Ok, post a link to the "8 pages". You can't, because the Obama appointed lackey imposed a gag rule making it illegal to post the content of these benign eight pages and 330 pages of "boilerplate."

Blame the republicans.. Well done. Of course, you're wrong. The gag order was imposed by the chair of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, appointed by Barack Obama. If a member who has access to the regulations were to make it public, they'd be committing a felony.

If there wasn't a gag order, there'd be a link to the 322 page pdf.

Here, let me google that for you.

The extensions are good.. the open source is really nice... their problem may be their revenue model.

How can everyone argue about all this when the FCC has imposed a gag order that prevents the public from seeing the regulations? The gag order and secrecy surrounding the regulation of the internet is the only concern I have at this point.

That isn't why the regulations were not released. A specific gag order was implemented that prevented anyone outside of a select group from viewing the proposed rules until after they were voted on. It wasn't because no one filed a FOIA request or the FCC just forgot to post a PDF. It would have been a violation of law to release the documents. The camel's nose is inside the tent. What could possibly go wrong.

Right, the gag order imposed on the 300 pages of regulations was for our own good. Thank you, government.

I may very well love this new set of regulations. But will this set of regulations include, or make it easier to imposes taxes, expand wiretapping, or outlaw certain types of IP traffic, or criminalize crypto-currencies, etc. ?

The FACT this set of regulation was secret and the public blocked from seeing it until (presumably) after it is passed is an obvious sign that something in the regulations stinks. Maybe its all roses... Guess we'll find out when they let the little people see what's in it.

I'm not worried about rules that everyone will like. Its the power grabs, limits to freedom, or "unintended consequences" that may or may not be in the regulations. We all love the Internet... we should all care very deeply with what our "leaders" attempt to do regulate it in secret.

Yeah, I meant "Rule". That said, it would be nice if the "most transparent administration ever" would have released the contents of the rules so they could be judged on the facts, rather than the concepts. The whole, you have to pass it before you can see whats in it is something everyone should oppose. I am suspect when the government comes in and says they're here for my benefit.

More people have read that press release than have read the full text of the bill. Feel free to link to the entire bill if you think I'm wrong.

Al Gore quoted the best climate scientists who predicted a hockey stick rise in temperatures that never happened. That isn't in dispute. The paper is about why those models may have been so wrong. Or did you not catch on that they had to change the name of the crisis from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." ?

Again, you attack the messenger, this time its Breitbart news site. Which fact did Soon get wrong? Which fact did Breitbart get wrong?

Please cite the law or ethics rule that Soon broke, with citation.

Soon's paper is ethical and peer reviewed. Attack the science if you can... but I'm guessing you can't. Most global warming "deniers" don't deny the data -- carbon dioxide is rising, but simply the (dire) predictions and proposed solutions.