What Happened To Everyone Complaining About The Length Of The 2015 Net Neutrality Rules?
from the oh-look,-they-were-lying dept
If you've followed the whole net neutrality debate for a while, you may remember one of the more ridiculous talking points when the 2015 rules were put in place: it was the line that the rules were "400 pages of regulation on the internet." People kept listing out the page numbers to suggest how crazy it was, and just how much bad stuff the FCC must be doing in "regulating the internet." Ajit Pai kicked it all off with his tweet with a picture of himself holding the initial version of the rules, complaining that it was "Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the internet."
Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside. pic.twitter.com/bwwAsk8ZiB
— Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) February 6, 2015
Others picked up on this theme. The eventually released rules were 400 pages exactly, leading to lots of hand-wringing and whining from the usual suspects about how this was some sort of massive takeover of the internet, hidden in so many pages. Of course, that ignored that the actual "rules" take up just a few pages in the order. It's actually eight pages. You can see them on pages 283 through 290 of the 400 page document. All the rest of it just explains the rules -- as is required by law -- responding to comments that had been raised during the open comment period. And, even more pages are devoted to explaining what the rules do not allow the FCC to do. Also, part of the 400 pages included Ajit Pai's own 64 pages of "dissent." It's hard to see how that should be counted as part of the "regulation."
And yet that didn't stop the likes of Ajit Pai from insisting that there were 332 pages of regulations in there. And for others to pick up on similar numbers or the full 400 page number. A group called "American Action Forum" called it a "400 page monstrosity." During her campaign for President, Carly Fiorina said the first thing she would do as President is "roll back the 400 pages of regulations the FCC just rolled out over the internet." Leaving aside that the President can't overrule the FCC like that, she's also relying on that misleading 400 page number. Infowars got in on the action also, saying that the hidden within the 400 page rules were a plan "to seize the entire internet." And, oh boy, were there lots of tweets attacking the whole 400 pages thing. For example, here's Mike Wendy, a consistent gadfly in policy discussions, always always always supporting the telco's position, insisting that the new rules are 400 pages (even though he, of all people, knows better):
But, I'm curious where are all these people now, in commenting on the size of Ajit Pai's order? In its current form, it weighs in at a hefty 210 pages (and that's before additional things like Commissioner statements/dissents will get added). It's true that these "rules" are "shorter" than Wheeler's. The actual rules this time are 2 pages, rather than 8. But, I'm curious why Carly Fiorina isn't complaining about 200+ pages of "new" rules for the internet. Indeed, I can't find any comment from her anywhere. American Action Forum doesn't have a story up complaining about 200 pages of new internet regulations. Infowars seems positively giddy that Ajit Pai has released 200+ pages of new rules, apparently freeing us from some sort of George Soros conspiracy or something. Meanwhile, I've gone through Mike Wendy's tweets, and despite him tweeting many, many, many times about the "400 pages" in Wheeler's rules, somehow he doesn't ever seem to mention the over 200 pages in Pai's rules. He doesn't mention why it takes "over 200 pages to explain" why Pai is rolling back the last order. I wonder why. Instead, he's declaring these new 200+ pages of rules a "win for consumers, society, innovation and free speech." Hmmmmmm. It's almost as if it's not the page count that matters at all...
Incredibly, many of the people now cheering on the new rules are still attacking the original order as being "400 pages" without acknowledging that the new "rules" are over 200 pages.
Obviously no one is complaining about 200+ pages of new regulations because these aren't 200+ pages of new regulations. But neither was the FCC's 2015 order 400 pages of new regulations. There are lots of things to be concerned about with what Ajit Pai is doing here, but it does seem important not to forget the absolute bullshit that some people spewed in response to the 2015 rules, complaining over and over again about how they were so many pages long (even though they really weren't) -- when literally none of those people are commenting on the length of the new order.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, length, mike wendy, net neutrality, regulations, tom wheeler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Too Much Free Time" -- You has it.
2nd, those persons again may be glad to see the rules now. WHY would they complain about that?
