Group Files FCC Motion To Delay Net Neutrality Proceedings (thehill.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Group Files FCC Motion To Delay Net Neutrality Proceedings (thehill.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 9, 2017 @03:54AM from the pressure-through-paperwork dept.

"A public interest group wants the Federal Communications Commission to hold off on its proposal to kill net neutrality regulations," according to The Hill. An anonymous reader quotes their report: The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) filed a motion on Friday to delay the FCC's proceeding to undo its net neutrality rules, pending the release of documents the group has requested from the agency. The NHMC says it filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for consumer complaints about the open internet since the net neutrality rules went into place in 2015. Carmen Scurato, the group's director of legal affairs, said that the requested documents will affect the public's view of the rules... "Millions of consumers have voiced their concerns about eliminating net neutrality protections and the agency should release all complaints that members of the public have submitted showing how the Open Internet Order has served as a tool in protecting our consumer rights."
"The FCC has confirmed that there is an overwhelming amount of responsive documents, therefore the disclosure of this information must be paired with sufficient time for members of the public to review and contribute meaningful input..." the group said in a statement. "To date, the FCC has only released a small fraction of the documents requested. This is a clear indication that the FCC must delay its Net Neutrality proceeding until all documents requested by NHMC are released. The FCC must then provide NHMC and members of the public adequate time to review and comment on this information before moving forward with its Net Neutrality proceeding."

An FCC spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

46 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

njggers, spics, jews, muzzies, faggots and dykes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:03 · Score: -1

white guy can't catch a break these days
Motion by BlueStrat · 2017-07-09 04:03 · Score: -1

...Denied!
In first post.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The big question by jmccue · 2017-07-09 04:08 · Score: 4, Informative

is the # of dollars the politicians received from Verizon/Comcast lobbyists greater that the number of comments against Net Neutrality ?
That is all that seems to matter these days.
1. Re:The big question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:24 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Yeah it's cute you think large corporations are against "net neutrality". Regulating the internet like a 1930s telecom or utility as Obama wanted and guaranteeing them a monopoly plus profits is highly tempting to them.
  But then the leftists have never agreed that competition was a good thing and prefer to fuck everyone over with large government regulations and monopolistic public private corporations.
  Go figure. They are out of power and act like they have any.
2. Re: The big question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Competition doesn't exist now because these huge corporations were allowed to form duopolies by the pro business above the people right.
3. Re:The big question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  wtf do you think the FCC cares about the comments?
FCC pushing it through by Neuroelectronic · 2017-07-09 04:08 · Score: 1

Clearly, they're trying to get this through for the ISPs and doing as little as possible to meet the letter of the law in attempt to keep it under the radar.
1. Re:FCC pushing it through by BlueStrat · 2017-07-09 04:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Clearly, they're trying to get this through for the ISPs and doing as little as possible to meet the letter of the law in attempt to keep it under the radar.
  So, you want the interwebs all wrapped up in Title-II so the internet and all your devices will be mandated by law to be CALEA-compliant and accessible to law enforcement (ie no strong encryption allowed and backdoors baked-in)?
  Be very careful what you wish for.
  You just may get it.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
2. Re:FCC pushing it through by pem · 2017-07-09 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  Internet traffic is already scooped up.
  As far as devices, they aren't covered, which is why law enforcement has such trouble with the iPhone.
3. Re: FCC pushing it through by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is the first I'm hearing that "treating traffic equally" means no encryption, do you have a source?
4. Re: FCC pushing it through by Joviex · 2017-07-09 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is the first I'm hearing that "treating traffic equally" means no encryption, do you have a source?
  well, it is the next logical step.
  
  If the idea is that you can downgrade certain traffic, you need to know what the traffic is in order to do so.
  
  Knowing the source is not good enough, as proxy nodes are a thing.
  
  I can totally see a push, if Net Neutrality goes bye bye, for less/non-existent encryption on certain streams (like Netflix).
  
