The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained

[idb]

Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.

Absolutely. Internet access will be loaded up with all kinds of new fees and taxes.
These new regs will include mandates that for example guarantee high speed internet( HSI) to the most remote of places. THat will cost a ton of money. And of course the ISP's will be offered tax breaks and subsidies. The cost of which will be passed along to current users.
I would guess the cost of these fees and taxes will add perhaps 20 to 30% to our prices. And of course those unable or those who find ways to game the system will pay less..or nothing. That is the government's idea of "equal access"...

Wow - 20 to 30%!!!
Your guess is as high as that?
No wonder you're upset.

Ok....When I had my own phone when I was living at home before the govt broke up the Bell System, I was paying $9 per month for my service.
In a year's time after the break up in 1985, my bill doubled....For precisely the SAME service....
I bet you think this new regulation is going to result in lower bills and faster speeds, correct?
Delusional.....

Wow - you bet I'm thinking that do you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks

Damn, I only have to pay $30 and am suppose to get 1.50 Mps download speeds, I don't, last speed test was .89 Mps. I have Peoplepc which is also Earthlink but they have their own home page.

Note my upload and download speeds. My son is playing on line video game right now...So that slows it down a bit.

 

[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.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 yes he is.....Net Neutrality A Free and Open Internet The White House
BTW notice the word "Free" here.. The internet is NOT nor should it ever be "free"....Everything has a cost and a price......BTW, Obama is not going pro consumer here. His desire is to regulate content. Specifically political commentary. The liberal democrats cannot stand it that their monopoly on media no longer stands. The internet is the ultimate in public free speech broadcasting. Information is power. Liberals are opposed to anyone other than they having access to such power. Liberals seek to control this and in doing so, will suppress political discourse by controlling information. This is done by regulating content. Just wait and see.
As for your denial that Obama is not in support of net neutrality....What ******* planet do you live on?

What the hell is it with right wingers fear of taxes?

If anything Republicans would support some kind of tax on the internet because it's a consumption tax and thus would affect the poor more then the wealthy. And if anything the Democrats would oppose it more then the Republicans.

We do not fear taxes. We are angered by them. We oppose them because politicians not only are constantly searching for ways to extract more of our earnings, but are also busily trying to find things on which to spend the money.
We already taxed to the breaking point. And the kicker is government uses no discretion. No fiscal responsibility.
We demand accountability and get all kinds of nonsense excuses as to why it is 'none of our business'...Just pay up and shut up....
Gee, why not just tax us all 100% and let the politicians dole it out as they see fit?
Worked real well for the USSR, didn't it?
Look, your lack of understanding or you pure opposition to anything private sector is not my problem. If you think government needs more, write a check. Stay the hell out of my wallet.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

I never said they could,....But it's coming. Years ago cable tv and telcos were banned from producing and/or owning pay tv channels. They do now.
IN fact one of them owns an entire TV Network... Comcast.
And if you don't think there ar fast lanes now, you are sorely mistaken.
For example, Business Internet Overview Time Warner Cable Business Class
Here a business can pay a premium price for a "fast lane"....Nothing wrong with that.
It's simple. If one wants more, they can pay for it....
It's the same as one who wants a Mercedes AMG with a 600HP engine so they can drive NASCAR like speed on the highway and one who can afford to own one of these cars.
Is it your premise that vehicle manufacturers be subject to your "level playing field"?
So lets say they do..Guess what happens? The auto company will simply stop making the better cars.
With these new regs, the ISP's will stop providing the faster speeds to their premium customers.
Surely you do not believe the FCC's decision is going to result in those faster lanes at cheap prices because "the government says so", do you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Of course they do....Those company managements know darned well they've been getting a bargain up until now. it's time for them to start paying for what they are using.

 

[OKTexas]

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks

Damn, I only have to pay $30 and am suppose to get 1.50 Mps download speeds, I don't, last speed test was .89 Mps. I have Peoplepc which is also Earthlink but they have their own home page.

View attachment 37249

Note my upload and download speeds. My son is playing on line video game right now...So that slows it down a bit.

I'm seriously considering going with satellite they are talking 17Mps, which is almost 11 times faster than I'm supposed to have now, way more than that of what I'm actually getting. It starts at $50 month and I could do away with my land line and spend less than I am now. Only draw back as with any satellite system is it's vulnerable to weather.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You have the older DSL as opposed to the newer technology ADSL.
Yeah, you have the DSL filters on your land line handset(s)....
In any event, for practical purposes the voice part of your service is a regulated carrier. The data you receive over that line is not subject to the regulated carrier rules because it is not deemed a necessary or basic need..That is the definition of a public utility. For example. One cannot survive without a water supply. One would have a difficult time getting by without a way to communicate with local public safety( via telephone..One can easily survive or get by without access to the internet. One can just go to the library or other public place and access it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks

Damn, I only have to pay $30 and am suppose to get 1.50 Mps download speeds, I don't, last speed test was .89 Mps. I have Peoplepc which is also Earthlink but they have their own home page.

