of the appeals court ruling?

Then we'll know what's allowed.

should be written, especially since Verizon has already taken action against Netflix based on that January ruling.

Doing it your way would leave consumers at risk of having no applicable rules to address the current status.

Further...the FCC may not appeal to SCOTUS for two reasons: 1) the current makeup of SCOTUS may leave us with an even worse ruling. Who knows what the heck Kennedy would do?
2) There may not be appeal grounds.

So why don't you do this service for DU, Manny....

Take the January ruling, and state your grounds of appeal??????

That's why we hired Obama. He said he'd take of us, not AT&T.

You should be demanding Obama take care of business.

Gawd, he is the president ya know? He can snap his fingers and save us from this crap. But no, you go after DUers to do the work of the congress and President?

What some people will do to prop up Obama's bad governing is astounding........

So he's absolved of saying one thing and doing something else? I see where you're coming from.

The business Obama needs to look after is the little guys', not Comcast, et al.

He is obviously not paying attention to what the poor need, but rather what the rich wish to hoard.

Hate saying this about the man, but damn, it's true.

time, I really, really doubt he can snap his fingers at them. And the DC Circuit court--which handed down the 3-0 January decision that tanked the 2010 net neutrality rules.....he can't snap his fingers at them, either.

I don't think our system is set up so that the President can snap his fingers and things change.

And that chairman is a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry. You know this.

Good grief and we are accused of worshipping the POTUS! He can snap his fingers? You really think the Presidency has that kind of power and approve of that?

Nor yours afaik.

I don't post many OPs....I should change that.

Solutions require thought. Sorry, but no solution from me. My understanding of telecommunications law is sadly lacking.

laws and rulings we don't like. Right away.

Of course, that should change immediately whenever a Republican becomes president.

Easy as pie!

You know, if you did a three-circle Venn diagram on this board of posters who

1) Support Chavez/Maduro ruling by fiat, and
2) Are anti-Obama, and
3) Use the word "authoritarian" a shiteload,

you'd be unable to distinguish each circle from the next.

I call them "Putinistas".

Otherwise, it's spot on.

to me is farce.

are being laughed at.

Just because we don't want Obama to roll over for Comcast?

Yer right, the schtick is f'n amazing.

conveniently turning a blind to anti-GLBT violence.

As for this issue, I think it is a complex legal challenge, but I don't think President Obama is on the side of Comcast.

"But we can't do that because,well we just cant."

That a version of crickets too.

Or smug derision. The "adults" always know why positive action can never be taken.

And it's a big reason we're in the mess we're in.

It was exactly the same as in the 90's when the same crap went on. Critics who warned against "free trade," deregulating financial markets, the Media, Energy,etc. were told "Trust us. This is the only thing we can do. And Trust Us, it will be fine."

of implementing certain solutions.

You are welcome to disagree with people who have an idea you don't believe will work.

But don't then turn around with the other side of you face and smugly claim that no one is replying with ideas.

that has a snowball's chance in Hell of actually working.

Your snarky exchange about crickets is what prompted my comment.

my point.

Bad msanthrope.

He said the FCC needed to make a new set a regulations that re-classified broadband as telecom rather than conforming to the ruling you cited. He then went on to characterize Wheeler's proposed rules as a "sellout".

Was he wrong?

legal argument that would effectively change 30 years of the FCC not classifying Internet services as telecoms....the thing is, if you propose that the FCC suddenly reclassify, what's the legal justification you will use to 1) get enough Commission votes, and 2) pass the DC Circuit court, (and SCOTUS, where this would head) particularly in light of these two rulings:

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
FCC v. Fox Tele. Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009)

Effectively, to reclassify, you would have to prove that the past 30 years of Agency determinations, and directives have been wrong. Further, you would have to overcome the very high standard set by SCOTUS in Fox regarding industry reliance. Copps still hasn't told us HOW you do that.

Look--effectively, Copps needs to come up with a reliance argument that will pass the courts. He didn't while he was commissioner, and I don't think he will, now.

If I thought his idea had a snowball's chance in Hell of working, I'd support it.

language and the first case was the court upholding the FCC's ability to designate Internet service providers as information services but does not assert that they must designate them as such.

It is on the FCC as the regulatory body to call it. That is what the case was about is where is the authority to classify and it was found to be the FCC.

