The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained

[thereisnospoon]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.

...

Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)

...

Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

If you remember when dial up was the primary method by which the internet was carried, the telcos attempted to get in on some extra cash by declaring that each connection to a server was in effect a telephone call and thus subject to local and long distance toll charges. Ironically it was the federal govt( FCC) that slapped the hand of the telcos.
Then the USPS tried to make its voice heard. The Postal Service wanted a tax slapped on email transmissions. No go there.
In both cases, business entities sought to have the government place regulations on the internet. .

 

[Nyvin]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

No,...This is going to the SCOTUS...No doubt.
Today's decision by the FCC is not only anti technology, it is also anti consumer.
It will cause investors to take a giant step backward. Investment dollars in new technologies, distribution, equipment, etc will slow to a crawl.
ISP's will no longer be permitted to sell their pipelines to those willing to pay a premium for premium access and performance. On other words, if the XYZ Corp needs an ultra high speed connection to conduct its business in the most efficient and cost conscious method possible, the new rules now make that illegal. Consumers who also have no problem paying a premium price will be relegated to the slowest speeds because it is "unfair" that they get to buy what they want while others cannot.. The government argument is that if no one can pay extra for better performance than everyone will get the better performance( higher speeds). The opposite will occur. As government will control consumer prices, ISP's and those who build and maintain physical plant will no longer be able to raise the capital to provide the faster speeds. So in effect, this new regulation will actually slow the internet. Government is demanding the impossible. Equality. Well it is going to get it. It is going to force "equally inferior"....
Of course the libs and other naysayers are going to scream about their internet bills. They believe that the government will make access cheaper to the consumer. That those evil ISP's will have to lower their prices. Ok, suppose they do. Then consumers will get exactly what they pay for...
Hopefully 5 of the 9 wise people in Washington will shoot down this stupid thing once and for all.

There is a HUGE flaw in your arguments here in that ISPs CANNOT SELL PREMIUM ACCESS RIGHT NOW!!

We've gotten by for the past ~25 years without letting ISPs create fast lanes and cater to big business and everyone seems to be quite happy with the internet.

the new rules now make that illegal

Wrong. It is prohibited RIGHT NOW

 

[daveman]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Oh, there's big money involved, all right -- but it's not coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Progressive icon George Soros:

Soros Ford Foundation shovel 196 million to net neutrality groups staff to White House WashingtonExaminer.com

And if George Soros wants it, it's bad for America.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.

...

Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)

...

Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

They don't.....VoIP service is an internet transmission where data is converted into audio....If you wanted to pursue that logic, then services that offer internet streaming could be classified as "television"....As you know TV broadcasters are licensed by the FCC and every 5 years must petition the FCC and provide a period for public commentary for license renewal. Also in that public commentary is a provision that commercial over the air stations must act "in the public interest"...

 

[Flash]

Oh, there's big money involved, all right -- but it's not coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Progressive icon George Soros:

Soros Ford Foundation shovel 196 million to net neutrality groups staff to White House WashingtonExaminer.com

And if George Soros wants it, it's bad for America.

Soros has a little trained monkey in the White House.

 

[Nyvin]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Oh, there's big money involved, all right -- but it's not coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Progressive icon George Soros:

Soros Ford Foundation shovel 196 million to net neutrality groups staff to White House WashingtonExaminer.com

And if George Soros wants it, it's bad for America.

Netflix and Ebay support net neutrality as well (duh, wonder why)

Do they make it bad for America as well?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The speed shouldn't be bought or sold. Making it equal across the board actually makes business more competitive.

Once again you've hit the jackpot of stupidity.
There are costs involved, both fiscal and physical, which make it impossible for internet access to be "equal"...
For example, it is cost prohibitive for a provider to install physical plant ( wires) to every corner of the country. And in many cases, downright impossible.
Such a mandate would be so costly that it make the consumer price unaffordable. Unless of course the federal government offers hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax breaks.
Of course the subsidies would have to be paid for. Meaning, consumers would be paying a federal internet tax which would of course make access unaffordable to many more people. This would create the opposite effect of the proposed regulations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:

"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."

This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.

The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.

If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.

Like I said, you need to read what's in it before you pass it, Nancy. You do understand this is enforced by the government, right? Did it ever occur to you that the government is the one legalizing or illegalizing what content can be allowed or disallowed?

They can do that already....

Actually, no.It cannot.
THat's the primary focus of this ruling. To regulate content. Read "crush dissenting voices and "limit political discourse" to the liking of those in power.

 

[Nyvin]

Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The speed shouldn't be bought or sold. Making it equal across the board actually makes business more competitive.

