Highest Rated Comments

FPGauravLaroia2602 karma

Seconding Nathan at Access. We disagree with the FCC on their interpretation of the Communications Act. We believe the FCC didn't justify its action with any real facts for abandoning Title II classification for broadband ISPs. Then there are the huge problems with the FCC's process in this proceeding like not meaningfully engaging with the comments and not giving adequate notice about their plan to kill all the rules save some weaksauce transparency provisions. For starters that is.

FPGauravLaroia853 karma

Definitely. ISPs are now in a position of exceptional power as the gatekeepers to the internet. We (and others) have argued for years that Net Neutrality is integral to free speech. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/06/23/net-neutralitys-impact-free-speech

FPGauravLaroia758 karma

Agencies actually can't "unilaterally" do anything. By law they must engage in reasoned decision making and follow the process in the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies that don't often get their regs overturned. Those requirements include things like providing the public advanced "notice" of their proposed actions and providing adequate evidence for their descision.

FPGauravLaroia429 karma

The most straightforward is that the "evidence" they relied on for this rule making - their investment data is bogus: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/05/24/fcc-chairman-pai-doesnt-know-how-measure-investment

FPGauravLaroia374 karma

Without telegraphing (ha!) the exact contours of our legal arguments regarding A&C review the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate reasons for the decisions it makes. There is plenty of evidence in the comment record that the FCC didn't do that.

There are also other standards the FCC must meet. For example, the agency must not have a "closed mind" when it begins a rule making. Months ago Chairman Pai stated that overturning Net Neutrality is a fight he "intends to win". We think that's a serious problem for the FCC.