Big Internet Firms to Oppose GOP Plans to Roll Back Net-Neutrality Rules

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
39,112
The Wall Street Journal today has a story about The Internet Association, a trade group consisting of companies such as Netflix and Facebook resisting the GOP's plans to roll back Net Neutrality protections. While there were no announcements from individual member companies, the trade group notified FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a meeting that it "continues its vigorous support of the FCC’s [net-neutrality] order".

The association has previously argued that reclassification of internet-service providers as common carriers isn’t necessary to effective open-internet regulation. Still, Tuesday’s regulatory filing suggests the group has begun to mount a vigorous defense of the existing FCC rules. Notably, the group said the rules should be enforced by the FCC.

Please remember that uncivil political arguments will get the thread shut down and potentially worse.
 
In looking at this bill, it appears that there was a ton of shit that had nothing to do with Net Neutrality that was attached to the bill.

From my understanding, they are repealing the bill in whole to get rid of all the bullshit attached to it, and then will attempt to pass another net neutrality bill that doesn't have all the strings attached.
 
Of course these companies would take this position, as it benefits them financially. Can't read the article, due to the paywall of WSJ, so I can't comment on specifics. Is this a repeal of a bill previously passed by Congress, or a repeal of the regulations imposed by the FCC? If it is the latter, I will wholly applaud the current congress's actions, as I do not believe the FCC has the authority to "declare" what industries they can regulate. That takes an act of congress. Once the FCC's overreach is fixed, then we can have a debate simply on the merits of "Net Neutrality" and how to (and if to) implement it.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
In looking at this bill, it appears that there was a ton of shit that had nothing to do with Net Neutrality that was attached to the bill.

From my understanding, they are repealing the bill in whole to get rid of all the bullshit attached to it, and then will attempt to pass another net neutrality bill that doesn't have all the strings attached.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what bill your reading (I believe congress creates bills), but the FCC created an "Open Internet Order".

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order
 
jardows said:
Of course these companies would take this position, as it benefits them financially. Can't read the article, due to the paywall of WSJ, so I can't comment on specifics. Is this a repeal of a bill previously passed by Congress, or a repeal of the regulations imposed by the FCC? If it is the latter, I will wholly applaud the current congress's actions, as I do not believe the FCC has the authority to "declare" what industries they can regulate. That takes an act of congress. Once the FCC's overreach is fixed, then we can have a debate simply on the merits of "Net Neutrality" and how to (and if to) implement it.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's what I was trying to say before but didn't have the information at my fingertips and read it a while ago. The original Net Neutrality law was an over-reach by government.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Thank you, that's what I was trying to say before but didn't have the information at my fingertips and read it a while ago. The original Net Neutrality law was an over-reach by government.
Click to expand...
I know it may be semantics, but what the FCC did was not "a law" but "a regulation." Laws can only be enacted if passed by Congress and signed by the President. Regulations are when executive, un-elected agencies are given leeway from the law to make "rules" to enforce the "law." With the broad scope of the USA government now, this is necessary, but the agencies only can regulate in the specific areas they are given authority by Congress. The FCC had no authority to declare the Internet a communication utility under their authority, and thus had no legal basis to implement Net Neutrality rules. It is this kind of un-elected overreach that gave us 1776, and it needs to be reigned in before we have another "event" like that.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Read what Jardows said - he covered why I was trying (poorly) to communicate. This going away is a GOOD thing. A net neutrality law should be a net neutrality law - not a law that gives the government more power under the veneer of net neutrality.
Click to expand...

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as an independent U.S. government agency and is directly responsible to Congress. The FCC regulates interstate (between states) and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories

The FCC did reclassify ISPs under Title II, the commission said would use its authority to forbear, or selectively decide not to enforce sections of the Communications Act that it decides don’t apply to broadband. For those of you keeping score at home, Wheeler’s proposal said that if it does decide to reclassify ISPs, the FCC would likely forbear from applying all but sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 254, and 255 of Title II.

Staying away from Politics... can you explain how they don't have the power to do this?
 
Last edited:
So Google, FB and other internet content providers want to vigorously defend rules that give them a HUGE competitive advantage over the Telcos, Cablecos and other ISPs, attempting to enforce privacy rules on others that do not apply to them.

