Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved [View all]joshcryer
(62,296 posts)35. No, no one has seen them, only summaries.
Google is upset about the summaries regarding "edge providers" because the FCC actually seems to be wanting to allow anyone to "plug in" to current infrastructure, and Google doesn't want to allow people to plug in to their gigabit networks.
The only people who are allowed to see the documents, under Title 47 §19.735-203, are lawyers for the FCC, and internal workers who work on rule changes. That is objective fact. Google sent out a preemptive message because they don't want "edge providers" to screw with their data mining (because after all, Google fiber is a grand data mining project, and edge providers would be end points that hurt their efforts).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"or otherwise as authorized by the Commission" which specifically allows the info to be disseminated
PoliticAverse
Feb 2015
#3
Secret laws, secret rules, secret police, secret courts. Only the People are not allowed secrets.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#6
FCC procedures require secrecy, apparently 'cause they don't think we can handle the truth.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#8
That is obviously because if people "leaked" false rule changes and they were implemented ..."
Scuba
Feb 2015
#14
1. Are you stating that other agencies don't release the exact wording of proposed
MannyGoldstein
Feb 2015
#30
"the new rules are said to be totally different from the old" you Better Believe It!
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#57
+10000000000 Secrecy. The MO of our new authoritarian, looting government.
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#10
The rude ROFL smiley response and predictable attempt at personal smear
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#21
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
My "outrage" isn't about the rules, it's about the secrecy. Why is our government so secretive?
Scuba
Feb 2015
#19
There would be no rumors, no conjecture, if the rules were published. Too complicated for you?
Scuba
Feb 2015
#26
Why are you defending the secrecy? You've been posting and posting but not offered ...
Scuba
Feb 2015
#34
Why does the administrative law require secrecy? What is the benefit of the secrecy?
Scuba
Feb 2015
#37
Seems like the whole argument is "there's no reason for it, it's just our policy."
Scuba
Feb 2015
#45
Please provide the final wording that has been known for weeks and I guess we'll go from there.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#52
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
30 plus years of FCC practice here -- if anyone wants to understand the process
onenote
Feb 2015
#62