Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved (BUT Google has a good idea) US watchdog the FCC formally approved new net neutrality rules on Thursday for America. But you're out of luck if you want to know exactly how your access to the internet will be now be governed. Despite getting the green light, the exact rules have not been revealed and will remain a mystery for some unspecified length of …
"See TTIP for the worst example of this so far..."
If T.T.I.P. goes through, T.T.I.P. is literally proof that you're owned by corporations, you can't argue against it, because corporations will LITERALLY not allow it. Corporations are literally legally allowed to dictate the laws of citizens of any nation in the "club", with the all inclusive fail safe of being able to sue the government if the government stands in the way!
It's 2015, and all of us are sold.
On this side of the pond that happened in 1994 with NAFTA chapter 11. Corporations have the god given right to collect all the profit they plan on collecting no matter what democracy tries to whimper about it. The idea has been spreading like cancer around the globe ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement
Interesting comparison with TTIP.
What is interesting about this comparison is that we (in the EU) at least did get to see a leaked draft that set the ball in motion to force the EU to be a little (and only a little) more open about TTIP. However, it would seem that there has been no leaks of drafts. So does this mean that the commissioners only got to see paper copies at tightly controlled meetings with no access to photocopier/fax machines?
So I can only conclude that those who voted against adoption, were only half-hearted in their protests.
The public doesn't have a clue. The truth of what these new rules will actually be is NOT AVAILABLE, nor accountable to the public, and much of it will be rewritten and/or expanded, long before you or I will ever be able to read it. Anyone celebrating a victory is either a fool or an insider that has just expanded their unfettered power.
Exactly. This is the same thing the Bush administration did with the Energy Policy Task Force Cheney chaired. Administrations of either party always hide stuff from public debate when they're afraid the public won't like it - usually because it is full of giveaways to corporate interests. I'm sure Google won't be the only big company to get changes made before the public is allowed to see it, but by then it will be too late for us little people to do anything about it.
Comcast, is also onboard with the FCC on this, and in exchange, the FCC is allowing a huge merger with Comcast and AOL/Time Warner. As with all Public Utilities, we will likely see a reduction in choices (more mergers, oligoplolies, and monopolies), and if you're unhappy, you'll have to fork over millions to a lobbying firm to even have a minute say over the service you are provided.
The corporate shills said, "...the dissenting voices – including those arguing that the FCC needs to bring itself into the modern internet era – have so far received much less of a hearing." What a load of crap. Theirs is the -only- voice that is -ever- heard. I'm not trusting this new set of rules any farther than I could throw the 350+ pages. Everything Wheeler touches is for his old masters--not for the people. He worked to get Obama elected so he could become FCC Chairman and rule the future of telephone, cable and internet profits for decades to come. We'll see how much of a joke these new lobbyist-written rules are when they're published. Watch for internet rates and fees and profits to sky-rocket in the US in the coming years. Watch for technology in the US to lag and erode. Watch for it. If you are a competitor of the US, you're in good shape.
Business + Politics = People get shafted and don't even know it.
My colleagues seem to think I'm too cynical but this proves I'm not. Google (or the secret company) can get things revised before anyone supposedly knows what they are. Certain politicians scream bloody murder about "transparency" and "open doors".... and things still go on behind closed doors. I have a smidgeon of hope left, but I think we're screwed. The lobbyists and suitcases full of money have win. We just don't know it yet.
So, from 15 pages to upwards of 300, that's normal in your world for a 'last minute revision' is it?
You also don't 'sign-off' the draft versions, you wait until all the revisions are completed.
So if this document has been signed-off (i.e. voted on and approved) then by definition it is a release version - so why not release it?
Thanks for pointing that out.
"That is seemingly true, with the report suddenly dropping 15 pages to 317 pages following a last-minute letter from Google"
When I first parsed this I thought it was typical El-Reg sarcasm, that'll teach me not to try and work whilst I am reading El Reg articles :)
While it changes the order of magnitude, the point still stands. You don't lose 15 pages by deleting a couple of words here and there. I've spent more hours of my life than I care to admit to trying to figure out a way to edit a document to bring a single word up one line to save a page before going to print. Sometimes it's simple, but it's just as often a royal PITA. And yes, it was worth it to the publisher because that one word was going to save one page which in turn was going to save a four page folio in a 3000 scientific publication print run.
"I've spent more hours of my life than I care to admit to trying to figure out a way to edit a document to bring a single word up one line to save a page before going to print"
I usually just fudge the line spacing for that page, or reduce the font size in a table or something :)
As my first job was working in precisely that environment, I call you on your BS deflection.
While it is technically true that you don't publish the daily drafts, it is standard practice to:
1. Establish the draft version.
2. Distribute amongst ALL stakeholders with suitable period for comment.
3. Receive all comments, debate them, resolve them.
4. Incorporate the changes into the document, update the revision level.
5. Distribute the update amongst ALL stake holders with suitable period for comment.
6. Go to step 3 and repeat until the number of changes is suitably low to go to Final Draft for approval.
After approval, only editing changes to correct spelling or grammar are permitted, no substantive changes.