The FCC has improperly designated ISP's as information services, they are the common carrier that transports information from the actual information services who supply the content.

There is no silver bullet required here, the FCC needs to do its job and get out of the industry's pocket. They aren't providing any information. If I want information from Comcast I have to go to their shitty site and the information is about their service. They are a fucking transporter of data and it is the FCC who screwed the pooch in the first place and who is screwing it still, the court told them what to do they just do not want to do it.

Time to come down off Mount Olympus or Sinai or what ever holy mountain you think you are on and have a discussion including answering questions if you are supposed to be so knowledgeable but it isn't about you being an erudite legal beagle or the issue at all but rather giving national politicians and regulatory bodies a pass because your care neither about accountability or the welfare of the people, only propping up favored figureheads and their sponsor industries.

That's gonna leave a mark.

with the Robert's Court if you attempt a regulatory scheme change on the level that you seem to be proposing.

You say the FCC has improperly designated ISPs...okay...so how do you now change that, getting enough commissioner votes, and coming up with a legal theory that will survive court challenge? You are asking for a a change that deviates from the past 20-30 years. How do you do that?

that made designation, precedent supports their ability to make such decisions, classification hinged on either misunderstanding an emerging technology or willfully distorting the niches of the players.

What information do I get from Time Warner (soon to be Comcast)? Nothing, my information comes from content providers, they it turns out are the information services not the ISP's as the FCC inaccurately designated.

The past 10-15 years of conditions on the ground have proven the designation false and so it is justifiably change to reflect what the services actually do which is transport date from the actual information services, if the come into court trying to pretend they are information services, the court gets technical people ridiculing the idea until the courts eyes roll back in their head, I don't think there is any such argument to be made on the merits, the entire kerfuffle is caused by the regulatory body's designation error as the court advised.

They are clearly a transporter of data, that is the reality and the fix is simple not some legal labyrinth to be negotiated. This is pure want to not can do. The can do argument is a red herring.

Including six months during which he headed the FCC? AND also Wu, Columbia law professor, internet regulation expert and former legal advisor to the FCC?

I don't know whether to admire that kind of confidence or shake my head.

the success of this strategy because... remind us again?

As I suspect if you had one, you would have an OP and share it with us.

this than for the change Wheeler is proposing now. They have the authority to do it and they should do it. All the half measures they are proposing are there just for the purpose of deliberately building in weasel room.

The judge created an opening for the FCC to step in and draft a new, clearer set of rules protecting neutrality. The FCC has a powerful mandate to create rules and they chose to take a dive on Net Neutrality.

Respect.

It was a bear.

changing 30 years of regulation is a realistic solution.

I think what you do is eliminate the companies by eliminating them from the market.

Your municipal broadband alternative leaves us chasing our tails.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

and diffusing the effort into thousands of tiny battles for massive infrastructure spending on localities that cannot maintain roads or head off the coming water and sewer main crisis while they are closing schools and libraries and slashing what poor services they have in an environment where government is greedily slurping up data.

In concert with national level push for neutrality it still might be a worthy push, particularly to get the unserved and underserved folks access but as "The Fix", it is a multi decade distraction from the real issue.

There is no good reason to choose between municipal broadband and net neutrality. It is in our interests to have both as an option. Moneyed special interests are working to to ensure we have neither. And of course the logistical concerns of municipal broadband that you have noted, together with a low market share that is unlikely to grow significantly, lead me to conclude this is not a viable alternative.

bill, taking the latter approach--- is extremely low. I also note that the article does not address what would have to happen in the case of the former solution--the change of classification.

As I noted upthread, no one--not even Copps, has been able to come up with a legal plan that would address the reliance issues in Fox...essentially, changing 30 years of regulations, and overriding directives and regulations. This is a major change. I would love to hear from Consumerist precisely how Wheeler gets the votes on the Commission, and passes a court challenge to do that.

If I thought that plan had a snowball's chance in Hell of actually working, I'd support it. But you are effectively asking the FCC to reregulate the industry.

Please explain how we the people can get Democrats into those positions?

Thanks, I can't wait to see the answers.

at writing new rules.

Surely, certainly, you can draft better than a Corporate, Republican Cable Lobbyist to the FCC?

You do answer my posts, you cannot apparently answer some of the questions.

What did you expect from the Cable Lobbyist, is anyone surprised?

