Republicans Are Angry About the FCC's Perfectly Ordinary Rulemaking Process

​It's no secret that many Republicans in Congress are not thrilled that the Federal Communications Commission is set to issue strong net neutrality rules. But new legislation and proposed investigations into the FCC's decision making process, all pushed by Congressional Republicans this week, are simply aimed at preventing an agency from doing its job, regulatory law experts say.

Since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ​announced in Wired that the upcoming open internet rule would contain strong net neutrality protections, Republicans have pulled out all sorts of tricks: The Republican-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is launching an investigation to see whether or not President Obama has had "improper influence" over the decision, and the ​Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has followed suit.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) has introduced the ​Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015, which would require the FCC to open up various aspects of the rulemaking process that no other agency is required to.

"In amending the rules, the public will know exactly what the FCC is voting on well before the vote," Heller said in a statement. "Right now, we don't even know what major decision like the FCC's net neutrality order says. How is that an example of solid rulemaking?"

Well, here's the thing: The way the FCC is operating right now is how the vast majority of federal agencies operate. The agency puts out what's known as a ​notice of proposed rulemaking, which alerts the public it is thinking about making a regulation and which includes a very high-level look at what issue is going to be tackled. Then, it takes a whole lot of comments from everyone about what they think should be in the rule. (That's what happened this summer with all the comment writing campaigns that went on.)

The agency then considers these comments, internally writes a proposed rule, then goes ahead and proposes that rule. Then there are more comments. We are looking at at least another six months of comments, considering the attention this has garnered. Then we get a final rule, then we get the lawsuits.

This is what the FCC has done, and this is how government regulation works.

"The FCC's procedures are common among the vast majority of agencies," Richard Pierce, a regulatory law expert at the George Washington University Law School, told me.

"[Heller's] bill is just another bill that is intended to make it impossible for an agency to act by adding lots of lengthy, expensive, and cumbersome mandatory procedures," Pierce added. "I'm sure the net neutrality proposal is one the senator wants to stop, but I'm also sure it is one of many."

The FCC has said it is acting as it always has: "the Chairman will continue following the FCC's longstanding practice of circulating proposals to the commission three weeks before a meeting, getting their input, and making the final Order as agreed upon by the commissioners public after the vote," the FCC ​said in a statement to Ars Technica.

It's true that Wheeler has already tipped his hand about what will be in the rule, which is somewhat unusual. But much of that comes from the sheer amount of attention (and reporting—Wheeler's decision had already been reported before he wrote his op-ed ​in Wired) that has been already been heaped on this debate.

Big telecom will still get to see the rule, and will still get to comment on it—as will everyone else. Heller, meanwhile, counts AT&T ($10,000), Verizon ($10,000), Comcast ($11,000), and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association ($11,000) among ​his contributors to his most recent campaign. A poll by Vox Populi Polling, a Republican-launched polling service, ​found that Republicans widely support net neutrality principles. So, who is Heller working for?