Americans to a summary count and thank-you for their participation. Or, it can opt for a different path.
... so where is the systematic, reliable evidence that not being neutral in the way you treat traffic is somehow better for the future of the Internet?
This is the part that grabbed my attention. The whole piece is pretty disingenuous in the way it frames the issue. Just check out this quotation from an FCC staffer:
"I find the whole rulemaking context almost hilarious in many instances, because you know you're reading something, and you know it's not true. And you're guessing, you know, the person is hallucinating." Ordinary comments were, in other words, prone to error and lacked truthfulness, in the eyes of many of the Commission's staff.
It's a subtle bit of work, but the author of the piece implies not only that:
a) The FCC gets to ignore most comments because its rules require arguments to be made on technical grounds (true); but also that
b) The public opinion is not just wrong, it's 'hallucinating' (false).
The paternalistic tone of the article was a little much, too. Allow me to fisk it:
In the interviews I conducted for my dissertation [just had to get that in, didn't you?], FCC commissioners and a handful of staffers (e.g., civil servants, as opposed to political appointees) [so... staffers, then?] explained that the rulemaking process does not function like a popular democracy. [It's not a vote. Got it.] In other words, you can't expect that the comment you submit opposing a particular regulation will function like a vote. [Right. Not a vote. Got it.] Rulemaking is more akin to a court proceeding. Changes require systematic, reliable evidence, not emotional expressions. [Yeah. It's not a vote. I fucking got it.] And with the exception of Democrat Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, the people I spoke with at the FCC considered citizen input during the media ownership proceeding as emotional and superficial content. [Ah so it's not really like a court, then. 'Cause courts aren't politicised.]
Not once - not once in this article does the author admit what's central to the entire fucking issue - this is a politicised process. It's not a popular issue only because the power brokers don't want it to be. Though truth be told, they're fine with appearing to support the popular will when it coincides with whatever's politically expedient for them.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
> Motivating competition in the last-mile space is a MUCH more effective method [...]
Just REPEATING a dogma and PUTTING it in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't MAKE it MORE true. Sheesh.
I know some people worship the Invisible Hand, and I have some respect and tolerance for religions, but it's getting ridiculous.