It is not our job to draft anything. Unless you are saying that voting is a waste of time because in the end WE the people have to draft legislation due to the fact that those we elect, work for Corporations.

And how do we get that legislation, after we draft, beyond your OP???

Thanks in advance for actually answering my posts, which you do every time when it becomes there are no logical answers as to why after WE elect Democrats, we Corporate Lobbyists, and former Bush appointees in positions we voted them out of.

That is what the problem is.

I take it you are saying that voting is a waste of time then?

Okay, if that's your position.

and power over the interests of working americans.

At least at one point, the Commission was 3-2 Republican, which usually happens only under Republican Presidents. And not simply Republicans, mind you, but a Republican who helped write the 2006 Act designed to destroy the Postal Service.

Aside from the standard "Obama can do no wrong" line of reasoning you like to employ, you've spent several posts arguing in favor of the FCC. You may be an attorney. I'm a network engineer, and I promise that it's technically very feasible to leave the Internet alone. In fact, configuring QoS, rate-limiting, and the like, adds more complexity. I'm not saying it's difficult to configure equipment for different tiers of service. It's not. What I am saying is that, out of the box, network equipment wants to treat all traffic equally--that's its default behavior.

Legally speaking, it's my understanding that the court all but suggested that the FCC reclassify Internet services in order that they could enforce net neutrality. I've seen that in a few different articles. Is there anyone other than you arguing that the FCC was powerless to regulate? If so, where are they? If not, what gives you this special insight that no one else seems to have?

anyone explain how you overcome the reliance argument in Fox. I don't think that's workable, but I am willing to be persuaded. Nor do I particularly 'favor' the FCC--I just think that it's a difficult sell to reregulate an industry and change 30 years of directives. The FCC has the power to regulate--but you are asking for a major overhaul of the classifications....that's a lot more than rulemaking.

I think the ultimate response needs to be municipal broadband--take the overpriced companies out of the market.

and is a part of the common necessary infrastructure that must be operated for the common good.

And get the Democratic Party to take a page from the "Greatest Generation Librals" and fight for tht principle in Congress nd the court of public opinion.

At one time many, many things that we came to take for granted -- consumer protection, environmentl protection, civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, etc....Were fought against on th same grounds that the Corporate Right Wing is now using to try and steal the Internet.

There were ways then and there are ways now.

I'm not a lawyer, but there are legal ways to do this -- just as there have always been with other issues -- when there's the political will to do the right thing.

To those who say "It can't be done" I say:

STOP APOLOGIZING FOR THE CORRUPTION AND WEAKNESS THAT HAS INFESTED THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Become a Republican if you really and truly believe that we should take a "hands off" to any effort to prevent powerful wealthy interests from stealing every last vestige of our common

So far, we as consumers have been losing in our courts--that us for a variety of reasons.

So I think the answer is to circumvent years of court challenges, and push for market alternatives.

But there too are obstacles that the powerful will invent and the paid-for politicians will serve as apologists for.

Municipalities have tried that, and were blocked by dog-in-the-manger corporations before. The WH/Congress shold have pressed harder to allow that then.

Any solution takes a willingness to stand up for principles. But until we have a political party that actually wants to stand up for principles, all solutions will be stalemated by the powerful corporations and their GOP/Centrist Democratic allies.

You are going to get opposition, but the fact is, we still have to fight it, and the best chance might be the local level.

As soon as the rule goes into effect, carriers must follow suite, they can sue, but then they have to make their case. Cable companies offer subscription plans which are unique on a customer by customer basis and that's how they were able to keep from being ruled by the FCC. The internet, on the other hand, is not a unique experience from one ISP to another. It the same experience.

Then pressure is only on the FCC to monitor the providers who PAY US to rent and use it. Like leasing federal land, only this takes the same status as the public airwaves.

but not sufficient.

Making sure the big guys aren't able to get 100% lock on the entire country is important. It is important to have segments of the internet where fast lane extortion is not occurring to hold up as examples to the rest of the country. These small towns which were "not profitable enough to bother with" will hopefully become real pains in the ass for the big telecoms.

But that is not sufficient by itself. The issue still needs to be fought at a national level also.

I've been betrayyyyyyyed!

The poutrage rages on whenever President Obama is involved . . . or not.

and attacks posters for not coming up with legally bulletproof ideas in less than a day.

