FCC Is Not Complying With Freedom of Information Act Requests, Alleges Lawsuit (arstechnica.com)

burtosis writes: The FCC is being sued for failure to turn over documents related to "correspondence, e-mails, telephone call logs, calendar entries, meeting agendas," between chairman Ajit or his staff and ISPs. Given the FCCs recent transparency issues, which appear to be directly ignoring the vast majority of feedback from Americans that are pro net neutrality, a nonprofit group called American Oversight is trying to force the real conversations the FCC is holding into public view. They are also asking for any communications with the media, Congress, and congressional staff. Two extensions for missed deadlines have been given, but the third extension was denied on July 24th. The FCC also ignored a FOiA request by Ars for the DDoS attack during the public comment period on net neutrality. With the current administration's attitude toward transparency and catering only to the largest corporate donors, will the American people have any meaningful influence in how the country is run anymore?

Comments

Americans Are Ignorant and SHOULD be ignored

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Americans are pro-net-neutrality only because they don't know what is actually in the "net neutrality" rules, which are actually quite anti-net-neutrality.

The current "net neutrality" rules do not require any kind of neutrality or fairness whatsoever, and still allow ISPs to unfairly subsidize and prioritize some data over others, and even to transcode the media users are paying for so that it can be prioritized down on their networks. For example, unless you jump through some hoops, AT&T will automatically transcode any videos you watch down to 480i before streaming them to you, even if you are paying for a HD streaming service (unless it's from AT&T, of course, in which case not only do they not count it against your cap, but they don't downcode it). They do this without your asking and without telling you in a straightforward way. This is the opposite of neutrality, but is explicitly allowed under the current net "neutrality" rules.

So... you tell me.. how is the current "net neutrality" scheme actually net neutrality? And why are Americans stupid enough to believe it is? Oh, that's right, it's called "net neutrality" in the title.

Haven't Americans figured out yet that every law is named the exact opposite of what it actually does?