Thrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,295
- Reaction score
- 9,801
- Location
- Texas, Vegas, Colombia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
H
If it's so innocuous, why the need or desire for secrecy? Why not lay it out and say, "Here's what we're going to vote on."?
none of these rules are enacted... .they voted on a set of proposed rules that now will undergo 120 days of further debate and tweaking at various stages of the federal bureaucracy.... after it receives it's rubber straps, it then goes into effect.
I'm not too concerned over this right now... as there is a lot of processes these rules have to go through and it will be years before any final rules are decided upon.
the courts , sometime in the next 120 days, will become a major player in the debate...there is going to be a ton of litigating over a ton of specific issues.
in the end, I'd wager the FCC will lose in court, and this issue will eventually find it's way back to it's rightful home...Congress.
if it does not, and the court rules that these regulations may stand on FCC authority.... further litigation is most assuredly coming down the pipeline.... every time a specific aspect of title II is applied ( or not applied, for that matter), it'll go back to court.
no matter your stance on NN, it benefits everyone to go through a proper process..... a proper process in this case is to pass legislation that is specifically geared to internet oversight, not having 3 unelected people applying a set of regulations to an industry in which most of the Regs do not and can not apply.
such an endeavor might take some time... but not nearly as much time as the litigation that is coming and will surely continue to come.