[bsimpson]

Here's the link to submit a comment to the FCC:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express

Ran a quick search and found a whole bunch of news articles, but nobody includes info that makes it easy to route your comment. Feels like the beginning of Hitchhiker's Guide:

> It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.

[Scaled]

You can also file a comment at the Federal Register for the next 16 days -- It looks like the proposal is 2026-10407

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/26/2026-10...

[mcmcmc]

This is the specific proposed rule to reference: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-enhanced-know...

[Ajedi32]

What I find most concerning is that this isn't a bill or law. Unelected government officials at the FCC can apparently just decide to do this.

[forshaper]

It's been this way at least since the Administrative Procedure Act. Solidified later with Chevron. Chevron is struck down, but in effect not too much has changed.

[tantalor]

[Loper Bright intensifies]

[unethical_ban]

I have some skepticism of the administrative branch but it makes sense to have a nimble government. When they make bad decisions it is Congress prerogative to write law to guide these bureaucracies. The problem is the US Congress is broken.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

The ATF does this all the time, too.

[rdiddly]

They badly need to be checked and/or balanced.

[IAmBroom]

Yes, that is the way federal agencies work. Details of complex systems are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest.

One alternative is that Trump can do it at will. Or, to add a few more steps, Trump can fire the FCC head at will, replace him with a lackey, and then do it at will.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Details of complex systems are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest

And according to the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides substantial guardrails and checks on agency authority.

[Ajedi32]

> [Laws] are decided by (hopefully apolitical, public-good-oriented) specialists in the field of interest

This doesn't sound to me at all like how a democratic country is supposed to function. It feels like you're describing China rather than the US.

> Trump can do it at will.

Which is also not how our constitution is supposed to work. The executive branch (which includes both the president and his appointees) is not supposed to be able to make laws, only execute on existing law.

Yes, I know this is how the system works these days. I'm just lamenting how it went so wrong...

[jerf]

"This doesn't sound to me at all like how a democratic country is supposed to function."

There is a family of interesting theories, or perhaps if you prefer, simply a way of looking at history in which you don't consider the "United States" as a single governance structure that has existed back to 1776, but as a series of related, but distinct entities with distinct "social contracts" (a term laden with some philosophical baggage, here I just use it in a very general sense of what people expect from each other in various roles), and distinct theories of governance. While the later entities wrap themselves in the 1776 flag the current ruling structure is quite different from that era. From this point of view you can even go back and include the Continental Congress as the starting point of the "United States" and gain some insight into the way governance can fail as well.

I mention this because it may help free your mind up to consider how the systems really work today beyond the at-times jingoistic "Democracy!". There's a lot of flexibility in how you approach this because it's all opinion anyhow, but there is a strong case to be made that this is the "technocrat" era, in which the executive branch has been given a lot more power both by design and by the stresses of history to give more power to "experts" to deal with the radical changes the world has undergone. I think I can say something generally politically agreeable by pointing out that Congress doesn't seem to be particularly good at handling the world right now; how much worse off would it be if we still "representatives per person" numbers from 1776 and had a Congress of many thousands?

The de facto rules haven't really matched the de jure of the 1776 governance in a long time.

I am trying to keep this as neutral as possible. I have as many opinions as anyone else, but I'm just bringing up the general idea. I think it's probably good to initially just ponder based on one's own understanding of history and match it against your own ideas before you find other people handing you a theory on a platter. There's time enough for that.

[AnthonyMouse]

> how much worse off would it be if we still "representatives per person" numbers from 1776 and had a Congress of many thousands?

Isn't that actually a major cause of the trouble? You expect Congress to deal with more and more complexities but limit the number of people (i.e. experts) who are members of it, causing them all to be generalists and moreover to have to spend more of their time campaigning rather than debating because the value of each seat is higher and correspondingly so is the effort someone will put in to take it from you and the proportion of your time you have to spend merely defending it.

Meanwhile people feel that their vote doesn't matter because a member of Congress now represents almost a million people and then ordinary people can neither affect the campaign nor get the ear of their own representative.

Suppose it actually had ten thousand members. Then they would be ordinary people. The members who are doctors would understand both medicine and medical bureaucracy. The members who are engineers would understand technology. Instead of them being lawyers whose first job is campaigning.

[mcmcmc]

Administrative law is the (suboptimal) answer to congressional gridlock, which is the real problem. If Congress is incapable of making new laws, we still need them somehow. Regardless the overturning of Chevron deference makes administrative rules like this more susceptible to challenge. Assuming the telcos have the backbone to do so of course.

[Ajedi32]

Congress passes plenty of laws. 95 so far just since the last election: https://www.congress.gov/public-laws/119th-congress Last congress passed 274. It's really only the controversial stuff that gets gridlocked.

The problem is that our government is now so large and complicated that it's simply no longer possible for Congress to effectively set policy for all of it. (This would be true even if they weren't so polarized.) So instead they just keep delegating more and more power to the executive branch.

The Administrative Procedures Act, Congressional Review Act, and the recent overturning of Chevron are all good checks on executive/agency power here, but I don't think any of them solves the fundamental issue that the executive branch was simply never designed to wield this kind of power. I'm not really sure what the right solution is.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If Congress is incapable of making new laws, we still need them somehow.

Do we though? When there is a lack of consensus on what federal law should be, those are exactly the times the federal apparatus should be silent and leave it to the states.

[laughing_man]

There is a level of detail that isn't practical to include in law. It's pretty normal for Congress to sketch the general outline of regulation and require the relevant bureaucracy to fill in the details.

Though in this particular case, unless this is based on a change to the law it seems like an overreach by the FCC.

[AnthonyMouse]

> There is a level of detail that isn't practical to include in law.