What a shocker...
 
PigLover said:
So Google, FB and other internet content providers want to vigorously defend rules that give them a HUGE competitive advantage over the Telcos, Cablecos and other ISPs, attempting to enforce privacy rules on others that do not apply to them.

What a shocker...
Click to expand...

Privacy and Net Neutrality are two completely separate things. This deals with Net Neutrality, not privacy. Your argument makes sense for the privacy side, where ISP's were being forced to comply with privacy protections that the likes of Google and Facebook weren't, but that fight is more or less over. Those privacy requirements are now gone.

Personally, I'd rather have partial privacy than no privacy at all, but the argument that different companies were being treated differently was a valid one, it just doesn't apply here.

Net Neutrality is what prevents ISP's from trying to control what content you can consume by throttling/blocking/etc. things they don't like, like for instance, blocking (or slowing down to the point where it is useless) Netflix, because it provides a video service that competes with their On Demand cable services.

Pretty much everyone in the know (except ISP's and Telco's which ave a HUGE lobby) agrees that Net Neutrality is essential to the proper functioning of the internet, and that it would be very bad if ISP's could block competitors or extort companies by demanding extra payments from them to reach their users.
 
jardows said:
I know it may be semantics, but what the FCC did was not "a law" but "a regulation." Laws can only be enacted if passed by Congress and signed by the President. Regulations are when executive, un-elected agencies are given leeway from the law to make "rules" to enforce the "law." With the broad scope of the USA government now, this is necessary, but the agencies only can regulate in the specific areas they are given authority by Congress. The FCC had no authority to declare the Internet a communication utility under their authority, and thus had no legal basis to implement Net Neutrality rules. It is this kind of un-elected overreach that gave us 1776, and it needs to be reigned in before we have another "event" like that.
Click to expand...

That is US revisionist history, speaking as a US citizen. The masses didn't care until the rich landlords and merchants that didn't want to pay taxes to support the soldiers that defended them told them they should care.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Thank you, that's what I was trying to say before but didn't have the information at my fingertips and read it a while ago. The original Net Neutrality law was an over-reach by government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't believe this is correct.

You are right that laws usually have unrelated provisions in them to get lawmakers on the fence to support them, but in this case, the current Net Neutrality protections were not put in place with a law. There is no Net Neutrality law to overturn. Net Neutrality protections were put in place through executive action via the FCC reclassifying ISP's.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
the trade group notified FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a meeting that it "continues its vigorous support of the FCC’s [net-neutrality] order".
Click to expand...

And Pai response was "Well, do you have a counter offer in the form of bribes,,,err...political contributions?"

Yeah, this country is a joke.
 
Tsumi said:
That is US revisionist history, speaking as a US citizen. The masses didn't care until the rich landlords and merchants that didn't want to pay taxes to support the soldiers that defended them told them they should care.
Click to expand...
I suggest you go read the complete text of the Declaration of Independence, and tell me how "revisionist" I am. Besides, even if your totally jaded view is correct, there's nothing to stop the same thing from happening again if appointed bueraucrats continue to overreach with "regulations" instead of "laws" passed by a representative legislature.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
In looking at this bill, it appears that there was a ton of shit that had nothing to do with Net Neutrality that was attached to the bill.

From my understanding, they are repealing the bill in whole to get rid of all the bullshit attached to it, and then will attempt to pass another net neutrality bill that doesn't have all the strings attached.
Click to expand...

And it means that if you don't want it to rain on your house, it's probably not the right idea to classify your house as a desert (apple vs. orange).

Net neutrality FCC style made no sense at all except in spirit. Now maybe we can get something sane in place (and keeping in the same spirit of intent without being stoopid). Go ahead and flame, lots of hate out there...
 
Incumbent telco monopolies vs internet age pioneers. Who has the bigger pockets?

I'm siding with the pioneers only because it's pro-consumer and pro-free market, but the money politics is just sad stuff either way.
 
