• pingveno@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn’t follow the APA’s procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.

    The APA isn’t a bad thing, since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his “Muslim ban”.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, there is. At present, most actions that are taken by the board are consensus actions that won’t hit a Democrat-Republican deadlock. Once a chairperson is confirmed, they can start tackling the more contentious stuff that will have 3-2 decisions. Biden’s previous nominee was scuttled after some attention to some mildly spicy tweets that were critical of Fox. He nominated a replacement a month ago and her nomination will likely go smoother.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.

      EDIT: Okay yeah, several hours later now it’s heavily upvoted. Thanks Lemmings, for giving me faith in comments sections again.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks! And it is getting upvotes, with you being the first. After all, I only wrote it a few minutes ago.

        I’m not scrubbing my account on Reddit partially because some of the comments are like the one above. Sure, much of what I wrote is of limited value. But if there is a historian going back through Internet history and using a language processing model to analyze comments, I think my voice is worth leaving there.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Indeed, I’ve been very ambivalent about the idea of everyone deleting all their histories to hurt reddit.

          Sure, it hurts reddit in the short-term, but in the long-term it is hurting overall internet history.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly, I don’t think it does much of anything to Reddit, short or long term. It does far more to destroy Internet history.

    • plz1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is this where the last Net Neutrality request for comments window failed miserably? Like, the FCC did the process, but they let it be provably sabotaged by the industry and went ahead anyways…

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. That saga was the reverse happening. The Obama administration had already gone through the whole procedure to implement net neutrality rules. Ajit Pai under the Trump administration then came in and started the procedure anew to reverse net neutrality. In that sense it “succeeded” in that Pai’s rules were put into place. There was a legal challenge on the basis of the FCC not considering certain factors. This is where being thorough is incredibly important. If even a single spot is missed, implementation can be drawn out even further.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I want to point out that Pai did not “come in” during the Trump admin. He killed net neutrality during it, sure, but he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up. It’s really disingenuous to try and portray it as a result of one republican president, it was a team effort.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up

            That was by requirement. The FCC board requires that no more than 3 commissioners come from the same party. In practice, that means 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 of the president’s party. Pai was appointed to the Republican slot but was in the minority during the Obama administration. Trump moved him into the role as chair and nominated another Republican, making him both chair and part of the majority.

            • underisk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              He may have been required to appoint someone outside his party but he wasn’t required to appoint Mitch McConnell’s recommendation and obvious telecom shill Ajit Pai. Was it possible for him to appoint a member of a third party or is that also against all these awfully convenient rules that get in the way of those poor Democrats accomplishing anything approaching positive change? Could the current FCC go back and reverse the changes that the Democrats definitely didn’t actually want or is that also against the rules?

              • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Required, no. But anyone the Republicans put forward is just going to be shill for big business anyway.

                I’m not sure how a third party would work. I suspect playing fast and loose with the intentions of the bill (2-2 major party split plus a chairperson matching the president) would just get the confirmation blocked.