Slashdot Mirror
FCC Promises to Fix Comment System Hijacked During Net Neutrality Repeal (vice.com)
FCC boss Ajit Pai says the agency will finally take steps to shore up the security of the FCC's public comment system after being widely criticized for turning a blind eye to routine fraud and abuse. From a report: If you'll recall, more than 22 million Americans voiced their thoughts on the Trump FCC's attack on net neutrality last fall via the agency's website. The vast majority of comments opposed the move, closely reflecting surveys that show widespread, bipartisan support for the rules. [...] Not a single one of your comments was cited in the FCC's 218 page justification for its decision.
[...] Back in May, Senators Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) fired off a letter to Pai demanding he actually do something about the abuse of FCC systems. [...] In a response letter this week provided to the Wall Street Journal, Pai says the agency is finally taking steps to address the problem, while acknowledging his own identity was hijacked during the comment process. "It is troubling that some bad actors submitted comments using false names," Mr. Pai said. "Indeed, like you, comments were submitted in my name and my wife's name that reflect viewpoints we do not hold." Pai's letter, which wasn't publicly shared, states that the FCC hopes to eventually "rebuild and re-engineer" the commission's electronic comment system "to institute appropriate safeguards against abusive conduct." It also states that Pai will approach Congress for funding for the overhaul, something Pai likely knows may not actually happen.
[...] Back in May, Senators Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) fired off a letter to Pai demanding he actually do something about the abuse of FCC systems. [...] In a response letter this week provided to the Wall Street Journal, Pai says the agency is finally taking steps to address the problem, while acknowledging his own identity was hijacked during the comment process. "It is troubling that some bad actors submitted comments using false names," Mr. Pai said. "Indeed, like you, comments were submitted in my name and my wife's name that reflect viewpoints we do not hold." Pai's letter, which wasn't publicly shared, states that the FCC hopes to eventually "rebuild and re-engineer" the commission's electronic comment system "to institute appropriate safeguards against abusive conduct." It also states that Pai will approach Congress for funding for the overhaul, something Pai likely knows may not actually happen.
Doesn't really matter if a bunch of fake "yes, do it!" comments are submitted anyway. It's not American Idol - nobody is counting votes.
There IS an effective way to use the system, and what people did with bots regarding net neutrality isn't it. I've used it more than once to improve draft regulations. As a recall, with the USC 2257 regulations we went through three drafts, each time coming closer to what would work best for us.
Let's use NN as an example, looking at when the regulations were drafted in 2014, before going into effect 2015-2016. One concern that came up afterward was the NN rules basically made it illegal to have a small niche internet service for a particular purpose. Rules written for monopoly / duopoly providers applied to ANYONE who wanted to offer any kind of internet service. THAT is the type of issue that the comment period is good for. One could submit a comment suggesting that the NN rules should apply to companies that have more than 25% of a given market. In an area already served by Comcast and Time Warner, someone else should be able to offer a $5/month plan that allows kids to do homework and stuff, and doesn't support streaming HD Netflix 24/7. Local community mesh networks shouldn't have the exact same rules that Comcast has, perhaps. You're supposed to submit suggestions for how to improve the rules, or point out scenarios the author of the rule may not have thought about, or offer alternatives procedures to achieve the goal. "Omg you're Hitler" isn't what the comment process is for, so that stuff is ignored anyway.
Here's a concrete example of a rule change made based on comments submitted by me and people I know. A certain rule required that businesses keep certain records ad always have them available for government inspectors during business hours, at the principal place of business. The address of the principal office had to be posted on your web site. I, and many people I worked with, worked for home. We couldn't guarantee that we'd always be there 8-5 as required by the rule, and didn't love the idea of paying our home address in our web sites. During the comment period, we suggested that the rules allow the records to be held at our lawyer's office or somewhere else where regulators could inspect them any time. Also, our vendors *already had* the records. We'd just be keeping an extra copy of the records we got from the vendor. Could we instead post the address of the vendor who already had the records anyway? That way we didn't have to be always be home 8-5, and didn't have to post our home address.
Our proposed change made it into the final draft. The regulators got what they wanted that way - they have the ability to inspect the records, and know where to find them. We got what we wanted. That's what the comments period of the rule-making process is for, not an American Idol vote.
Btw, the idea for the net neutrality rules applying to big companies with at least 25% market share in a particular city, while allowing small players to offer specialty services, came from Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was just nominated to the Supreme Court. He wrote that NN laws should distinguish between monopoly / duopoly companies like Comcast (who could be heavily regulated) vs small operations who should be allowed to offer specialty services to people who want something different, maybe an connection for their alarm system that is separate from the main home internet, or a co-op mesh network.