Skip to main content

View Diary: FCC Chair: I could make Net neutrality happen today, but I don't wanna (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, Technomancer, I respect your opinion on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    In fact it was your diary the other night that first raised my interest in this and led me to the idea it's not all that simple, as you said with reluctance that "Comcast had a point" too, and there were complicated technical as well as policy issues involved.

    I fully accept your technical expertise, but not so sure you fully know the legal implications. For instance, can you address this, which is from an article in PC magazine:

    If all else fails, meanwhile, the FCC could consider reclassifying broadband as a telecom service rather than an information service - which would give the FCC a more firm authority over the issue. In D.C.-speak, it's known as Title II for its placement within the Communications Act, but the move would not be an easy one. The road to classifying Internet as an information service, after all, went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2005 via the Brand X case. So reversing that decision would probably prompt a lengthy legal and political battle.
    Are you completely certain this is not true?
    •  It's sort of related. (5+ / 0-)

      Brand X was trying to overturn the FCC's classification of internet service, which was a challenge to the FCC's right of classification.  That's why the Brand X case failed.  The Supreme Court was upholding the FCC's classification of Internet service as an information service.  The FCC has the right to reclassify.

      It would end up going through the courts again, but Brand X would actually provide stare decisis for ruling that the FCC has the authority to make such a classification change.

      Everyday Magic

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "It would end up going through the courts again" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, sviscusi

        Yes. So the idea that they could just wave a pen and fix the entire issue in one minute is not quite the case after all. Just as I thought... maybe there are reasons for another approach then? beyond that... sigh, being at my job as usual, I am reading and trying to learn but cannot devote more time to this right now. And being insulted in the process, well that doesn't help. (not by you, others down below. Frustrating to be insulted for daring to think, question, and consider things.)

        •  But while it goes through the courts... (2+ / 0-)

          ...the reclassification stands, or if a stay is put in place, it becomes the default probability, which prevents ISPs from assuming it'll stay that way.  And if there's one time you can count on capitalism to work in your favor, it's that businesses will wait for a clearer risk picture before moving on with a plan at Comcast's size.  They won't build out services assuming they won't get regulated as a common carrier until that's cleared up.

          Everyday Magic

          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It only 'stays' if a judge refuses (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            to hold the law while it is being challenged which often is not the case.

            Case in point all those voter id laws and abortion laws getting thrown out of court? They were never implemented.

            Would a judge issue a stay? I'd think so given the sweeping changes we would be talking about.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:34:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

              I'd expect a stay is issued.  I also expect Comcast to not proceed with any plans to build out a fast lane until the case is resolved -- too much risk on their end, stay or not.

              Everyday Magic

              Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
              -- Clarke's Third Law

              by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:07:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no I'm talking common carrier designation (0+ / 0-)

                if the FCC issued that there would be a fight all the way to SCOTUS and likely it would only be enacted if it won there. Which would likely be a minimum of 5 years from now.

                Speaking personally I'd rather the FCC try this and see what happens than do that.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:34:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know you are. (0+ / 0-)

                  I am too.  And Comcast won't be putting in place any new rules (or network expansion buildouts, to be fair) until that question gets decided.  Too much risk of investment that can be lost by a court decision, and having the appeals process start is a surefire way to ripen that risk.

                  Everyday Magic

                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:44:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  exactly which is why (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sviscusi

                    even though I ultimately think common carrier will have to be the choice we should explore other less dramatic options first.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The less dramatic option is what we have now. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's treat 1s and 0s from legitimate services the same (I'd be against any net neutrality reg that said my ISP couldn't filter spam for me, per se).  Without that, you have to have common carrier so that if my ISP does some stupid crap like throttle Netflix, I can leave them for the ISP that doesn't pull those stunts.

                      I'm not aware of a middle ground between those two.

                      Everyday Magic

                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:55:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the middle ground is what is happening now (0+ / 0-)

                        where in asymmetrical upstream providers are being asked to  pay for the difference.

                        Der Weg ist das Ziel

                        by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:03:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site