Here it comes! Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

[Pogo]

The FCC should never ever be able to touch anything involving the internet. All we need is for them to get their censoring paws on it and pffft! away it goes.

Well that is the Democrat's intentions, you can be sure.

They want their monopoly back. The monopoly they had when there was no Rush Limbaugh, no Fox News, no internet and they controlled what came on the news on only three Networks.

They will do their all to try to make that happen.

The only thing that stops them is US.

Don't depend on that Republican victory to stop them.

Republicans will sit on their hands if we let them.

We are going to have to raise HELL with them to make them stop this.

They only really do the right thing when we make them worry about their cushy jobs.

Yes, a round-about-way to kill off Fox News but it won't happen. Barry is now all about trying radical measures to keep his base happy for `16 when they hope Elizabeth Warren will be their nominee. Fat chance. She can never raise the money. Hillary has that power if she isn't too afraid to fail twice.

When has the FCC "censored" anything, Marty?

 

[Pogo]

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

You missed the point, P.

Gov't SWORE up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Guess what? They lied.

Do you not see? Like the unaca, all they want is a foot in the door via net neutrality. Have you not heard Johnn Gruber, one of the main architects of the unaca, spouting off about how they duped stupid Americans to get the plan passed? That a lack of transparency was a major part of getting it passed? Do you think the gov't is going to tell you they'll screw it up, that they'll tell you what else they have in mind once they get their paws on the internet? Come on. They're not looking to whack anyone with taxes/fees/fines/restrictions/etc now. Now they're just looking to push the door open just enough to get their foot in.

If you give them an inch they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

Complete total utter red herring. There is no comparison whatsoever with ACA.
I had to read that post 45 times just to figure out what the hell you were saying.

The point remains: you have no "tax" to point to. You have no exchange of money whatsoever. Nice try, deflection deflected.

 

[Pogo]

Censorship is censorship. What the fuck does it matter what the date was?
You lost the point, Pothead. Deal with it.

This site censors stuff all the time Huffer, every time a post is moved or deleted, or a poster banned. Is it your claim the federal government should stop Avg-Joe from banning conservative posters? Should the FCC dictate to Cereal-Killer what posts can be moved?

*I* lost the point? I think you're having more Rachel Carson delusions.

This site is not a Common Carrier. Analogy fails.

 

[BlackSand]

At some point you might want to try reading your own article before you post thinking it says the opposite of what it actually does ---

>> Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

... Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. <<
​

--- your own link.

Imagine say, a broadcast station tightly controlled by corporate commercial interests that strictly controlled the stream of what information and entertainment you get according to what benefits them.

Oh wait -- that's what we already have.

So you want the internet to be like that? Because that's what this approach would try to prevent.

The problem isn't whether or not you like what is proposed ... It is against the idea of letting the FCC have any control over the Internet.

Politicians and government officials never initiate a program by saying they want to give you the shaft ... They get their foot in the door and slowly erode whatever is left between what you let them have and what it is they wanted in the first place.

But you know that ...

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

Oh ... So you are one of those people who thinks the Government tells you the truth instead of what they think you want to hear ... Like, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." You probably believed you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you liked them as well.

.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

Kinda like the way you're unable to navigate the OP article on your own, innit?

I didn't try to navigate the article dumbass. No interest in it.

Obviously. And it shows.
That's why I suggest you might look less of an idiot if you actually read about what the issue is instead of regurgitating Lush Rimjob talking points.

 

[Pogo]

At some point you might want to try reading your own article before you post thinking it says the opposite of what it actually does ---

>> Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

... Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. <<
​

--- your own link.

Imagine say, a broadcast station tightly controlled by corporate commercial interests that strictly controlled the stream of what information and entertainment you get according to what benefits them.

Oh wait -- that's what we already have.

So you want the internet to be like that? Because that's what this approach would try to prevent.

The problem isn't whether or not you like what is proposed ... It is against the idea of letting the FCC have any control over the Internet.

Politicians and government officials never initiate a program by saying they want to give you the shaft ... They get their foot in the door and slowly erode whatever is left between what you let them have and what it is they wanted in the first place.

But you know that ...

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

Oh ... So you are one of those people who thinks the Government tells you the truth instead of what they think you want to hear ... Like, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." You probably believed you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you liked them as well.

No, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in making up a lot of crap that isn't there.
All you people have is Speculation/Slippery Slope fallacies with a side order or Poison the Well. All day it's been, "here's what they really want" and "look at what they did with ACA" and "you communists". There's no actual substance.

That dog don't hunt. There is no factual argument presented.

 

[BlackSand]

At some point you might want to try reading your own article before you post thinking it says the opposite of what it actually does ---

>> Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

... Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. <<
​

--- your own link.

Imagine say, a broadcast station tightly controlled by corporate commercial interests that strictly controlled the stream of what information and entertainment you get according to what benefits them.