  People who dont think that can happen, are the same ones on the fence about NN in the first place.
5. Re: FCC pushing it through by BlueStrat · 2017-07-09 05:09 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  This is the first I'm hearing that "treating traffic equally" means no encryption, do you have a source?
  The FCC is claiming the power to regulate & enforce "Net Neutrality" by including the internet under Title-II along with telecom/phone companies. One of the provisions under Title-II is for CALEA compliance.
  This is not some secret tinfoil-hat stuff, it's all quite open for anyone who looks. It's just that nobody who wants what the politicians call NN, including the MSM, wants to talk about it. Understandable on their part, as it's not exactly a selling-point for the public, especially post-Snowden.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
6. Re: FCC pushing it through by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Translation: No source, it's obvious, you should be able to see it. Because conspiracy!
  You know, just like Obama's Muslim indoctrination plan, and how same-sex marriage would force people to marry a gay person, and how your employees having insurance cover birth control forces you to illegally import relics from Iraq for your Bible Museum.
7. Re: FCC pushing it through by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  I own a small local ISP. CALEA compliance is a requirement for all ISP and telecom providers regardless of Title 1 or 2 classification. You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.
  And for the record, as a small ISP, we fully support Net Neutrality. It's the way the internet was designed to work and the way it always has worked. The move to Title 2 was made necessary by the Verizon lawsuit in order to reserve the right to enforce Net Neutrality. In fact it was the judge in the case who explicitly pointed that out. The move to Title 2 was made to preserve the status quo of Net Neutrality when Verizon and the other telecoms were starting to fuck with everyone's internet traffic for their own profit.
8. Re: FCC pushing it through by kqs · 2017-07-09 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  This is not some secret tinfoil-hat stuff, it's all quite open for anyone who looks.
  Oh good, then you can post a reference please. Because as far as I can tell, CALEA applies to both Title I and Title II.
  
  It's just that nobody who wants what the politicians call NN, including the MSM, wants to talk about it.
  Yeah, I played the SJGames Illuminati card game too. "Punk Rockers control the NSA, which controls the Democrats and Big Media, all controlled by the Servants of Cthulhu". Fun game (though it needs updated groups), but if you're using it for real life then you've got a problem.
9. Re: FCC pushing it through by Barefoot+Monkey · 2017-07-09 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  CALEA compliance does not require the prevention of end-to-end encryption, because it's the carrier that needs to comply with Title-II regulations, not the parties that happen to be using the carrier to deliver a message. Encryption has nothing to do with the carrier at all - it is simply given messages to deliver from one party to another. There is not and has never been anything stopping you from sending encrypted data over a telephone, after all, so why would this suddenly change now?
Re:njggers, spics, jews, muzzies, faggots and dyke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:12 · Score: -1

You straight white men are irrelevant now. Deal with it and enjoy what little you can.
Re:njggers, spics, jews, muzzies, faggots and dyke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:22 · Score: -1

we are reasserting ourselves. Trump is proof of that.
Re: njggers, spics, jews, muzzies, faggots and dyk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 04:36 · Score: -1

You're a bigot
Not up to the FCC by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-07-09 04:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Net neutrality using the FCC was always a bad idea from a regulatory standpoint. The FCC has no business regulating the internet or ISPs. Net neutrality needs to be passed as a law (or won via lawsuit). There is clearly public demand for a net neutrality law, so call your congress person and demand it.
Alternatively, it would be trivial to make the case that traffic shaping is a bait and switch practice (ISP offers X speed, but throttles it when you want to view your legally paid content like Netflix because it competes with their products and/or costs them bandwidth).

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
1. Re:Not up to the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  The FCC has a long precedent of regulating telecommunication services dating back almost a hundred years. Even if net neutrality was passed as a law, you still need a governing entity to enforce it. The FCC is by far the most logical choice for that.
2. Re: Not up to the FCC by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-07-09 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  But enforcing law and establishing law are two different things. You can't just mumble them into being the same thing. Laws should not be made by unelected bureaucrats.
3. Re:Not up to the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  I've been saying this for a long time. The FCC was to make sure your transmitter was operating within specifications and then it eventually morphed into the moral police who decided what dirty words you couldn't say.
4. Re:Not up to the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 05:52 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Net neutrality using the FCC was always a bad idea from a regulatory standpoint.
  
