TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
- Thread starter
- #41
Nyvin, stop pulling a Nancy Pelosi and read the damned thing before lecturing me, okay?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The FCC like al other federal departments whether partisan or not, seem lately to exist for the sole purpose of doing the bidding of the current president.The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.
Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:
Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.
...
Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.
And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:
We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)
...
Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.
So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.
Hell yes it is. How long before anything bought or sold is subject to a federal sales tax? Six months?Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.
Nice job Mao.Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The speed shouldn't be bought or sold. Making it equal across the board actually makes business more competitive.
Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
I'm sure the fruitcakes are selling tinfoil like never before...Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.
If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.
Why would any carrier block Amazon or Ebay? Why the fuck would that even be a consideration. It's not about them you idiot it's about what you the end user are going to get. Such as everything sold on Ebay and Amazon will now be subject to a federal sales tax.Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.
If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.
Guess you can skip the tinfoil if your head is planted right up the governments ass hole.I'm sure the fruitcakes are selling tinfoil like never before...Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.
If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.
Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.
If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.
No,...This is going to the SCOTUS...No doubt.Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.
If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.
Like I said, you need to read what's in it before you pass it, Nancy. You do understand this is enforced by the government, right? Did it ever occur to you that the government is the one legalizing or illegalizing what content can be allowed or disallowed?
Oh yes he is.....Net Neutrality A Free and Open Internet The White HouseInterestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.
Big money, will out.
Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?
Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
You idiot.
President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.
Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.
You idiot.
President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.
.
Why would any carrier block Amazon or Ebay? Why the fuck would that even be a consideration. It's not about them you idiot it's about what you the end user are going to get. Such as everything sold on Ebay and Amazon will now be subject to a federal sales tax.Nyvin, your argument died with this statement:
"Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet."
This is why a great deal many of us oppose it. The government gets to decide what content is "legal" on the internet. So uh, do you understand what this will do to the internet? Guess not.
The only premise of the word "legal" is that the ISP cannot block content at their own discretion. Comcast can't block AT&T's website, or they can't get into a deal with Ebay and block Amazon. Everything has to be open.
If you are paranoid about the all-powerful crazy government blocking your internet sites there's some good government conspiracy websites you can go join.
Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.
Oh yes he is.....Net Neutrality A Free and Open Internet The White HouseInterestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.
Big money, will out.
Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?
Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
You idiot.
President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.
Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.
BTW notice the word "Free" here.. The internet is NOT nor should it ever be "free"....Everything has a cost and a price......BTW, Obama is not going pro consumer here. His desire is to regulate content. Specifically political commentary. The liberal democrats cannot stand it that their monopoly on media no longer stands. The internet is the ultimate in public free speech broadcasting. Information is power. Liberals are opposed to anyone other than they having access to such power. Liberals seek to control this and in doing so, will suppress political discourse by controlling information. This is done by regulating content. Just wait and see.
As for your denial that Obama is not in support of net neutrality....What fucking planet do you live on?
That makes as much sense as strategic patience.Me stating the truth is not using the race card.Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.
Big money, will out.
Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?
Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.
You idiot.
President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.
Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.
Did someone just say
"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?
Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.
Did someone say they don't know that equality on the internet is threatened by the very Big Business money you worship?
Else, there would be no need to insure "net neutrality".
See how that works?
Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.
Net "neutrality" is the same Libard speech lie as "Affordable Care Act" was with Obamacare.