Then we've been a socialist country practically since our founding. You are redefining nationalization to fit your theory.
The FCC clearly rejects that view.
That is exactly the view of net neutrality proposed by the FCC. Rejection of that view by the FCC only exists in other policies such as fairness doctrine, and your in conspiracy theory.
There’s more to come, which they are hiding.
If all this is done in secret, then how was there a notice of PROPOSED rulemaking released last year before the final rules? How did they solicit and receive tens of thousands of pages of public comments in the years prior to the proposed rule? If they're trying to keep it secret, they're doing a very poor job of it.
The reason is that this is how the process works in reality. If another rule is to be made, there will be public hearings, a comment period, a proposed rulemaking, another comment period, possibly one or more further notices of proposed rulemaking each with a comment period, and finally a rule.
Whatever conspiracy there may be, it has to go public long before it can become a rule. Wake me up if the FCC tries to revise its rulemaking process to allow hidden rules. Until then you can quit it about the stuff they're supposedly hiding, because it means nothing legally until it goes through this very public process.
——————Then we’ve been a socialist country practically since our founding. You are redefining nationalization to fit your theory.———————
No, to both.
One, Stuart chase died in 1985. I didn’t redefine nationalization, he did.(though, I’m sure other progressives wrote basically the same thing)
Two, (to keep this in line with the internet) current internet regulations are very, very basic. They don’t amount to nationalization. It’s the difference between having a referee, and the referees being the players on the field - You can’t beat the rule makers.
————That is exactly the view of net neutrality proposed by the FCC.————
You can’t say that until they are done.
-—————If all this is done in secret, then how was there a notice of PROPOSED rulemaking released last year before the final rules?-—————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2725573/posts
-————it has to go public long before it can become a rule.-——————
I see no evidence of that. They have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it.
Or, perhaps I could word this better if we took the time to define “public”. On one hand, all these people put a nice good smiley face on internet regulations, while on the other hand they are scheming with shady characters like Free Press at their “public” NCMR meetings and their “public” emails.
This is why I come off as sounding foolish sometimes. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. What they say for public consumption should be disregarded. What they say when they think nobody’s looking, that’s when they’re being more sincere.