Vote on and then finish writing the order is not new at all at FCC. The writer might have just found it, it seems. The short notice for some of the commissioners is a problem getting attention lately, and I would say that it is a problem when a commissioner complains like this. Also, I was not sure why the issues of FCC's jurisdiction and scope of FCC's unregulation were mixed up. It is hard to believe that Commissioner McDowell would be confused about it. Is it then the writer who is confused?

...OK, now I have checked the statement by comissioner McDowell and he writes "I agree that we do have jurisdiction, in general, over these areas. However, we do not have any rules governing Internet network management to enforce." So it was the Register's write who got confused about this.

strategic plan being updated

An FCC proceeding on this? Wow.. But that would probably mean another regulation on broadcast (over the air) TV that cable and satellite do not have to abide by.. is that really okay?

The problem I see though, is featuring of programs and events that a network or its parent company has some financial stake in. That could be done in a program without really using some "placement" technique. What to do with it? Sometimes it comes from the fact that those programs and events are easier to feature because the people related to them are more cooperative, there is some existing interpersonal network, etc.

I agree with the FCC's point that post-vote deliberations will result in higher-quality material. But that makes the voting really a point in the middle of the rule-making process, not the end of it. If the document could be edited, how come it could be voted on? Could they be edited so much so that some of the Commissioners would feel that they want to change their vote? Is that more like a vote on the outline of the document where there is no devil in the details? Is such a vote really possible? I don't quite know what to make of this story..

some of the conditions are interesting