It is not about cannot but rather will not.

Internet service providers should have never been designated as information services because they are not, information services are the content providers. Internet service providers transport the data from the providers, the FCC screwed the pooch on an emerging industry and did not understand what the actual role of ISP's or did and elected to distort the relationship for the benefit of the industry.

It is the FCC's job to make these designations and then to regulate appropriately based on said designations, they screwed up and they can and should correct this foolish error.

But your argument is bogus.

Seriously. No one here has the time or resources to undertake that sort of legal effort. We are not the FCC. However, that does not mean that such an effort is beyond the means of the Executive Branch. In fact, I am quite certain it is well within its mean. [Edited for clarification.]

(I infer from your tactic and subsequent posts that unless a critic of the Administration has the resources to perform the same function as the Administration, said critic should be silent. You will understand I do not accept that position. But it's a nice try.)

The FCC has reclassified technologies and services before. It will do so again. In this case, it would be apropos because the notion that broadband service providers primarily provide an "integrated information service" (as their primary function) rather than a computer-to-computer communications service is absurd.

Were that the case, I would be designing my systems to be operated over various carriers, for I would have to integrate my systems to their particular interfaces, protocols, and requirements. People use, for example, Comcast to access my systems. But neither Comcast nor I have made any particular effort to make that happen. We both just obey WELL DEFINED COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS!!!! (Not shouting, just forgot how to italicize. But notice the key word "communication".) Comcast just provides me some decent bandwidth when I am at home.

Ya know, back when the FCC made that classification, a great many people (I was one of them), thought it would lead to tears. It has. The internet plays a role as significant, or more, in the daily communications of Americans citizens as the classic 4 KHz landline (which is now falling into disuse). (There's that word again. Communications. Yeah. As in telecommunications.) So fixing this, or not fixing this, has serious implications. And, me, I'm certain it can be fixed ... and it sounds like the Supreme Court thinks so too.

So, yeah, I'll take your challenge. Budget for this sort of effort is normally on the order of $10M or so. Fork over the cash, and I will hire lawyers and tech consultants necessary to do a good job and will get back to you in a couple of months.

If the Administration WANTS to do that, it can do the same. If you don't think it can, it is now up to you to show that this relatively minor task is beyond the power of the Obama Administration. (Dude pulled off the ACA, a much more legally complex and politically difficult task. I will have trouble accepting that sort of argument without lots of evidence.)

Trav

Done, and done.

Let them sue. Let them try.

how you actually win the lawsuits.

Your defeatism reflects the problem.

Do you think the GOP and the Koch Brothers sit around whining about why they can never try anything because the mean ol' Democrts wouldn't accept it?

No they fucking go out and try to do it. And if they get slapped down they come back and do it again.
Sometimes they succeed 100 percent. At other times they just move the goalposts in their direction somewhat.

Either way they ultimately get what they want because they do it, instead of making excuses.

"fuck it, what could go wrong?"

You really, really want a SCOTUS challenge based on that?

And yet they still keep having the upper hand and pushing the nation in their direction.

If you are really have this ever-so-strategic mind, you might reconsider the strategy of continual restraint and yielding against an opponent who is fighting a relentless, stand-their-ground, war of attrition AND IS F'ing WINNING and walking all over us with their relentlessness.

Philosophically no.

Do you want the Republicans and Corporate Oligarchs to continue to steal the country from us?

If you don't, then you'd better look at which side is getting results, and which side is either getting walked over or bought off.

I'm fed up with our side trying to fight a sledgehammer with a toothpick.

I think you could get the commission votes. There are 3 Democrats to 2 Republicans. Wheeler would be hardest to get, but it's not that big of a deal.

We have a 5-4 Roberts Court that is pro business. so you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Orly Taitz is a lawyer.

Really, that's all I've got.

Or are you just trying to defend the indefensible?

Sid

Sounds like he's going on a wild goose chase.

Yes.

have not signed the ACA?

Surely your much-touted Cornell education taught you that the President does not write laws.

If not, here's a primer.....

http://m.

Last edited Tue Nov 11, 2014, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't recall ever touting the thing. I wasn't even particularly pleased with it.

In any case, it seems like you're trying to change the subject *and* being a bit disingenuous, so I'm not playing any more.