None of this was done with the FCC regs. Hell, they didn't even include all the major telcos in the consultations let alone all the stakeholders. Of which the US public is most certainly the most important.
Now they're claiming "OMG now internet is going to get higher taxes, thanks Obama!" which shows how stupid the rightwingers are now. It's the FCC, not Obama, the one passing Net Neutrality rules.
And really, the telcos brought it up on themselves by challenging the Open Internet rules. They deserve to get regulated.
You pretend that the FCC is an independent agency now that it's under The Big 0, but before it was Bush's stooge. Newsflash: All three FCC members voting for this travesty ARE BIG 0 appointees. That means it IS his change, and at his direct ORDER.
No they don't deserve to be regulated. They BUILT the internet, the government is stealing it from them.
Um... Tom Wheeler was also a "Big O" appointee, and he was all for allowing ISPs to charge extortion fees against content providers. It wasn't Obama who forced his hand, it was the general public. You know, US citizens, the ones that actually vote people into office. In fact, Wheeler was mostly seen as an odd choice for FCC chairman as he has been mostly associated with cableco lobbying groups.
No they don't deserve to be regulated. They BUILT the internet, the government is stealing it from them.
Nope, DARPA built the internet. If it weren't for ARPANet and NSFNet, there wouldn't even be an internet in the first place.
When you read headlines tomorrow saying, "Republicans Vow to Fight Intrusive Internet Rules," or "Comcast and Verizon Plan to Sue Over Net Neutrality Rules," or some Senator or Congressman calling the new rules "government overreach" or some such, just remember that the new rules are STILL A SECRET! They haven't been published yet. The 350+ page document that the FCC voted on today is totally unknown to anyone but the commissioners themselves. There have been no leaks, and revisions were made only a few hours before the vote. The fight is far from over, there are very likely loopholes and exceptions and other very sour stuff in the new rules, and Congress and Lobbyists will continue to make the system uncertain for years. There is just TOO MUCH MONEY at stake for these slugs to go home. We cannot declare victory just yet.
That's exactly what's going on here.
If only the idealists above were right that what this process really needs is openness and an intelligent and meaningful discussion by all affected parties.
What would actually happen is that the cable companies would throw lobbyist money at it like there was no tomorrow, and the whole process would drown in partisan politics and legal challenges.
I still prefer the process to be open, but Wheeler is shit scared that an open process would scupper any chance of getting *anything* through.
"What would actually happen is that the cable companies would throw lobbyist money at it like there was no tomorrow, and the whole process would drown in partisan politics and legal challenges."
Hello? McFly? That's the current situation, not some hypothetical future scenario.
"with the report suddenly dropping 15 pages to 317 pages following a last-minute letter from Google... in response to a last minute submission from a major California based company, an entire core part of the document was removed with respect to broadband subscriber access service... spend the next few weeks in ex parte meetings listening to stakeholder concerns"
> Hello? McFly? That's the current situation, not some hypothetical future scenario.
There's hardly any *specific* politicing at the moment and there are no court cases pending on this at this point in time. Since the details are secret, what would you build a case on?
When the details come out, the guns will start firing certainly, but there's hardly anything going on legally at the moment.
When was the last time any government regulations on private businesses resulted in more freedom for the people? As soon as you get regulators trying to 'save the middle class', you get big companies willing to help them with their regulations. When the big companies are really helpful (with unrelated contributions, of course), the regulations tend to favor them. Net neutrality is no different. It sounds good... "Neutrality is goood, favioritism is baaaad. We need the government to protect us from those evil corporations". So, politician A gets together with CEO B, and they meet with Bureaucrat C, and so the process begins...
I beg the government to STOP trying to help me!
The only one I'm really aware of is the breaking up Ma Bell. That increased freedom for the people because people could then attach equipment/phones to the network that didn't belong to AT&T. If that hadn't changed you might have only been able to get online via a rented AT&T computer/terminal.
If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. - 4.93 million individuals lost employer coverage in the first 9 months of 2014
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. That didn't happen either. See above statistic.
If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet. What do you think will happen?
This is rather bizarre - they've "approved" the rules, but can't yet publish them because they're waiting for comments on the rules they haven't yet published?!
Wouldn't it make more sense to publish the draft rule first, then collect comments, address them and approve the results, instead? It would save on royalty payments to Mr Orwell...
I think the main problem here, is people with good intentions are arguing in favor of what they want Net Neutrality to be, while failing to realize Washington insiders and the affected corporations are the ones actually crafting the language. Regardless of sides, I think most people mean well. Having said that, I don't appreciate the FCC in the least. Remember, the FCC censors speech and works to expand their reach everyday. Everyone should be wary of an agency that can write its own rules in private without having to use the proper process.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