Isn't this the argument against unelected rulemaking?

Suppose administrative agencies worked like this: They draft rules and then periodically submit them to Congress who decides whether to enact them. For uncontroversial changes this is essentially a rubber stamp, Congress defers to the experts' recommendations and passes the proposed rules. But now if the administrative agency tries to make a major policy change, it can't go through without Congressional approval, and Congress is fully within their authority to reject or amend the proposal.

What advantage is there in giving the unelected bureaucrats the authority to change the rules without approval, except to Congress in dodging accountability for what happens?

[Terr_]

Hold up: Parent-poster is obviously talking about federal regulations, not federal laws, and there are important differences between them... so why have you altered the quote to say [Laws]?

That's false. You've put your own words into their mouth to create a "sounds like China" strawman.

[mothballed]

The regulations are [often] binding as law. When they change the regulations they are changing the law, under the fiction they're merely changing the interpretation of the law.

An example that comes to mind is the prosecution of Tate Adamiak. One of his machine gun charges was for having an improperly demilled machine gun parts. The parts were demilled under pre-2001 import standards, and the parts were imported pre-2001, and legally imported and sold through a licensed FFL on gun broker. Magically at some point the rule changed and the letter of law never did, and magically the parts weren't parts but actually a machine gun... this bound as law. I think he'll be released in about 15 years.

[Ajedi32]

Ah yes I forgot, they're not "laws" just "rules" that the government will come after you if you break. Silly me.

[mothballed]

The intellectual-academic class are having an existential crisis that they've lost the reigns of the unelected bureaucratic apparatus and it is now being wielded against them. They are still confused at how to respond to this as they're certain they couldn't have been wrong about deferring (uh, 'delegate regulatory authority') the power vested in congress and elected representation to themselves. Surprise pikachu when it turns out the "apolitical, public goal oriented specialists' were useful idiots in the process of handing power from congress to the executive.

If you thought the political apparatus was willingly going to leave the reigns to "apolitical specialists" rather than ruthlessly consolidating it toward the hands of the most power hungry self-dealing monsters that can command the executive branch then obviously you have not been living in in reality. Of course by the time the blindfold has been removed, the power is already largely consolidated.

[JumpCrisscross]

> unelected bureaucratic apparatus

Unelected—often unappointed—bureaucrats have never had more power in the U.S. government than they have today.

[ChoGGi]

You want to have to vote for every single decision maker in the government?

[skinfaxi]

Being able to is different from being obligated.

[TJSomething]

I mean I feel obligated. I'd feel bad if I skipped voting in an election where I found out after the fact that one of the candidates kicked puppies.

[fsckboy]

... and won by 1 vote

[bsimpson]

There's a whole big conversation to have about the bureaucratic state.

One of the things that appeals to voters is the argument that too many decisions are made by unaccountable bureaucrats. Trump has been as effective at fixing this as with "drain the damp," and our elected officials clearly haven't been great about writing policy either. But one of the grievances that gets people to vote is "look at all this shit that some guy in Washington just decided."

[troyvit]

Use the docket-id from that link.

[user3939382]

Open to the possibility that I’m just cynical but my faith is very low that these comment processes are anything more than a regulatory requirement for the illusion of due diligence which legitimizes the actual corporate lobbying and security state actually making the policy.

[JumpCrisscross]

You’re wrong. Even if the regulator ignores them, they allow third parties to bring a suit under the APA.

[firefax]

The real issue is that it's a perpetual problem -- there are NGOs that literally pull out the same one pager, an endless dance of having some 1L repeat the same points over and over and over.

(Why is it called a 1 pager you ask? Because your elected officials won't read more than that.)

I made a grand total of one hill visit.

I told them I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over, and if you make my interns come back here ever again, I'll see to it if you're lucky you only lose your seat, not face a mob outside your window, and when that happens lose my fucking number because I'll be sitting by the TV with popcorn.

Exactly that happened, a few years later.

Whether you're a public interest lobbyist or just another activist, we need to be more willing to TELL congress things. Not ask. Not lobby. TELL THEM.

We need to remind them that the Soviets raced to Berlin to seize brains like ours, that we will flourish whatever regime is in power, and that you can ignore us at your but we, the hackers, will no longer grovel before narcistic neurotypicals to stop misunderstanding on purpose.

Politics is like poker -- soft play is unethical.

Play to win.

Because the pushback works, for a spell.

[pickleglitch]

They require your name and address, so they will have a nice database of anyone who dares voice an objection.

[Hnrobert42]

Do you have any examples of the government exploiting that?

[tartoran]

Do you have any examples of the government NOT exploiting that? It's hard to know for sure how data is being used or sold out for others to exploit it.

[mothballed]

I'm nearly certain commenting, at least from my monitoring of commenting on ATF rulemaking, achieves the opposite of what the commenters hope.

While there is ~zero chance that commenting can help you, it absolutely is used against you as their lawyers sharpen their claws by crowdsourcing possible sources of challenge and use your comments to predict them and determine how to undermine such positions.

[Hnrobert42]

I'm pretty sure they don't need comments on the federal site for that. They could get the same from reddit or here for that matter.

[Scaled]

It lets politicians see how unpopular something is and how many votes they will lose.

[autoexec]

Exactly. Often they're not even real https://www.kcra.com/article/more-sacramento-victims-discove...

The companies paid to flood the FCC with fake comments get to do it as long as they're willing to give the government a cut of the action (https://www.engadget.com/new-york-ag-fines-companies-that-sp...)

It'll only stop when the people hiring those companies to spam the FCC end up behind bars.

[Hnrobert42]

I think the filing number is 17-59.

[kogasa240p]

Thank you