  Nope. Bad ideas require a fault, you haven't demonstrated one.
  
  The FCC has no business regulating the internet or ISPs.
  
  Explain why.
  
  Net neutrality needs to be passed as a law (or won via lawsuit).
  
  Nope. It could (and arguably should) be an international treaty.
  
  There is clearly public demand for a net neutrality law, so call your congress person and demand it.
  I don't have one. You can think the lack of proper representation for all of the people of the country for that. Even if I did, there's no way to compel Congress to action, making your point moot. If you want to revise the Constitution to empower the public, feel free to make suggestions.
  
  Alternatively, it would be trivial to make the case that traffic shaping is a bait and switch practice (ISP offers X speed, but throttles it when you want to view your legally paid content like Netflix because it competes with their products and/or costs them bandwidth).
  Great subject me to a lawsuit, rather than prohibit an act before it impacts me.
5. Re: Not up to the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  The length of time that you repeat a false claim doesn't speak well for you.
  
  The FCC was to make sure your transmitter was operating within specifications and then it eventually morphed into the moral police who decided what dirty words you couldn't say.
  The FCC was actually formed from the existing Federal Radio Commission and the telegraph and telephone regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the regulation of obscene materials arose from the separate Comstock Laws that predated radio.
  Your fretting over the FCC is fundamentally flawed, since you are purporting that obscenity regulation somehow wouldn't be in existence
6. Re: Not up to the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  But enforcing law and establishing law are two different things. You can't just mumble them into being the same thing.
  
  They are actually part of a whole process, that is why all of the branches of government are linked, and as such, no matter how much you want to shout their separation, the difference you allege is minimal importance.
  
  Laws should not be made by unelected bureaucrats.
  Elected politicians don't do any better, even when they aren't rubber-stamping a lobbyist's text.
7. Re:Not up to the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  The Federal Communications Commission should not be in charge of regulating the most robust and modern form of communication the world has ever seen? There is no reason for the FCC to exist at all if that holds true.
  Also, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with traditional traffic shaping or quality of service. Yes the providers need their ass slapped over their shitty service, but that's a separate issue completely from Net Neutrality.
8. Re: Not up to the FCC by guises · 2017-07-10 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  You're trying to imply that the FCC makes things which are equivalent to laws. This is not the case. Congress delegated this responsibility to the FCC because first: congress lacks the expertise, and second: it's too big a job for congress to handle properly, in addition to everything else they do.
  
  However, despite being empowered to act on congresses' behalf, the FCC can not pass laws. Everything that the FCC does is subject to congressional approval, and can be overridden at any time by congress.
People will let politicians by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 05:18 · Score: -1

Ruin there city Colorado Springs their state Kansas their Country USA
But will they let stupidity ruin the Internet we will see.
I bet stupidity does ends it.
I like it better when there were no ads no stores, You jumped on downloaded a list so as to not waste time on line you paid by the min.
Then you found the file you wanted and jumped back on went right to it downloaded it.
I dont find as much that interest me now as I did back then.
The last good thing on the net was the former free file sharing service Napster.
I could now use just an app on the hone and no web browser at all.
I like google maps could do without the phone.
The only way to fix this: New Government by Zombie+Ryushu · 2017-07-09 05:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The only way to fix this now is for America to some how, vote in a Liberal Government. There would need to be a complete removal of the right wing (I don't just mean the US Republicans) from power.
Right now, the reality is the Remnants of the old Confederacy rules America. Their votes have ALWAYS been privileged over the votes of the more liberal Union states, and now, its spread. Either there is a Political revolution in the country, or you can do what I and my wife did: Move to Canada.
1. Re:The only way to fix this: New Government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You need a liberal party for that.
  Right now you have a choice between a conservative party, and an extreme-right-wing dominionist group.
2. Re: The only way to fix this: New Government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 06:57 · Score: -1
  
