General Discussion

joshcryer

(62,296 posts)

31. What the hell are you talking about?

Fri Feb 27, 2015, 08:30 AM

Feb 2015

The final wording of the rules has been known for weeks now.

It's not allowed to be published publicly under Title 47 §19.735-203.

They are required by the rules to respond to the dissenters.

This means that they would not have voted for it unless they felt that all dissenter positions are null.

We can see that Pai's dissent is effectively bullshit, if we simply look at the summaries.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved [View all] PoliticAverse Feb 2015 OP

Another secret newfie11 Feb 2015 #1

setec astronomy BeanMusical Feb 2015 #5

ain't that the truth... n/t ProdigalJunkMail Feb 2015 #22

Yep. BeanMusical Feb 2015 #53

So they are following the procedure. joshcryer Feb 2015 #2

"or otherwise as authorized by the Commission" which specifically allows the info to be disseminated PoliticAverse Feb 2015 #3

And if you look at the summary Pai posted, they aren't. joshcryer Feb 2015 #4

Secret laws, secret rules, secret police, secret courts. Only the People are not allowed secrets. Scuba Feb 2015 #6

This is FCC procedure. joshcryer Feb 2015 #7

FCC procedures require secrecy, apparently 'cause they don't think we can handle the truth. Scuba Feb 2015 #8

No, they simply don't want leaks before the final rule change. joshcryer Feb 2015 #9

That is obviously because if people "leaked" false rule changes and they were implemented ..." Scuba Feb 2015 #14

I don't see how your first paragraph makes sense MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #16

Title 47 §19.735-203 joshcryer Feb 2015 #20

1. Are you stating that other agencies don't release the exact wording of proposed MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #30

1. They do not. joshcryer Feb 2015 #39

1. They do MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #48

The FCC published the NPRM on Net Neutrality in May 2014. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #49

Sorta - but the new rules are said to be totally different from the old MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #56

"the new rules are said to be totally different from the old" you Better Believe It! geek tragedy Feb 2015 #57

So the NPRM included net neutrality? MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #58

No, the news media got it right. Only you managed to get it wrong. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #59

Looks like a split decision MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #67

Did you read the excerpt re: reclassification geek tragedy Feb 2015 #68

That's not part of the proposed rule MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #69

Sigh. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #70

alice in wonderland logic ND-Dem Feb 2015 #61

+10000000000 Secrecy. The MO of our new authoritarian, looting government. woo me with science Feb 2015 #10

Oh, it's you. joshcryer Feb 2015 #12

The rude ROFL smiley response and predictable attempt at personal smear woo me with science Feb 2015 #21

This is the function of administrative law. joshcryer Feb 2015 #33

Jury results oneshooter Feb 2015 #23

Thanks, believe me, I know it's coming. joshcryer Feb 2015 #27

To the Greatest Page. This is important. woo me with science Feb 2015 #11

You have no clue how administrative law works. joshcryer Feb 2015 #13

Yet it's you who argues that if we don't like the rules we can't be allowed to see, we can appeal. Scuba Feb 2015 #15

You can't see them until they're official. joshcryer Feb 2015 #17

My "outrage" isn't about the rules, it's about the secrecy. Why is our government so secretive? Scuba Feb 2015 #19

Rumors = cost. joshcryer Feb 2015 #24

There would be no rumors, no conjecture, if the rules were published. Too complicated for you? Scuba Feb 2015 #26

You should press for them to change Title 47 §19.735-203. joshcryer Feb 2015 #29

Why are you defending the secrecy? You've been posting and posting but not offered ... Scuba Feb 2015 #34

What secrecy? joshcryer Feb 2015 #36

Why does the administrative law require secrecy? What is the benefit of the secrecy? Scuba Feb 2015 #37

Covering their asses. joshcryer Feb 2015 #40

Does that mean you agree the secrecy is bad for our democracy? Scuba Feb 2015 #42

Some people will never agree that sunshine JimDandy Feb 2015 #43

Seems like the whole argument is "there's no reason for it, it's just our policy." Scuba Feb 2015 #45

How does one rationally dissent before the wording of the rules is known? Fumesucker Feb 2015 #28

What the hell are you talking about? joshcryer Feb 2015 #31

Never mind, I thought I could get a straight answer from you Fumesucker Feb 2015 #44

You WHAT? MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #71

Please provide the final wording that has been known for weeks and I guess we'll go from there. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #52

so who's known it 'for weeks' if it's not allowed to be published? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #64

Google has seen them rtw Feb 2015 #32

No, no one has seen them, only summaries. joshcryer Feb 2015 #35

Confused rtw Feb 2015 #38

Only FCC officials* have it under Title 47 §19.735-203. joshcryer Feb 2015 #41

Spare the familiar bullying to trust and prematurely celebrate woo me with science Feb 2015 #18

Spare me the faux outrage. joshcryer Feb 2015 #25

Some people just need to whine. nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #46

So... what's the deal here? Takket Feb 2015 #47

Why would you listen to such a ranting nutjob? nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #50

Because he likes it. obnoxiousdrunk Feb 2015 #51

because when i came in this thread a lot of people on DU seem worried about the same stuff! Takket Feb 2015 #54

Nobody is worried about Hillary taxing America to death, last time I checked nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #55

if it's secret, what are folks dissenting to? do they know? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #60

Yes. onenote Feb 2015 #63

30 plus years of FCC practice here -- if anyone wants to understand the process onenote Feb 2015 #62

Thank you! MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #65

It varies onenote Feb 2015 #66

Fing awesome Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #72