> Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested?
Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final rule/order and even though there are likely to be interesting drafts produced in the process (whether or not the process is in a regulatory venue where there is a single decision-maker to approve official action or a vote of a multimember commission.)
Similarly, while I'm interested, I don't expect to see copies of drafts of decisions while a court is considering a case.
> By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be.
Aside from being a misuse of "little fanfare", that's also factually incorrect; lots of people -- both supporters and opponents of net neutrality -- reacted to the editorial with specific concerns that the content of that the outline presented of the direction of the proposal, and by many reports some of those responses had an effect on the final form of the regulations. No doubt both supporters and opponents will continue to have reactions to the details of the adopted regulations.
Again, I never said I was against it, all I want to to is to be able to read and question the damn thing. Why are you and others acting like that's a crime?
I get treated like a bad person, and questioned, because all I want is to be able to read a regulation. I didn't even say I was against it.
Even if you look at past comments, all I wanted was clarity, not editorials and speeches, the damn text.
You will be able to read and question the damn thing when it's published in the Federal Register as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. That is the long-standing procedure for government commissions/agencies to promulgate the administrative rules in accordance with their congressionally-delegated responsibilities.
This is in fact how things work. If you follow government regulations closely in any sphere, then you pay attention to the contents of the Federal Register because it is, quite literally, the government's To-Do list. Most countries operate this way, publishing some sort of national gazette or official newspaper that detailsadministrative matters, solicits bids for public works contracts, announces the formation or dissolution of official agencies, etc. etc. etc.
Check it out, it's quite user-friendly and you can literally see how your tax dollars get spent: https://www.federalregister.gov/
Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final rule/order and even though there are likely to be interesting drafts produced in the process (whether or not the process is in a regulatory venue where there is a single decision-maker to approve official action or a vote of a multimember commission.)
Similarly, while I'm interested, I don't expect to see copies of drafts of decisions while a court is considering a case.
> By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be.
Aside from being a misuse of "little fanfare", that's also factually incorrect; lots of people -- both supporters and opponents of net neutrality -- reacted to the editorial with specific concerns that the content of that the outline presented of the direction of the proposal, and by many reports some of those responses had an effect on the final form of the regulations. No doubt both supporters and opponents will continue to have reactions to the details of the adopted regulations.