  You're a fool. You think that this is actually net neutrality. A) it's not; it's incumbent protection, and B) this implementation forces the ISPs to hand over all metadata under the same laws as telephones. That's what your liberals got paid for. But keep telling yourself that obama is the one true savior, not a sold out crook.
3. Re: The only way to fix this: New Government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Obama wasnâ(TM)t a crook. Trump is. See Trump University for a shining example of one of his many fraudulent âoebusinessesâ.
Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 05:55 · Score: 1

Oh man you're killing me. Like the big corps won't be throwing money at the liberals in power. The only person who doesn't take money is Bernie and we saw how the liberals treated him.
They're not Great White Males by Rick+Schumann · 2017-07-09 06:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

They're not a group of rich old white men, so they'll be ignored as per policy in the current administration.
1. Re:They're not Great White Males by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 06:51 · Score: -1
  
  Does it bother you that much that your woman would leave you in an instant to be with Trump for just one night?
2. Re:They're not Great White Males by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  No. Why do you ask? Did that happen to you? Or are you so insecure that you're afraid that'll happen? Must suck to be a perpetual cuck.
3. Re:They're not Great White Males by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that it struck close enough to home that you felt compelled to reply to an AC post proves just how true it is.
4. Re:They're not Great White Males by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Replying to an AC post is such an easy effort, why wouldn't somebody do it?
5. Re: They're not Great White Males by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  When you see a 70 year old, bald, orange, overweight, blow hard does it always make your small penis tingle or is it something more specific to Trump that makes you erect?
6. Re: They're not Great White Males by easyTree · 2017-07-09 13:33 · Score: 2
  
  Shouldn't you be tweeting this?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
7. Re:They're not Great White Males by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-10 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  I'm another AC, nerve struck through your stupidity.
  
  Replying to an AC post is such an easy effort, why wouldn't somebody do it?
  Because it didn't strike a nerve, like he said, duh!
Re:njggers, spics, jews, muzzies, faggots and dyke by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 07:27 · Score: -1

the only thing trump is proof of is how st00pid 'murkins are. the only thing reasserted is how 'murkins rose to their level of incompetency, and shoved a tampon up their collective asses. Oh, by the way, hows that wall coming? Healthcare STILL not repealed. taxation fixes unimplemented. Coal miners still unemployed, and untrainable due to complete lack of other industry in them thar trumpenregions. how can you handle all that winning?
These days? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 07:55 · Score: 0

The distinction between wealth and political power is strictly semantic. Always has been.
This, of course, upsets people who don't have much wealth. They cling to nonsensical idealistic notions of power as something distinct from wealth (and, therefore, something that they have).
To be clear: inasmuch as a person is a measurable unit of human capital, that person has a modicum of wealth. The microscopic level of power that represents is generally expressed through voting, and purchasing decisions. The voting process (at least in America) has been designed to rob voters of even this trivial amount of power, so now it is basically just an exercise in "feeling" powerful, without actually determining anything of significance. The only real power most of us execute, then, is our purchasing decisions.
Funding a lobby is a purchase decision: one purchases political leverage. It is, in fact, the most effective purchasing decision most of us can make.
1. Re: These days? by easyTree · 2017-07-09 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps kickstarter could help the ordinary ppl reassert their power by collectively bribing/lobbying politicians to a greater degree than concentrated wealth?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
2. Re: These days? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-09 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  for 10 dollars each the 97% of americans can strong arm the 1, 2 , or 3 percent. Because the 1% can't remain the 1% by matching 2.4 billion dollars everytime "we the people" speak up with cash.
  This could be the idea that turns around the US. We could even call it the 'Kickstarter grassroots lobby plan.' (note 320 million is 97% of 330 million population, but I factored in only those 18 or older. Please mod the parent up. & I say this as a lowly AC.