Do you see your LACK of sense and substance now? ... No? Didn't expect you to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Too Much Free Time" -- You has it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(It's OK If You're A Republican)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easily Explained
For the same reason why Roy Moore is acceptable for the Republican-controlled Senate but Al Franken has to leave immediately, even though one is a child molestor while the other just made some very crude jokes.
Because when we do it, it's a conspiracy to take over the internet and/or the "deep state" but when they do it, it's Jesus spreading freedom and democracy on velociraptor-back.
Oh and hint: if you don't get the joke, you're part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easily Explained
Still, though, point taken; what he's been accused of is bad (and sure looks like it's going to cost him his Senate seat, as it should), but not nearly as bad as what Moore has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
200 pages...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 200 pages...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading is fundamental
Whether it's 200 or 400 pages, it's really not that much to read. It's an evening's work.
I would think that anyone wanted to weigh in on the topic would be willing to invest that evening. It's not a lot to ask. And it's not necessary to memorize it -- in whole or in part, as one might do for a test -- just to absorb it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A very limited attention span
200 pages is just a novel's size, so obviously there's nothing that impressive about it, whereas 400 pages is the size of two novels, and seriously, who's got time to read that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is it??
Dam, I know I put it in here..
Dig dig dig..
Dam, I must have loaned it out AGAIN..
That Lie/BS detector is gone again..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The PATRIOT Act passed the Senate 98-1. It may have been written by Republicans, but it wasn't exactly opposed by Democrats.
That said, net neutrality is an issue where there is quite clearly a difference between the two parties in Washington. (Albeit not among the general public, where net neutrality and Title II classification are overwhelmingly favored by the general population, regardless of party affiliation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it's safe to argue the "400 pages of rules" grievance wasn't legit.
Everyone seems to like regulations that serve them specifically. But Tea-Party Republicans were the ones that exemplified the only government that benefits specifically me attitude. Granted, the current wave of partisanship started in the George W. Bush era with Tom DeLay rallying a unified front that refused to negotiate with Democrats on anything.
We've been following the downward spiral of that path ever since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
200 pages?
It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages. It's not new regulation, rather it's a long and detailed explanation of why the previous government power grab needs to be rescinded.
If it was published as only the rules part (probably a few pages at most) you would be leading the "where's the beef?" bandwagon. So there is no winning here.
I notice that as the day approaches, you have turned up the personal attacks, much like Pai. Are you learning anything from him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages.
"Of course, that ignored that the actual "rules" take up just a few pages in the order. It's actually eight pages. You can see them on pages 283 through 290 of the 400 page document. All the rest of it just explains the rules -- as is required by law -- responding to comments that had been raised during the open comment period."
it is reasonable to assume that there about about the same ratio of "rule" to explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's 200 pages to explain why we don't need the previous 400 pages.
The same caveat on number of pages to rules is made for the new rules as the old.
Having said that, looks like this new one is more bloated, based on the ratios - 2:200 vs 8:400.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 200 pages?
Expect a 1000+ page document if all these things are added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now on Drudge: "Twitter Allows Death Threats Against FCC Chair..."
"Infowars.com has repeatedly reported that since 2015, when the Obama-era "Net Neutrality" rules were put in place, instances of blocking and censoring have only occurred at a rapid pace on platforms owned by Facebook, Google and Twitter, which all lobbied hard for the 2015 "Net Neutrality" rules, which were carefully crafted so as to not touch those companies."
Actuality is, as usual, opposite of what Masnick asserts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Infowars.com has repeatedly reported ...”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Infowars.com has repeatedly reported ...”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now on Drudge: "Twitter Allows Death Threats Against FCC Chair..."
...things that are demonstrably untrue, and can in fact never be true except in the ravings of a madman (a role with Jones occasionally plays to try and sell supplements and other crap to incredulous morons).
Do you have anything from the non-fiction section?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now on Drudge: "Twitter Allows Death Threats Against FCC Chair..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
The takeover regs are FOUR TIMES longer than the ones that keep the internet FREE!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]