Oh wait -- that's what we already have.

So you want the internet to be like that? Because that's what this approach would try to prevent.

The problem isn't whether or not you like what is proposed ... It is against the idea of letting the FCC have any control over the Internet.

Politicians and government officials never initiate a program by saying they want to give you the shaft ... They get their foot in the door and slowly erode whatever is left between what you let them have and what it is they wanted in the first place.

But you know that ...

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

Oh ... So you are one of those people who thinks the Government tells you the truth instead of what they think you want to hear ... Like, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." You probably believed you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you liked them as well.

No, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in making up a lot of crap that isn't there.

You just believe in giving the government the opportunity to screw it up ... Nobody knows what they will do including you.

.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

You missed the point, P.

Gov't SWORE up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Guess what? They lied.

Do you not see? Like the unaca, all they want is a foot in the door via net neutrality. Have you not heard Johnn Gruber, one of the main architects of the unaca, spouting off about how they duped stupid Americans to get the plan passed? That a lack of transparency was a major part of getting it passed? Do you think the gov't is going to tell you they'll screw it up, that they'll tell you what else they have in mind once they get their paws on the internet? Come on. They're not looking to whack anyone with taxes/fees/fines/restrictions/etc now. Now they're just looking to push the door open just enough to get their foot in.

If you give them an inch they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

Complete total utter red herring. There is no comparison whatsoever with ACA.
I had to read that post 45 times just to figure out what the hell you were saying.

The point remains: you have no "tax" to point to. You have no exchange of money whatsoever. Nice try, deflection deflected.

My post was clear, you're just being obtuse.

 

[Pogo]

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

You missed the point, P.

Gov't SWORE up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Guess what? They lied.

Do you not see? Like the unaca, all they want is a foot in the door via net neutrality. Have you not heard Johnn Gruber, one of the main architects of the unaca, spouting off about how they duped stupid Americans to get the plan passed? That a lack of transparency was a major part of getting it passed? Do you think the gov't is going to tell you they'll screw it up, that they'll tell you what else they have in mind once they get their paws on the internet? Come on. They're not looking to whack anyone with taxes/fees/fines/restrictions/etc now. Now they're just looking to push the door open just enough to get their foot in.

If you give them an inch they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

Complete total utter red herring. There is no comparison whatsoever with ACA.
I had to read that post 45 times just to figure out what the hell you were saying.

The point remains: you have no "tax" to point to. You have no exchange of money whatsoever. Nice try, deflection deflected.

My post was clear, you're just being obtuse.

My question was clear; you're just unable to answer it.
That's because no answer exists. And that means your original claim is based on bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

At some point you might want to try reading your own article before you post thinking it says the opposite of what it actually does ---

>> Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.

... Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn't be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn't be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn't be able to offer paid fast lanes. <<
​

--- your own link.

Imagine say, a broadcast station tightly controlled by corporate commercial interests that strictly controlled the stream of what information and entertainment you get according to what benefits them.

Oh wait -- that's what we already have.

So you want the internet to be like that? Because that's what this approach would try to prevent.

The problem isn't whether or not you like what is proposed ... It is against the idea of letting the FCC have any control over the Internet.

Politicians and government officials never initiate a program by saying they want to give you the shaft ... They get their foot in the door and slowly erode whatever is left between what you let them have and what it is they wanted in the first place.

But you know that ...

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

Oh ... So you are one of those people who thinks the Government tells you the truth instead of what they think you want to hear ... Like, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." You probably believed you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you liked them as well.

No, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in making up a lot of crap that isn't there.

You just believe in giving the government the opportunity to screw it up ... Nobody knows what they will do including you.

Thanks for admitting that. It's the first step. And all the more reason making shit up is invalid as argument. We can't just each plug in our own arbitrary content to what is clearly not at all present. My question has been "where is it present"? And the answer is -- it ain't.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

You missed the point, P.

Gov't SWORE up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Guess what? They lied.

Do you not see? Like the unaca, all they want is a foot in the door via net neutrality. Have you not heard Johnn Gruber, one of the main architects of the unaca, spouting off about how they duped stupid Americans to get the plan passed? That a lack of transparency was a major part of getting it passed? Do you think the gov't is going to tell you they'll screw it up, that they'll tell you what else they have in mind once they get their paws on the internet? Come on. They're not looking to whack anyone with taxes/fees/fines/restrictions/etc now. Now they're just looking to push the door open just enough to get their foot in.

If you give them an inch they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

Complete total utter red herring. There is no comparison whatsoever with ACA.
I had to read that post 45 times just to figure out what the hell you were saying.

The point remains: you have no "tax" to point to. You have no exchange of money whatsoever. Nice try, deflection deflected.

My post was clear, you're just being obtuse.