I am a bit surprised at all the net neutrality hate on a tech site. You're fighting semantics with "it's a regulation not a law" and people we elected made the group that regulated, but indirect or something". You're using pussy terms like "badly implemented" or "contained bullshit attached to it." without actually saying what the bullshit was or what was implanted bad.

cjcox, jardows, zion et al., why don't you explain to us how Net Neutrality, as it was recently implemented, is bad for the consumer.
 
cjcox said:
Net neutrality FCC style made no sense at all except in spirit. Now maybe we can get something sane in place (and keeping in the same spirit of intent without being stoopid). Go ahead and flame, lots of hate out there...
Click to expand...
What exactly is stupid about the FCC's Net Neutrality?

PigLover said:
So Google, FB and other internet content providers want to vigorously defend rules that give them a HUGE competitive advantage over the Telcos, Cablecos and other ISPs, attempting to enforce privacy rules on others that do not apply to them.

What a shocker...
Click to expand...
Think of it like this, if ISPs could control what bandwidth is allowed to go through and what is or isn't capped, then you're paying more for less. Why would you want to pay more for less?
 
Net neutrality is a consumer friendly concept. Unless you have lots of shares in a company like Comcast or AT&T, and stand to financially benefit from them using their monopoly power to fuck people over even more than they already are, you should be for it.
 
Last edited:
DocFaustus said:
I am a bit surprised at all the net neutrality hate on a tech site. You're fighting semantics with "it's a regulation not a law" and people we elected made the group that regulated, but indirect or something". You're using pussy terms like "badly implemented" or "contained bullshit attached to it." without actually saying what the bullshit was or what was implanted bad.

cjcox, jardows, zion et al., why don't you explain to us how Net Neutrality, as it was recently implemented, is bad for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Jardows did that (I admitted already my attempt was poorly worded). Its one thing to demand proof - its entirely another to have it provided to you, only for you to IGNORE it and THEN demand proof. By doing the latter, it shows proof is not what you are really after.
 
jardows said:
I suggest you go read the complete text of the Declaration of Independence, and tell me how "revisionist" I am. Besides, even if your totally jaded view is correct, there's nothing to stop the same thing from happening again if appointed bueraucrats continue to overreach with "regulations" instead of "laws" passed by a representative legislature.
Click to expand...

Declaration of Independence proves nothing. Wars are started for monetary gain or power. Never is war started for noble purposes. That is also why this won't lead to a war, because there is no monetary gain or power gain to be had by the rich.
 
The global situation of large corporations controlling the governments of the world is really becoming a huge problem.

"If you don't use our product in a way that allows us to make a killing as opposed to charging a fair and reasonable price than we'll just put pressure on the government to change the laws until you have no choice but to use out product the way we desire paying the fees we demand!"

The idea of a stock market and looking after shareholders isn't helping either.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Jardows did that (I admitted already my attempt was poorly worded). Its one thing to demand proof - its entirely another to have it provided to you, only for you to IGNORE it and THEN demand proof. By doing the latter, it shows proof is not what you are really after.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. He said

Of course these companies would take this position, as it benefits them financially. Can't read the article, due to the paywall of WSJ, so I can't comment on specifics. Is this a repeal of a bill previously passed by Congress, or a repeal of the regulations imposed by the FCC? If it is the latter, I will wholly applaud the current congress's actions, as I do not believe the FCC has the authority to "declare" what industries they can regulate. That takes an act of congress. Once the FCC's overreach is fixed, then we can have a debate simply on the merits of "Net Neutrality" and how to (and if to) implement it.
Click to expand...

He is saying that he does not believe the FCC has the authority.... He then goes on to say we can talk about the merits of NN later. That is a complete dodge

I say fuck that. Tell me what you think is wrong with Net Neutrality and how it does not benefit the consumer as it stands today.

You don't have to wait for Jardows, you can answer with your own words
 
I'm also shocked by all the net neutrality hate in this thread. Listen, there is such a thing as overreach/over-regulation, but the ISPs need some taming. Capitalist forces simply can't make them play nice. No competition = nothing to stop them from treating us poorly. It's the same thing with health care in this country. All of the consolidation has created regional monopolies and it's going to take more than the free market to drive costs down. I know some of you distrust the government by default, but do you really trust the Comcasts of the world to look out for you absent anything to force them to behave?
 
