The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained

[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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

 

[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.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Okay then -

Post a link that proves President Obama is "behind" net neutrality and that its a racial issue.

You can't because neither is true.

Like I said, you're an idiot.

Did you ever figure out the difference between "protesting" and "looting"?

 

[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?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

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

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

 

[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.

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.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Okay then -

Post a link that proves President Obama is "behind" net neutrality and that its a racial issue.

You can't because neither is true.

Like I said, you're an idiot.

Did you ever figure out the difference between "protesting" and "looting"?

Obama has stated that it needed to be past, it needed to be passed. Don't you listen to him? I can tell you just read talking points. Yes I figured it out did you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Basically, it is the way the service is delivered to the end user that determines whether the cable provider is regulated under Title II in my opinion.

 

[PredFan]

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

 

[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?

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.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

You ignorant bastard. This was passed, once again, with only democrat votes. Has anybody even seen the new rules? No? Are we ever going to get to see them? Or do we just get little gems of democrat mouse turds dropped on us one at a time?

Oh and here's your link you uninformed moron Cable companies stunned by Obama s extreme net neutrality proposals Technology The Guardian

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

It was thee FCC's grab at remaining relevant and therefore maintaining a seat at the tax payer dollar trough. It is also obie's way of making sure only the right message gets out there for thee rubes to soak up.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

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

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

Did someone say they don't know that equality on the internet is threatened by the very Big Business money you worship?

Else, there would be no need to insure "net neutrality".

See how that works?