Anybody read this shit, it's approved .. Yay or Nay?

[CorvallisBMW]

I think its the crafted in secret, and few details divulged until after its adoption that has many people irked.

I am willing to bet there are some "fun" easter eggs hidden in there, and a barn door sized window for many new taxes on internet service to be levied

Do you have any sources on these claims or are they just dust in the wind?

[mrsleeve]

Nevermind, too late.

Do you have any sources on these claims or are they just dust in the wind?

for 2 such wise and learned individuals especially with in the realm of US political policy making, one would have thought this was common knowledge for the likes of your great intellects, if even such a commoner as myself has known this for some time.

I pulled the 1st result form bing for these terms to confirm my position....
:FCC drafts not released to public :

I trust the LA times is news worthy enough and left leaning enough of a publication for you to accept it as a creditable source.......

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-tom-wheeler-20150210-story.html

Pay attention to the part that is in bold type

The FCC typically does not release draft orders until after they are approved by the commission. Wheeler has the authority to do so but FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said he will not break with "long-standing FCC practice.

Oh boy this sounds fun

But he said in addition to the eight pages of new rules, there were 79 pages detailing other telecommunications regulations the FCC would exempt or not exempt Internet providers from complying with. There also were additional pages containing "extensive discussion" about how regulations would be interpreted and applied,"

Wonder if the "discussion" has come from the kings office

332 pages, 8 regulatory, 79 on implementation with in the scope of current policy, and undisclosed number on interpretation and application. I bet there are more than a few devoted to taxation in there. But how are we to know until the commission votes and accepts the draft before we even get to see the nitty gritty details. I am not saying this is good or bad policy making until its been available for public review for a bit.

I am saying be careful what you wish for.......................... you just might get it

[BraveUlysses]

Yes sleeve, we know that the draft isn't published until it's voted on, and it doesn't go into effect for several months while the FCC accepts comments on the policy.

Its more of your usual empty criticism, which is to criticize without even spending time to figure out what's wrong with it.

[CorvallisBMW]

for 2 such wise and learned individuals especially with in the realm of US political policy making, one would have thought this was common knowledge for the likes of your great intellects, if even such a commoner as myself has known this for some time.

I completely understand the process that was followed with regards to the whole thing. Yes, it wasn't released ahead of time, and that's far from ideal. I think they should release it ahead of time, absolutely.

My criticism of your post was because of stuff like this:

I am willing to bet there are some "fun" easter eggs hidden in there, and a barn door sized window for many new taxes on internet service to be levied

You do realize what the FCC is doing is classifying internet communications as a utility under existing law ("Title 2"), not creating all news laws, right? I think if you're going to accuse someone (or some agency) of hiding a bunch of rules & regs, creating new taxes, and generally trying to screw everyone over, you should have some kind of source or evidence to back it up. Otherwise you're just speculating based on personal prejudice and not actual facts.

[nando]

The ony ones complaining are the corporations.

We already have net neutrality. This just makes it law.

And before anyone says anything, the internet literally came from the big evil government. So, "keeping the government out of the internet" literally makes zero sense. The corporations would love you to believe they created it for public benefit.

[ST1G]

Nothing was, but that won't stop him from speculating from his own ignorance on this issue.

Not that he would read it but maybe other people will

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-and-title-ii/

Love Ars Technica. They are very easy to digest articles.

[BraveUlysses]

400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents

[BraveUlysses]

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/internet-providers-ordered-to-stop-hiding-the-true-size-of-monthly-bills/

[nando]

Comcast does the same shit. My bill is supposed to be $69, except it's $89, and then they decide to charge me rental on the modem that I own, plus a penalty, which brought the last bill to over $100. Fuck Comcast in the ass.

[z31maniac]

Cox Communications here now charges you a "self-install" fee if you don't let their techs come out and charge you.

[nando]

Before Comcast had a death grip on the local broadband business, you could swap modems however you liked. They either enabled the data to your cable line or they didn't. now Comcast has to register your modem or it won't work, because they want to discourage you from using your own device or just moving somewhere and plugging it in without sending somebody to your house for a cool $150.

[BraveUlysses]

Comcast does the same shit. My bill is supposed to be $69, except it's $89, and then they decide to charge me rental on the modem that I own, plus a penalty, which brought the last bill to over $100. Fuck Comcast in the ass.

I'm on their triple play (phone, internet and cable, even though i didnt want phone service) because it's cheaper than internet and cable, but they won't let me use my own modem because they require you to use a cable modem with a VOIP port on it if you want to use your own modem, despite the fact that i've never actually used the goddamned phone service.

Cox Communications here now charges you a "self-install" fee if you don't let their techs come out and charge you.

p sure comcast does this too

Before Comcast had a death grip on the local broadband business, you could swap modems however you liked. They either enabled the data to your cable line or they didn't. now Comcast has to register your modem or it won't work, because they want to discourage you from using your own device or just moving somewhere and plugging it in without sending somebody to your house for a cool $150.

You've always had to give them the MAC address of your own modem.

[nando]

Nope. Back in the @home days, when it was faster and cost $40 a month.

Also, the whole digital tv thing. They charge extra for the original digital signal, and degrade it to analog for everyone else, even though it's free over the air and uses more bandwidth..

[CorvallisBMW]

"The Long, Slow Death of Cable Just Reached a Tipping Point"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/long-slow-death-cable-just-152700220.html

[BraveUlysses]

MAC address registration is essential to stop people from stealing internet. before docsis 3 it was painfully easy to buy a hacked cable modem that allowed free data at completely unrestricted speeds.

anyway look at this another article, full of painfully stupid, mr derpsleeves-worthy criticism of net neutrality

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/net-neutrality-is-big-brother-obamanet-and-other-brilliant-criticism-of-fcc/