MarkVI said:
I'm also shocked by all the net neutrality hate in this thread. Listen, there is such a thing as overreach/over-regulation, but the ISPs need some taming. Capitalist forces simply can't make them play nice. No competition = nothing to stop them from treating us poorly. It's the same thing with health care in this country. All of the consolidation has created regional monopolies and it's going to take more than the free market to drive costs down. I know some of you distrust the government by default, but do you really trust the Comcasts of the world to look out for you absent anything to force them to behave?
Click to expand...

I'm about 99% sure that government regulations are what allowed these monopolies to occur in the first place. Who are the ones that require exorbitant licensing fees and construction permits to lay down internet lines, effectively preventing small startups from making any headway? Collusion between big companies and governments is not a new nor unknown phenomenon.
 
jardows said:
Of course these companies would take this position, as it benefits them financially. Can't read the article, due to the paywall of WSJ, so I can't comment on specifics. Is this a repeal of a bill previously passed by Congress, or a repeal of the regulations imposed by the FCC? If it is the latter, I will wholly applaud the current congress's actions, as I do not believe the FCC has the authority to "declare" what industries they can regulate. That takes an act of congress. Once the FCC's overreach is fixed, then we can have a debate simply on the merits of "Net Neutrality" and how to (and if to) implement it.
Click to expand...

Courts have repeatedly confirmed that it was within the FCC's authority to reclassify internet providers as common carriers. AKA, regardless of your opinion, it IS and WAS well within the rights and authority granted to the FCC by congress and the president.
 
Tsumi said:
I'm about 99% sure that government regulations are what allowed these monopolies to occur in the first place. Who are the ones that require exorbitant licensing fees and construction permits to lay down internet lines, effectively preventing small startups from making any headway? Collusion between big companies and governments is not a new nor unknown phenomenon.
Click to expand...

The majority of the costs with installing internet communications infrastructure has nothing to do with government. It really is quite expensive to install fiber even when you already have all the right of ways required. Right of ways are generally not government controlled and about the only thing the government can do is force equal access to municipal rights of way (which is pretty standard). All existing regulations preventing more competition and overbuild are at the state and local levels which Wheeler's FCC was fighting tooth and nail in order to allow more competition. In stark contrast, Pai's FCC has been bending over backwards to give the monopoly incumbents exactly what they want. As far as congress, the congress on internet related issues is very much anti-competition and anti-privacy as shown by their committee leaderships and actions like overturning the existing FCC privacy rules. The republican controlled congress very much does not have the people's best interest in mind when it comes to anything internet related.
 
aaronspink said:
Courts have repeatedly confirmed that it was within the FCC's authority to reclassify internet providers as common carriers. AKA, regardless of your opinion, it IS and WAS well within the rights and authority granted to the FCC by congress and the president.
Click to expand...
And the courts always get it right. Just like they did in Dred Scott and Brown vs. Topeka.

I don't like the government regulating every area of our lives. If it weren't for the government enforced monopolies of the line Internet providers (despite what aaronspink said, local and state governments often have rules that prohibit any other companies from even applying to lay down new lines - my local government is one of them), then the choice in providers would result in an Industry set neutrality. Government regulation has created a situation where there is a "need" for more government regulation!

The funny thing is, when people started pushing hard for NN, there was no evidence that there were any practices by ISP's that would require it - it was just that they could restrict traffic. Subsequent to the conversation, there has arose situations where ISP's are charging more for high bandwidth services (netflix mainly), but it is almost as if the NN proponents gave them the idea!
 
jardows said:
And the courts always get it right. Just like they did in Dred Scott and Brown vs. Topeka.
Click to expand...

In this case, yes the courts got it right as the laws authorizing the FCC specifically allow them to do what they did by the letter of the law. The FCC ruling of Title II classification was well within their authority and isn't even in dispute among people familiar with the laws (it should be pointed out that many of these same services were already at one point under Title II classification and the telecoms lobbied to get that changed). Nor was Title II how the FCC wanted to enforce NN, but the courts ruled that Title II service classification was the only way the FCC could enforce it. In fact Title II service classification is the only way at all that internet service can be regulated generally because pretty much all major providers provide some prior existing Title II service which renders them effectively immune from any regulation outside of Title II regulations. Basically arguing that the FCC didn't have the classification authority is something even the ISPs don't seriously argue.

