FCC Public Comment OpEd

[umfan]

https://www.arcamax.com/politics/opeds/s-2333641


The crux of the OpEd is that FCC Chairman Pai isn't giving due regard to public commenting. The author further goes on to allege that Mr. Pai is trying to eliminate public commenting. I fail to see evidence to support this. Using Net Neutrality as an example when a lot of automated comments came in, a lot of them were appropriately disregarded or considered as a group since they said the same thing and came from a single compiler of comments via an automated system. I think the FCC system is close to as good as that used by Regulations.gov, it would just be better if a comment could be directly typed in instead of needing to do so by uploading an attachment.


In any case, retaining the ability of the public to comment on FCC actions is essential. Since public law requires it, it's not really something the Chairman could do away with in any case.

 

[TheBigA]

One of the problems we've seen in the public commenting process has been the subverting of it by small, fringe public action groups. They use technology to file computer generated comments using a single template. It's not a recent problem. I've actually seen this in action, and seen how a small group can give the impression that thousands or even millions of people are commenting on something. I saw the exact same thing happen under previous FCCs, going back to Michael Powell 20 years ago. Back then it was decided to take these duplicated comments and count all of them as one single comment.

The fact is that FCC decisions aren't made by popular vote. They aren't made by counting the number of comments they receive for or against a particular action. They are made based on the law. So Pai's request that comments have factual legal arguments to be considered isn't improper. People think the public comment means they are required to be heard. That's not at all what it's for. It's to give them a chance to speak. Getting to speak and being heard are two very different processes, and to be heard, the Commission simply asks that the petitioners provide the requisite legal information supporting their view.

 

[TheBigA]

BTW I'd suggest moving this to the FCC News & Policy Debate board.

 

[Kelly A]

One of the problems we've seen in the public commenting process has been the subverting of it by small, fringe public action groups.

This has been an on-going issue. Remember the Anita Bryant-follower-group that used to regularly flood the Commission with duplicate complaints about the same, otherwise benign, subject?

 

[TheBigA]

This has been an on-going issue. Remember the Anita Bryant-follower-group that used to regularly flood the Commission with duplicate complaints about the same, otherwise benign, subject?

Complaints and comments are two different things. The Commission doesn't seek complaints. But by law they seek comments on rules or changes they're considering. But yes Howard Stern can talk at length on the subject of FCC complaints.

The FCC sought comments when they proposed to repeal the Newspaper-broadcast co-ownership rule. The comments didn't dissuade them from going ahead and dropping the rule. Then they were taken to court by Prometheus, who won, and the rule was reinstated. That's an example of how there still is recourse if your objections or comments are valid, and the commission ignores them. Simply take them to court.