Note that comments to the FCC are a little different than a letter to your Congressman, in that they have legal significance. The comments become a part of the record that may be reviewed by a court if the agency's rules are challenged. The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to set aside agency rules that are, among other things, "arbitrary and capricious." In issuing final rules, agencies will generally respond to the major issues raised by the comments, because otherwise parties may challenge the rule in court arguing that the agency acted arbitrarily by ignoring a major aspect of the issue.<p>On a general note, I don't get the cynicism as to the FCC's intentions here. The FCC already passed net neutrality rules, and those rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit. Internet companies have argued that the FCC could implement net neutrality if they regulated internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, but the FCC desperately wants to find a way to avoid doing that. Not because it doesn't want net neutrality, but because Title II is a big regulatory regime with a lot of baggage.<p>You have to understand that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. There is a general regulatory paradigm that's in vogue at the FCC. The FCC has been thrilled with the results of its "light touch" approach to cellular wireless regulation. That's the mantra of post-Clinton liberals: "we'll have regulations, but lightweight ones." Title II is an FDR-era piece of legislation that is anything but lightweight. Regulating the internet under Title II would invoke a firestorm of criticism from conservatives as well as centrist-liberals who see it as inconsistent with how regulatory agencies should operate in the modern era.
In case you haven't done so, do submit a comment. It's easy to be cynical about its impact, but this is currently the official way of making your voice heard.
Does the number of comments really change anything? Not criticizing just wondering. This seems like a letter-writing campaign without the added inconvenience of an office full of paper.
This isn't enough. We can't just keep shouting at them and hoping that they'll do as we say-- the FCC does not work for us, it works for the cable companies firstly and the USG secondly. We have to escalate the situation substantially and threaten their funding/power/political structure by bribing the correct people or else we won't get anywhere.<p>EDIT: Of course I've left the FCC a comment, made a phone call, and talked to my political representatives (in addition to bitching at the president) about this issue anyway. I don't expect that my word is worth anything without a bribe, though.
It's not that this is necessarily a hot debate, in fact I've seen little intelligence regarding what it means. It's that the internet is a bitch. It is of no convenience for "interneters" to click a "Sign this petition" button that promises what somebody somewhere naively calls "fair internet". ..."I like fair!"<p>In the past these internet movements have gone is a direction that is more about individual freedoms, but like Occupy Wall Street, what it has to say about Net Neutrality is dead wrong, and I say that because the whole thing is based on buzzwords and ignorance.
Public comments are the scraps we cling to when we aren't allowed to vote on things or chose who represents us.<p>If we had proportional representation, I'd vote for whoever is closest to my views and best able to represent them.<p>A representative that works for everybody in a district doesn't represent anybody in particular, except those who contribute to expensive campaign required to get a majority of the votes.<p>PR gets rid of the need to win a majority and the ability of lobbyists to buy off a single winner per district.
Not trying to be cynical, but what's the point? Commenting against the FCC's plans is like pissing in the wind. The stooges on the deciding committee will decide as stooges do.<p>While I don't advocate doing nothing, playing their game their way isn't going to lead to a win.
Unfortunately unless you have either money or the ability to use violence with impunity they are not going to care.<p>Not that I would advocate using violence, since it is likely to get you (or me) in trouble.
It is dangerous to go alone! take this<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen</a>
It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this. Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.<p>Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future. I'd strongly encourage anyone who has a stake in this fight (most of HN's audience) to submit their thoughts to the FCC and your congressional representatives.