I don't like the government regulating every area of our lives. If it weren't for the government enforced monopolies of the line Internet providers (despite what aaronspink said, local and state governments often have rules that prohibit any other companies from even applying to lay down new lines - my local government is one of them), then the choice in providers would result in an Industry set neutrality. Government regulation has created a situation where there is a "need" for more government regulation!
Click to expand...

As I specifically said, generally the internet monopolies tend to have local/state politicians in their pockets. The FCC even tried to override several of the backwards state and local laws and was shut down in court. Even when given the opportunity the incumbents tend not to overbuild, it often requires either municipalities or co-ops to provide competition which is why the incumbent monopolies have successfully lobbied primarily republican legislatures to ban municipalities and co-ops from either starting or expand existing services.

As far as government regulation preventing competition, that is completely orthogonal to the FCC classification issue and something the FCC has been trying to remove previously. It should also be pointed out that the point people on the republican side of the house for any new laws wrt NN or removing FCC authority are largely responsible for those anti-competition laws at the state and local levels. Thinking that replacing the FCC authority and policies with a new law from the current congress will fix things is ignorant at best.

The funny thing is, when people started pushing hard for NN, there was no evidence that there were any practices by ISP's that would require it - it was just that they could restrict traffic. Subsequent to the conversation, there has arose situations where ISP's are charging more for high bandwidth services (netflix mainly), but it is almost as if the NN proponents gave them the idea!
Click to expand...

This is unmitigated BS. There was solid and concrete evidence of multiple occasions where ISPs were engaged in practices contrary to NN. The practice of ISPs slowing down companies like Netflix was in large part the impetuous FOR NN rules and was documented as part of the rules making process. Your knowledge of the history in this area is all jumbled up and quite frankly completely incorrect.
 
Tsumi said:
I'm about 99% sure that government regulations are what allowed these monopolies to occur in the first place. Who are the ones that require exorbitant licensing fees and construction permits to lay down internet lines, effectively preventing small startups from making any headway? Collusion between big companies and governments is not a new nor unknown phenomenon.
Click to expand...

There's no question that the ISPs have managed to legislate themselves monopolies in some places, but I don't see how deregulation would solve the problem. Even if you deregulate, laying the lines is VERY expensive. Where would a small startup get the capital? There's a reason all of the big players are former telephone and cable companies that have lots of cash and experience with laying lines, getting easements, etc.
 
"Net Neutrality protections."

Really? We're going to refer to government REGULATIONS as 'protections'. HardOCP must have had to hire a liberal writer to meet it's diversity goals, because "PROTECTIONS" is the carefully chosen liberal feminized euphemism to imply that government REGULATIONS are absolutely, unquestionably good.

It's similar to how the left started referring to TAXES as the more positive sounding "revenue".
 
GlowingGhoul said:
"Net Neutrality protections."

Really? We're going to refer to government REGULATIONS as 'protections'. HardOCP must have had to hire a liberal writer to meet it's diversity goals, because "PROTECTIONS" is the carefully chosen liberal feminized euphemism to imply that government REGULATIONS are absolutely, unquestionably good.

It's similar to how the left started referring to TAXES as the more positive sounding "revenue".
Click to expand...
Na, I just switched to gender fluid and identify as Samoan today. Diversity problem fixed!
 
The entire issue of "Net Neutrality" has been carefully used as a wedge for a purpose that has NOTHING to do with protecting consumer interests. Unless you believe a man who's entire career was built on lobbying for cable companies suddenly became pro-consumer.

Net Neutrality can be made a matter of law, by legislation being passed by Congress. In fact, this was proposed as an alternative, but the Democrat commissioners on the FCC acted with lightening speed to push out new so-called "Net neutrality" regulations in the waning days of the Obama administration.

Why? Why would something supposedly so important be implemented by an easily overturned FCC 'rule' instead of much more durable laws?

Because it's about establishing a precedent, expanding the FCC's authority into areas they NEVER exercised any control of before.

The FCC's self-granted expanded powers, left unchallenged, would leave them in a position to start controlling content, and that's the power the Democrats want the FCC to have.

It would open the door to the ideas being thrown around left wing think tanks. Next it'll be the FCC's job to regulate 'hate speech' on the internet, to define what is and isn't 'fake news', and if you can control information, you control the populace.