Once again you've hit the jackpot of stupidity.
There are costs involved, both fiscal and physical, which make it impossible for internet access to be "equal"...
For example, it is cost prohibitive for a provider to install physical plant ( wires) to every corner of the country. And in many cases, downright impossible.
Such a mandate would be so costly that it make the consumer price unaffordable. Unless of course the federal government offers hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax breaks.
Of course the subsidies would have to be paid for. Meaning, consumers would be paying a federal internet tax which would of course make access unaffordable to many more people. This would create the opposite effect of the proposed regulations.

Net Neutrality has no relation to getting internet access to all geographic areas of the country.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.

...

Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)

...

Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II simply because it is a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

A telephone transmission is simply an electronic transmission of audio( voice). It was back in the 30's that the federal government created the Bell System and regulate it so that more Americans could have access.
Internet service providers transmit data. Not the same thing as a voice transmission. ISP's for the most part and unless operated by a telco, do not use the same wires as the teclos

 

[Nyvin]

Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:

"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."

This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.

The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.

If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.

Like I said, you need to read what's in it before you pass it, Nancy. You do understand this is enforced by the government, right? Did it ever occur to you that the government is the one legalizing or illegalizing what content can be allowed or disallowed?

They can do that already....

Actually, no.It cannot.
THat's the primary focus of this ruling. To regulate content. Read "crush dissenting voices and "limit political discourse" to the liking of those in power.

Umm..yes they can. Trading with enemy act? Digital Millennium Copyright Act? As long as it passes congress and the courts they fully are able to.

 

[Flash]

There is no reason for the FCC to do anything. The Internet is not broke. It is only being done to get more government control for the purpose of taxation and to impose a political agenda on Americans. Typical government oppression. The government can't stand freedom. Thanks a lot Obama. You are fundamentally changing America, for the worse, you sonofabitch.

 

[OKTexas]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.

...

Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)

...

Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

They don't.....VoIP service is an internet transmission where data is converted into audio....If you wanted to pursue that logic, then services that offer internet streaming could be classified as "television"....As you know TV broadcasters are licensed by the FCC and every 5 years must petition the FCC and provide a period for public commentary for license renewal. Also in that public commentary is a provision that commercial over the air stations must act "in the public interest"...

What do you think is coming here, title 2 brings with it a requirement that an ISP serve the public good, just like TV stations, this is going to open a huge can of worms that will take years to sort out in the courts, unless congress gets involved and that will require a veto override. The dear leader won't go quietly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The speed shouldn't be bought or sold. Making it equal across the board actually makes business more competitive.

Once again you've hit the jackpot of stupidity.
There are costs involved, both fiscal and physical, which make it impossible for internet access to be "equal"...
For example, it is cost prohibitive for a provider to install physical plant ( wires) to every corner of the country. And in many cases, downright impossible.
Such a mandate would be so costly that it make the consumer price unaffordable. Unless of course the federal government offers hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax breaks.
Of course the subsidies would have to be paid for. Meaning, consumers would be paying a federal internet tax which would of course make access unaffordable to many more people. This would create the opposite effect of the proposed regulations.

Net Neutrality has no relation to getting internet access to all geographic areas of the country.

Of course it does. Hence the interjection of "fairness".
This applies especially to urban areas.
ISP's are not required like telcos to run their wires into areas where business will not be profitable.
Cable tv companies rules vary as per franchise agreements with individual municipalities.
ISP's are under no such regulations. The Obama admin sees this as "unfair". And if the White House gets his way, watch out... We will all be paying more. MUCH more.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

For purely political reasons.
This is nothing more than pandering to a voting base.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[thereisnospoon]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

THat's because your local telco is providing BOTH.
The voice part is a "regulated carrier"...The other part, data, is not a regulated carrier. And actually the term "line" is a misnomer. The data is carried on a different pipeline than the voice. The proof of that is that you can use your telephone while using the internet. With dial up, you could not. That is because the internet was carried on the same actual conductor(s) as the voice comm.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:

"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."

This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.

The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.

If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.

Like I said, you need to read what's in it before you pass it, Nancy. You do understand this is enforced by the government, right? Did it ever occur to you that the government is the one legalizing or illegalizing what content can be allowed or disallowed?

They can do that already....

And that sir, is the problem.

 

[OKTexas]

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

THat's because your local telco is providing BOTH.
The voice part is a "regulated carrier"...The other part, data, is not a regulated carrier. And actually the term "line" is a misnomer. The data is carried on a different pipeline than the voice. The proof of that is that you can use your telephone while using the internet. With dial up, you could not. That is because the internet was carried on the same actual conductor(s) as the voice comm.

Hate to tell there kiddo, you're wrong. I have one pair of wires coming in my house, it requires a filter to separate the signals, they are both carried on that one pair.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The best thing about this thread is that the OP.....an unemployed taker....is suggesting that he might have his high speed internet......which is paid for by his Granny...slowed down to match the poor people's speeds.

Weeeeeee!

Actually you just explained government control perfectly. The internet will be slowed down to the lowest denominator of speed for it to be fair. Nice job.