My question was clear; you're just unable to answer it.
That's because no answer exists. And that means your original claim is based on bullshit.

My claim that the gov't lies to get what it wants? That the gov't will say whatever dupes want to hear? That gov't wants a foot in the door to get their paws on the internet and that net neutrality is that foot?

Ok, you keep on keeping on trusting uncle.

 

[Pogo]

What's a "tax"? Where's any reference to money at all? What kind of "tax" involves no money?

GMU failed that question.
Frank failed; Stephanie failed; Marty failed; Rozman, NLT, Silhouette, they all failed. The OP abandoned her own thread when it was pointed out what her OP article actually says.

Your turn.

You missed the point, P.

Gov't SWORE up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Guess what? They lied.

Do you not see? Like the unaca, all they want is a foot in the door via net neutrality. Have you not heard Johnn Gruber, one of the main architects of the unaca, spouting off about how they duped stupid Americans to get the plan passed? That a lack of transparency was a major part of getting it passed? Do you think the gov't is going to tell you they'll screw it up, that they'll tell you what else they have in mind once they get their paws on the internet? Come on. They're not looking to whack anyone with taxes/fees/fines/restrictions/etc now. Now they're just looking to push the door open just enough to get their foot in.

If you give them an inch they will take miles. Don't give them the inch.

Complete total utter red herring. There is no comparison whatsoever with ACA.
I had to read that post 45 times just to figure out what the hell you were saying.

The point remains: you have no "tax" to point to. You have no exchange of money whatsoever. Nice try, deflection deflected.

My post was clear, you're just being obtuse.

My question was clear; you're just unable to answer it.
That's because no answer exists. And that means your original claim is based on bullshit.

My claim that the gov't lies to get what it wants? That the gov't will say whatever dupes want to hear? That gov't wants a foot in the door to get their paws on the internet and that net neutrality is that foot?

Ok, you keep on keeping on trusting uncle.

I've been posing the question literally all day as to HOW Net Neutrality does that, or can do that.
I've got zero answers. Which unless you can add one, is all there is.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

Kinda like the way you're unable to navigate the OP article on your own, innit?

I didn't try to navigate the article dumbass. No interest in it.

Obviously. And it shows.
That's why I suggest you might look less of an idiot if you actually read about what the issue is instead of regurgitating Lush Rimjob talking points.

If Rush has commented on the subject I have not heard it. Unlike you morons that group defend any & every liberal policy I form my own opinion on each subject WITHOUT influence. I have not heard ANYONE discuss this matter.
I don't believe the government needs to be involved in any of this bullshit. PERIOD

 

[Pogo]

Democrats need Papa Gubment to run their daily lives. They're simply to stupid to navigate lifes obstacles on their own.

Kinda like the way you're unable to navigate the OP article on your own, innit?

I didn't try to navigate the article dumbass. No interest in it.

Obviously. And it shows.
That's why I suggest you might look less of an idiot if you actually read about what the issue is instead of regurgitating Lush Rimjob talking points.

If Rush has commented on the subject I have not heard it. Unlike you morons that group defend any & every liberal policy I form my own opinion on each subject WITHOUT influence. I have not heard ANYONE discuss this matter.
I don't believe the government needs to be involved in any of this bullshit. PERIOD

You've already admitted you don't believe you even need to be involved in reading what the issue is about, so your low-info opinion is pointless.

I meant the generic Lush Rimjob. The Bubble. The Koch machine. Whoever.
Know what I did when this thread popped up? The first, initial, premier, number-one thing I did was read the fucking article to find out what the issue was about. Weird huh? That was how I figured out the OP hadn't read or understood her own article and was doing nothing more than Pavlovian opposition to anything with O'bama's name on it. She got caught with her pants down the same way you did. The only difference is, she had enough sense to abandon ship.

 

[BlackSand]

The problem isn't whether or not you like what is proposed ... It is against the idea of letting the FCC have any control over the Internet.

Politicians and government officials never initiate a program by saying they want to give you the shaft ... They get their foot in the door and slowly erode whatever is left between what you let them have and what it is they wanted in the first place.

But you know that ...

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

Oh ... So you are one of those people who thinks the Government tells you the truth instead of what they think you want to hear ... Like, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." You probably believed you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you liked them as well.

No, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in making up a lot of crap that isn't there.

You just believe in giving the government the opportunity to screw it up ... Nobody knows what they will do including you.

Thanks for admitting that. It's the first step. And all the more reason making shit up is invalid as argument. We can't just each plug in our own arbitrary content to what is clearly not at all present. My question has been "where is it present"? And the answer is -- it ain't.

Admitting what ... I indicated we didn't need to give the government the opportunity to screw it up.