Don't think so? Recall the FCC getting involved and issuing punishments for Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction? That's television content control, and if "net neutrality": is within the FCC's authority so is internet content control.

"Net Neutrality" is being used the same way children are invoked every time another 2nd amendment rights restriction is attempted.
 
From 7 years ago, when the EFF was still honest about this issue:

4/11/10

The EFF, a strong proponent of Net Neutrality, has also expressed concern: “While we’re big fans of net neutrality, we worry that the FCC may want to build its net neutrality regulations on a rotten legal foundation,”Title I ‘ancillary authority’ which is both discredited and unbounded. As we’ve said before, if ancillary jurisdiction is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the commission dreams up (including things we won’t like, like decency rules and copyright filtering).”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carnes/net-neutrality--can-we-tr_b_609392.html
 
GlowingGhoul said:
The entire issue of "Net Neutrality" has been carefully used as a wedge for a purpose that has NOTHING to do with protecting consumer interests. Unless you believe a man who's entire career was built on lobbying for cable companies suddenly became pro-consumer.
Click to expand...

NN has everything to do with protecting consumer interests. Anyone saying otherwise is likely trying to sell you something or rob you. As for Wheeler being the one to push it through, sure it was a bit of a surprise but his actions as FCC chair were basically diametrically opposed to the corporations he once worked for and aligned with consumer interest.

Net Neutrality can be made a matter of law, by legislation being passed by Congress. In fact, this was proposed as an alternative, but the Democrat commissioners on the FCC acted with lightening speed to push out new so-called "Net neutrality" regulations in the waning days of the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Congress is still perfectly capable of passing NN laws. But it should be pointed out that the only proposals put out by the majority party of congress were only NN laws in the very Orwellian sense. They were last ditch attempts by the incumbent monopolies to derail the NN rule making that was happening in the FCC and instead of protecting NN, they would of made it both perfectly legal to violate basically every tenet of NN and basically removed the ability for any governmental oversight or other consumer protections.


Why? Why would something supposedly so important be implemented by an easily overturned FCC 'rule' instead of much more durable laws?
Click to expand...

FCC rule making is pretty involved and not so easy to overturn. As you notice, Pai hasn't been able to remove Title II classification yet because it is a quite involved process and he knows that the commentary that he would likely have to ignore to push it through would tie up the classification change for years in court .

Because it's about establishing a precedent, expanding the FCC's authority into areas they NEVER exercised any control of before.

The FCC's self-granted expanded powers, left unchallenged, would leave them in a position to start controlling content, and that's the power the Democrats want the FCC to have.
Click to expand...

The FCC always had authority over internet communications. That was literally never in doubt (hell a large portion of the services were originally classified as Title II before lobbying got the FCC to reclassify). Anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignorant of the law. The FCC isn't relying on any self-granted powers, they are relying on confered powers from both the congressional and executive branches via a collections of laws passed by congress and signed by the president and upheld by the courts (and yes for anyone counting that's literally all three branches of the US government). Likewise, anyone claiming otherwise is at best ignorant of the law. And Title II doesn't give them the power to control content.

Don't think so? Recall the FCC getting involved and issuing punishments for Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction? That's television content control, and if "net neutrality": is within the FCC's authority so is internet content control.
Click to expand...

The FCC regulation of broadcast television is mandated by congress. The FCC has not authority over internet content and has stated so on multiple occasions. The ability to regulate broadcast television comes from an entire different part of the laws that authorize the FCC and are completely independent of Title II classification.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
From 7 years ago, when the EFF was still honest about this issue:

4/11/10

The EFF, a strong proponent of Net Neutrality, has also expressed concern: “While we’re big fans of net neutrality, we worry that the FCC may want to build its net neutrality regulations on a rotten legal foundation,”Title I ‘ancillary authority’ which is both discredited and unbounded. As we’ve said before, if ancillary jurisdiction is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the commission dreams up (including things we won’t like, like decency rules and copyright filtering).”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carnes/net-neutrality--can-we-tr_b_609392.html
Click to expand...

And NN is not based on Title I ancillary authority but on Title II classification and authority. Got any more BS strawmen you want to throw down?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top