View attachment 37249

Note my upload and download speeds. My son is playing on line video game right now...So that slows it down a bit.

I'm seriously considering going with satellite they are talking 17Mps, which is almost 11 times faster than I'm supposed to have now, way more than that of what I'm actually getting. It starts at $50 month and I could do away with my land line and spend less than I am now. Only draw back as with any satellite system is it's vulnerable to weather.

Here's an example...I would be very careful as satellite internet is data limited. Much like your cell phone internet services.
HughesNet Plans and Pricing High Speed Rural Satellite Internet
Having experience with satellite, I can warn you that in cases of inclement weather such as heavy rain, lightning activity in the southern sky, snowfall, and icing, you can lose your service until the adverse situation clears.
If there are other wire line options, I recommend you look at those first.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Idiot I mocked the OP's lack of understanding. And now I mock yours.

Keep mocking. It doesn't change the facts.
You support this why? Just what do you think is going to happen that will benefit you?
Or is this political?

 

[OKTexas]

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks

Damn, I only have to pay $30 and am suppose to get 1.50 Mps download speeds, I don't, last speed test was .89 Mps. I have Peoplepc which is also Earthlink but they have their own home page.

View attachment 37249

Note my upload and download speeds. My son is playing on line video game right now...So that slows it down a bit.

I'm seriously considering going with satellite they are talking 17Mps, which is almost 11 times faster than I'm supposed to have now, way more than that of what I'm actually getting. It starts at $50 month and I could do away with my land line and spend less than I am now. Only draw back as with any satellite system is it's vulnerable to weather.

Here's an example...I would be very careful as satellite internet is data limited. Much like your cell phone internet services.
HughesNet Plans and Pricing High Speed Rural Satellite Internet
Having experience with satellite, I can warn you that in cases of inclement weather such as heavy rain, lightning activity in the southern sky, snowfall, and icing, you can lose your service until the adverse situation clears.
If there are other wire line options, I recommend you look at those first.

I live out in the boonies, there are no other options, I was looking at Exceed satellite, they have speeds more than double that of Hughesnet 17 vs. 7 and for the same money. I haven't checked on availability yet.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?

You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?

You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.

I didn't do anything. I happen to be an American citizen being adversely affected by this "net neutrality." I had no say over what went on during that vote. None of us did. But you are too blind and naive to realize that.

What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?

 

[sealybobo]

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?

You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.

I didn't do anything. I happen to be an American citizen being adversely affected by this "net neutrality." I had no say over what went on during that vote. None of us did. But you are too blind and naive to realize that.

What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?

I say give the corporations control and let them control it like they do the media and phones and healthcare. Charge you however much they think they can get away with. If you people mattered you would have voted in the last midterms and you would have voted Democratic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you people mattered you would have voted in the last midterms and you would have voted Democratic.

In your dreams wiseass. This power grab is exactly why your party was crushed in the midterms. Prime example. You treat people like votes, not people. So spare me your lectures.

I say give the corporations control and let them control it like they do the media and phones and healthcare.

I'm sure the leftist media is in good hands. And healthcare, like our internet, is under government control. Enjoy the fruits of your sordid sense of justice. You coward.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And besides, you didn't answer my question. You say we don't care about the workers, just the consumers, but you ignore the fact they can be both. So I will repeat the question again:

What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Bet you the corporations win this one.

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?

You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.

I didn't do anything. I happen to be an American citizen being adversely affected by this "net neutrality." I had no say over what went on during that vote. None of us did. But you are too blind and naive to realize that.

What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?

How exactly are you currently being adversely affected by "net neutrality"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes...Those EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL corporations. Without which where do we find all those people new jobs?

We understand we need them. Its them and you who forgot you need us too. You don't respect workers just consumers

Those workers are consumers too, smart alec. Do what do you propose we do? Take their rights as consumers away?

You already did when you sent their jobs overseas. They stopped consuming.

I didn't do anything. I happen to be an American citizen being adversely affected by this "net neutrality." I had no say over what went on during that vote. None of us did. But you are too blind and naive to realize that.

What about the workers here? They haven't gone anywhere? So, what makes them any different than consumers? Perhaps they consume the services they provide. Why is it wrong to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labor simply because greedy, avaricious people like you can enjoy "neutrality?" Why place restraints on the majesty of their work? What gives you the right to deprive them of that?

How exactly are you currently being adversely affected by "net neutrality"?

How? Have you not been paying any attention this entire time? When this thing goes into full force, my internet speed will be slowed down, the government will use this as a way to milk more taxes from the public. The company that provides my internet will have to hire a legal teams to comply with these new regulations, and thusly they have to pass on the costs of those legal teams on to the customers. Our speech will be regulated, content will be able to be deemed acceptable or unacceptable according to the government's own imperatorious whims.

Naturally, I gather you see nothing wrong with this, so I might be just wasting my time here in the first place.