If you want to suggest that when Congress wrote legislation establishing the Veteran's Administration, they included the fact we should have waiting lists long enough soldiers would die before they saw a doctor ... Then you would have a point. If legislation had been passed giving the IRS instructions to single out certain political parties for special consideration and abuse their audit authority ... Then you would have a point.

My point was that the only thing we do know for sure is that they will abuse their power, screw things up and back-door whatever they can get away with. We don't need more legislation or regulation ... We need the government to leave crap alone.

.

 

[Jarlaxle]

"to protect net neutrality".

I'll bet every one of you either is in favor of net neutrality, or doesn't know what it means.

My bet is they don't know.

That's the only possible reason they would be against it. That and the fact that Obama is in favor of it.

Yeah...he just wants to protect internet neutrality.
Just like he wants you to keep your Dr. if you like him.
If you believe this shit you're a complete moron.

Did you lose your doctor?

My wife lost all three, my stepfather one of two. I didn't, yet.

 

[ricechickie]

"to protect net neutrality".

I'll bet every one of you either is in favor of net neutrality, or doesn't know what it means.

Guilty.

I didn't know what it means, and upon finding out, I'm pretty much in favor of it.

 

[Stephanie]

dang it mods. I was having trouble posting to the site and I see I have five or six duplicate post and can't delete them. would you please do it for me
thanks

 

[Pogo]

And again -- not an answer. Not a point. Speculation fallacy at best. There's nothing present in the idea to "erode", to "tax", to "censor" anything. Not present. Does not exist. Your argument reduces itself to, "ignore the language, here's where they really want to take this because I can see inside their head and predict the future".

Please...

Oh ... So you are one of those people who thinks the Government tells you the truth instead of what they think you want to hear ... Like, "We have to pass the bill so we can see what is in it." You probably believed you could keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you liked them as well.

No, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in making up a lot of crap that isn't there.

You just believe in giving the government the opportunity to screw it up ... Nobody knows what they will do including you.

Thanks for admitting that. It's the first step. And all the more reason making shit up is invalid as argument. We can't just each plug in our own arbitrary content to what is clearly not at all present. My question has been "where is it present"? And the answer is -- it ain't.

Admitting what ... I indicated we didn't need to give the government the opportunity to screw it up.

If you want to suggest the when Congress wrote legislation establishing the Veteran's Administration, they included the fact we should have waiting lists long enough soldiers would die before they saw a doctor ... Then you would have a point. If legislation had been passed giving the IRS instructions to single out certain political parties for special consideration and abuse their audit authority ... Then you would have a point.

My point was that the only thing we do know for sure is that they will abuse their power, screw things up and back-door whatever they can get away with. We don't need more legislation ... We need the government to leave crap alone.

And as I've been asking all day -- how do you "screw up" or "take over" or "tax" the internet by taking no action? And I've still got zero answers.

I see you're still stuck on deflections to irrelevancies. Maybe that's because your argument has no substance. There's no there there. If there were it would be a simple matter to just answer the question with some... substance.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I've been posing the question literally all day as to HOW Net Neutrality does that, or can do that.
I've got zero answers. Which unless you can add one, is all there is.

How? Via the FCC

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC.

Under its “Open Internet” or “network neutrality” proceeding, the FCC would regulate the Internet and broadband service providers with rules similar to those that courts have not once but twice ruled unlawful. By statute, the FCC regulates telecommunications services, not Internet services. Rather than wait for Congress to give it authority to regulate Internet services, the FCC asserts that power for itself by some imaginative interpretation of the Communications Act.

One set of proposals considered by the FCC would classify Internet services, or at least Internet access services, as “interstate telecommunications services” bringing the regulation of those services exclusively to the FCC.

The FCC imposes fees of 16.1% on interstate telecommunications services that will generate more than $8 billion in federal universal service funds in 2014. Additional FCC fees on interstate telecommunications services raise $1 billion for federal telecommunications relay services. Although Congress mandates the general nature of the federal universal service fund and telecommunications relay services, it is the FCC alone that sets the budget size of the funds and develops the fee structure to raise receipts for the funds.

Even with all of its power, the FCC does not have the money to fund all of the new programs it seeks. For example, just in the past year, the FCC announced an ambitious multi-billion program to connect schools and libraries with Wi-Fi. Other advocates seek expansion of the low-income program. But where can the FCC find funds for new social programs not required by statute?

The FCC’s network neutrality proceeding may easily provide the answer. By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet. The FCC would have many billions of dollars of expanded revenue base to fund new programs without, according to the FCC, any need for congressional authorization.

If the FCC succeeds in classifying some or all of broadband services as interstate telecommunications services, it would effectively exclude its bureaucratic rivals in both the states and federal government from competing to regulate and to tax the Internet. State and local governments do not have the authority to tax or regulate interstate telecommunications services. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission, which increasingly seeks to regulate the Internet, has no jurisdiction over common carriers or “telecommunications services.”

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes