FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II

Internet providers are now common carriers, and they're ready to sue.

Read the whole story

 

[THavoc]

EDNYLaw[/url]":j6x7bwtf]
I'm not even sure how there would be an argument. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the states. I don't think there's any way someone can argue (without just being flat out wrong) that the internet is not interstate commerce.

Just to prove the interstate commerce point, I'll mention a case, the name of which I've forgotten, that said that a single farmer growing wheat (I believe) in contravention to a law stating not to grow wheat was actually affecting interstate commerce. The reasoning behind the judicial decision was, when you take it in the aggregate and add up all the people like this farmer, who are growing wheat in contravention to the law, their actions have a perceptible effect on interstate commerce.

So, I really don't understand how there can be any real question as to whether the FCC has this authority. The federal government is reserved this authority by the Constitution under both the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The FCC is the ultimate rule maker of communication transmissions (subject to congressional law making, of course).

See? Insightful!

But I was mostly referring to those here in the comments section that are saying "it's an overreach" or "State's Rights", etc.

 

[SunnyD]

Pai said the FCC is only deferring a decision on new Universal Service fees for broadband, rather than ruling them out entirely. Universal Service fees, which fund telecommunications projects in rural and under-served regions, currently apply to phone bills but not Internet service.

What does this have to do with anything Title II? The only thing the USF has really gone to late le has to do with is corporate welfare... oh wait. *sigh* Pai, staunch ally of AT&T, Verizon, other corporate entities. I get it now.

 

[skyywise]

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," (Pai) said.

The fundamental disconnect here is in defining what a "problem" is; once you remove the vindictive and venomous rhetoric.

What Pai says, at least, is consistent with Conservative philosophy: The government should only intervene when a situation is so broken that the system stops working. The Free Market will operate to ensure that the system works well, and charge users accordingly, which is efficient because it means the problems that truly matter will be focused on due to cost.

The Progressive point of view is: The government can act to improve a suboptimal situation, and take preventative measures so that the system doesn't develop problems and reach the point where the system stops working. The Regulation of the Foundation of the Market allows for more competition and choice for users.

 

[rick*d]

Sadly, without Local Loop Unbundling we won't get competition and for most of us this will have little effect.

 

[Midnitte]

skyywise[/url]":1czgt1jg]

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," (Pai) said.

The fundamental disconnect here is in defining what a "problem" is; once you remove the vindictive and venomous rhetoric.

What Pai says, at least, is consistent with Conservative philosophy: The government should only intervene when a situation is so broken that the system stops working. The Free Market will operate to ensure that the system works well, and charge users accordingly, which is efficient because it means the problems that truly matter will be focused on due to cost.

The Progressive point of view is: The government can act to improve a suboptimal situation, and take preventative measures so that the system doesn't develop problems and reach the point where the system stops working. The Regulation of the Foundation of the Market allows for more competition and choice for users.

What's scary is that Pai doesn't think the current system is extremely broken.

 

[soulsabr]

So, Wheeler has done it. Hell's frozen over and it's all his fault.

 

[Meailda]

skyywise[/url]":ug3yvf3b]

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," (Pai) said.

The fundamental disconnect here is in defining what a "problem" is; once you remove the vindictive and venomous rhetoric.

What Pai says, at least, is consistent with Conservative philosophy: The government should only intervene when a situation is so broken that the system stops working. The Free Market will operate to ensure that the system works well, and charge users accordingly, which is efficient because it means the problems that truly matter will be focused on due to cost.

The Progressive point of view is: The government can act to improve a suboptimal situation, and take preventative measures so that the system doesn't develop problems and reach the point where the system stops working. The Regulation of the Foundation of the Market allows for more competition and choice for users.

Not so. Even the conservatives acknowledge that the market is distorted when players collude to fix prices and in case of monopoly (in this case a natural monopoly). The only people that argue that the market will sort itself out in these situations are paid to say so.

Edit: Grammar

 

[soulsabr]

Midnitte[/url]":epo36kjq]

skyywise[/url]":epo36kjq]

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," (Pai) said.

The fundamental disconnect here is in defining what a "problem" is; once you remove the vindictive and venomous rhetoric.

What Pai says, at least, is consistent with Conservative philosophy: The government should only intervene when a situation is so broken that the system stops working. The Free Market will operate to ensure that the system works well, and charge users accordingly, which is efficient because it means the problems that truly matter will be focused on due to cost.

The Progressive point of view is: The government can act to improve a suboptimal situation, and take preventative measures so that the system doesn't develop problems and reach the point where the system stops working. The Regulation of the Foundation of the Market allows for more competition and choice for users.

What's scary is that Pai doesn't think the current system is extremely broken.

Donor money tends to cloud one's judgement. I'm seriously praying that is his excuse because it would be frightening indeed for him to be that stupid and be a member of the FCC.

 

[BigDragon]

I am loving today's news! Muni broadband protection and title II reclassification are good outcomes! Good job, Wheeler! Now hurry up and protect this latest action by proposing last-mile unbundling. Give the ISPs and political puppets something else to focus their attention on.

Also, Michael O'Rielly and his statement are prime examples of why I refuse to identify with any political party these days. The Constitution and Congressional acts are only important if they bolster your argument. Otherwise, they seem to be irrelevant when inconvenient. Very frustrating. Does this guy even know what the FCC was tasked to do by Congress?!

 

[herozero]

i don't need a reason to drink at 11am (PST), but it's a good day when you have good reason for a celebratory pint.

cheers!

 

[TimmyD]

oldtaku[/url]":3n5uwfnp]There are already at least three separate senate/congressional committees investigating how this could possibly have been allowed to happen.

What's the world come to when telecom companies can't trust that their tens of millions of dollars worth of bribes won't buy the legislation they want? Is that really a world we want to live in? [crying bald eagle with old glory background.jpg]

Three? Three?!

The mere fact that there are raising this big of a stink shows exactly who their constituents are, as if there weren't enough proof already.

Those same constituents will be serving the FCC with a lawsuit by Monday, saying the FCC overstepped its bounds, which is ironic considering that if it was the case, the FCC couldn't classify it as Title I in the first place.

 

[soulsabr]

rick*d[/url]":4y2df0oi]Sadly, without Local Loop Unbundling we won't get competition and for most of us this will have little effect.

Not really. If the lawsuits fail then Wheeler can sit there with a rather large stick (local loop) and waggle it every time people complain about service and price. And, given his track record, I don't think he'll have an issue using that big stick.

 

[Dassassin]

I hope there's a way for Wheeler to connect with the good faith and gratitude of the Americans and small internet service providers he's helping that's in some way proportional to the illicit "support" of the billion-dollar industry he is hindering with this legislation.

I would be fearful for my life and livelihood in Wheeler's position, I'm sad to say.

 

[Solidstate89]

BajaPaul[/url]":254ck5u0]Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

I see billing by quantity used happening real soon. Just like any other utility. The price increase cord cutters will see will have them paying much more than they are now.

Good. Let them try. Then the FCC can use the research done by the GAO (Government Accountability Office if you didn't know) that shows the cost of transmitting a single GB is less than a cent and that the only reason ISPs and Cell carriers still have data caps is to wring more money out of the users.

 

[NetworkElf]

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a good thing. Why?

Because Comcast, Verizon and AT&T oppose it.

That's why.

 

[Arsification]

This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.

Amen.

 

[EDNYLaw]

THavoc[/url]":1v409brv]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1v409brv]
I'm not even sure how there would be an argument. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the states. I don't think there's any way someone can argue (without just being flat out wrong) that the internet is not interstate commerce.

Just to prove the interstate commerce point, I'll mention a case, the name of which I've forgotten, that said that a single farmer growing wheat (I believe) in contravention to a law stating not to grow wheat was actually affecting interstate commerce. The reasoning behind the judicial decision was, when you take it in the aggregate and add up all the people like this farmer, who are growing wheat in contravention to the law, their actions have a perceptible effect on interstate commerce.

So, I really don't understand how there can be any real question as to whether the FCC has this authority. The federal government is reserved this authority by the Constitution under both the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The FCC is the ultimate rule maker of communication transmissions (subject to congressional law making, of course).

See? Insightful!

But I was mostly referring to those here in the comments section that are saying "it's an overreach" or "State's Rights", etc.

Well, I mean, since the 90's when Reinquist was Chief Justice, there's been a decline in the expansive authority granted to the federal government under the Commerce Clause. But still, I mean I literally cannot think of how this is an overreach. Who, but the FCC is allowed to regulate communications? Absolutely no one at the state level (unless they want to provide more protections or something like that, but they certainly cannot decrease the level of protection or regulations implemented by the FCC). Congress does have the authority to make laws, but they specifically delegated the rule making authority to the FCC.

So, absent a new law stating the FCC doesn't have the authority to make rules (which would literally be insane as that's an agency's sole purpose, well not sole, they do enforcement too, so 1/2 of their purpose), I can't see how this is an overreach. It's like saying the IRS doesn't have the authority to enact regulations supplementing the tax code, or the DOL cannot make rules and regulations supplementing labor law.

The argument's premise (that there was an FCC overreach or a States' rights issue) just doesn't make sense as States have literally never had a right to interfere with the FCC, and the FCC, since it's inception, has always had rule making authority. Where's the counterargument come from? What's the basis?

 

[Buxaroo]

And as usual per the subhuman mentality of FOX news...they tell the SAME story with a different headline that is ENTIRELY wrong.

"FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02 ... -meddling/

Again, for those with double digit IQs, there is a DIFFERENCE between the "internet" and "internet service providers".....

 

[Boskone]

prairiedog[/url]":3963owwg]Here I thought Pai was the biggest knob, when it turns out it's O'Reilly all along. How do these reptiles become commissioners to begin with?

They're appointed by the President.

[Edit]
Just to be clear, in this case both are Obama appointees.

 

[Flit]

Don't forget that this can (and will) be undone in 2016 if we end up with a republican president.

I'm really not trying to be partisan here or scare you into voting against Republicans, but I don't see how a republican president wouldn't appoint Pai (or a similar lackey) as the head of the FCC.

At least find out if your candidate would overturn this ruling, it is probably the most important economic decision of this decade, and you don't want someone who is wrong on this.

 

[Rabbiddog]

youdothescience[/url]":vgqnqt69]Hey Wheeler - thanks for proving us wrong. You had the chutzpah to stand up to your former bosses and make the right decision.

Whelp, I'm never one to shy away from admitting when I'm wrong. I always kept saying that I didn't think things would ever change and talk was cheap. Well Mr. Wheeler, you just showed me today. Thanks for standing up for the consumers and not backing down from the big corporations. You've restored a little of my faith in our government.

 

[Embattle]

I do feel for you lot across the pond, you've got such a bunch of toadies who represent you.

 

[TimmyD]

BajaPaul[/url]":34tzwtcp]Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

I see billing by quantity used happening real soon. Just like any other utility. The price increase cord cutters will see will have them paying much more than they are now.

If that was the case, and considering the price of a gigabyte, and that they would be even more regulated than they are now, I can see price dropping.

Plus, the FCC has a huge stick: Local Loop Unbundling.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Flit[/url]":37wvyts4]Don't forget that this can (and will) be undone in 2016 if we end up with a republican president.

I'm really not trying to be partisan here or scare you into voting against Republicans, but I don't see how a republican president wouldn't appoint Pai (or a similar lackey) as the head of the FCC.

At least find out if your candidate would overturn this ruling, it is probably the most important economic decision of this decade, and you don't want someone who is wrong on this.

Well, that's assuming A) This isn't so incredibly beneficial to consumers that politicians would be afraid to risk their reelection if they proposed a repeal; or B) The Republicans have 60 or more votes (Republicans and some Democrats necessary) to get the bill out of Committee and have a vote on the floor.

 

[Dilbert]

BajaPaul[/url]":1deavlas]Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

I see billing by quantity used happening real soon. Just like any other utility. The price increase cord cutters will see will have them paying much more than they are now.

If by that you mean the telcos will, like a petulant child, stomp their foot, and increase our bills just because they can? So they can fuck with us in ways that are not (yet) prohibited because the ways they fuck with us now have just become prohibited? If that's what you meant then yes absolutely.

 

[Meailda]

EDNYLaw[/url]":19rootrd]

THavoc[/url]":19rootrd]

EDNYLaw[/url]":19rootrd]
I'm not even sure how there would be an argument. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the states. I don't think there's any way someone can argue (without just being flat out wrong) that the internet is not interstate commerce.

Just to prove the interstate commerce point, I'll mention a case, the name of which I've forgotten, that said that a single farmer growing wheat (I believe) in contravention to a law stating not to grow wheat was actually affecting interstate commerce. The reasoning behind the judicial decision was, when you take it in the aggregate and add up all the people like this farmer, who are growing wheat in contravention to the law, their actions have a perceptible effect on interstate commerce.

So, I really don't understand how there can be any real question as to whether the FCC has this authority. The federal government is reserved this authority by the Constitution under both the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The FCC is the ultimate rule maker of communication transmissions (subject to congressional law making, of course).

See? Insightful!

But I was mostly referring to those here in the comments section that are saying "it's an overreach" or "State's Rights", etc.

Well, I mean, since the 90's when Reinquist was Chief Justice, there's been a decline in the expansive authority granted to the federal government under the Commerce Clause. But still, I mean I literally cannot think of how this is an overreach. Who, but the FCC is allowed to regulate communications? Absolutely no one at the state level (unless they want to provide more protections or something like that, but they certainly cannot decrease the level of protection or regulations implemented by the FCC). Congress does have the authority to make laws, but they specifically delegated the rule making authority to the FCC.

So, absent a new law stating the FCC doesn't have the authority to make rules (which would literally be insane as that's an agency's sole purpose, well not sole, they do enforcement too, so 1/2 of their purpose), I can't see how this is an overreach. It's like saying the IRS doesn't have the authority to enact regulations supplementing the tax code, or the DOL cannot make rules and regulations supplementing labor law.

The argument's premise (that there was an FCC overreach or a States' rights issue) just doesn't make sense as States have literally never had a right to interfere with the FCC, and the FCC, since it's inception, has always had rule making authority. Where's the counterargument come from? What's the basis?

I think they are talking about municipal networks. The argument is that municipal networks are entirely within the state and therefore should be regulated by the state. But your example of the wheat farmer above seems to dispel that notion.

 

[soulsabr]

Boskone[/url]":3onrxyd4]

prairiedog[/url]":3onrxyd4]Here I thought Pai was the biggest knob, when it turns out it's O'Reilly all along. How do these reptiles become commissioners to begin with?

They're appointed by the President.

This is what stumps me. Obama appointed both O'Reilly and Pai then turns around and appoints Wheeler. Either he was going for a complete set of money grubbers to screw us in pure political fassion or he took one helluva gamble in choosing two goons and Wheeler as the trump card.

 

[Boskone]

CrackedLCD[/url]":19wqmc4v]

TimmyD[/url]":19wqmc4v]Woo-Hoo!!

"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," (Pai) said.

So ISPs deliberately congesting peering points and refusing to upgrade them is not a problem?
If it wasn't broken, we wouldn't need Title II in the first place.

He's obviously never used my home DSL. Even after I went nuclear and filed a complaint with the FCC, nothing beyond a DNS flush was done and they called it a day. Yesterday I received a followup "case closed" letter from the FCC and coincidentally I couldn't access Google Maps or Inbox at the time at all due to their congestion.

Similar with my currently shitty bandwidth. 2 month, umpteen calls, and it took an FCC complaint to get anything done. It'd be nice if the FCC complaint site would actually let you update complaints.

So I'm getting half of what I'm paying for, which is actually an improvement over the ~6% of what I was paying for.

 

[Peevester]

rick*d[/url]":22d7suoc]Sadly, without Local Loop Unbundling we won't get competition and for most of us this will have little effect.

Local Loop Unbundling is the bomb that the FCC will drop if the telecommunications companies don't play nice. And the telcos better not call Wheeler on it, or they're going to have a really bad day.

Watching telco stock prices today has been interesting. We may have been surprised, but I don't think investors were in the least - this is obviously already factored into their trading.

 

[Solidstate89]

Buxaroo[/url]":1x8r40il]And as usual per the subhuman mentality of FOX news...they tell the SAME story with a different headline that is ENTIRELY wrong.

"FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02 ... -meddling/

Again, for those with double digit IQs, there is a DIFFERENCE between the "internet" and "internet service providers".....

The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.

AUUUGH! So-called? Remained secret? God dammit, FUCK YOU FOX NEWS.

 

[Meailda]

Embattle[/url]":16acnwlz]I do feel for you lot across the pond, you've got such a bunch of toadies who represent you.

I can't even disparage this comment. Not even a little.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Meailda[/url]":138q796w]

EDNYLaw[/url]":138q796w]

THavoc[/url]":138q796w]

EDNYLaw[/url]":138q796w]
I'm not even sure how there would be an argument. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the states. I don't think there's any way someone can argue (without just being flat out wrong) that the internet is not interstate commerce.

Just to prove the interstate commerce point, I'll mention a case, the name of which I've forgotten, that said that a single farmer growing wheat (I believe) in contravention to a law stating not to grow wheat was actually affecting interstate commerce. The reasoning behind the judicial decision was, when you take it in the aggregate and add up all the people like this farmer, who are growing wheat in contravention to the law, their actions have a perceptible effect on interstate commerce.

So, I really don't understand how there can be any real question as to whether the FCC has this authority. The federal government is reserved this authority by the Constitution under both the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The FCC is the ultimate rule maker of communication transmissions (subject to congressional law making, of course).

See? Insightful!

But I was mostly referring to those here in the comments section that are saying "it's an overreach" or "State's Rights", etc.

Well, I mean, since the 90's when Reinquist was Chief Justice, there's been a decline in the expansive authority granted to the federal government under the Commerce Clause. But still, I mean I literally cannot think of how this is an overreach. Who, but the FCC is allowed to regulate communications? Absolutely no one at the state level (unless they want to provide more protections or something like that, but they certainly cannot decrease the level of protection or regulations implemented by the FCC). Congress does have the authority to make laws, but they specifically delegated the rule making authority to the FCC.

So, absent a new law stating the FCC doesn't have the authority to make rules (which would literally be insane as that's an agency's sole purpose, well not sole, they do enforcement too, so 1/2 of their purpose), I can't see how this is an overreach. It's like saying the IRS doesn't have the authority to enact regulations supplementing the tax code, or the DOL cannot make rules and regulations supplementing labor law.

The argument's premise (that there was an FCC overreach or a States' rights issue) just doesn't make sense as States have literally never had a right to interfere with the FCC, and the FCC, since it's inception, has always had rule making authority. Where's the counterargument come from? What's the basis?

I think they are talking about municipal networks. The argument is that municipal networks are entirely within the state and therefore should be regulated by the state. But your example of the wheat farmer above seems to dispel that notion.

Yeah, anyone who's taken a con law course and passed it (that should totally be a requirement for anyone holding federal office by the way) would know that. Saying any different is just FUD and trying to confuse people who don't know any better. Of course people would assume if it's wholly intrastate the feds can't touch it. But, to anyone who knows Con Law, that notion is immediately dismissed.

 

[Flit]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2tj1pd0b]

Flit[/url]":2tj1pd0b]Don't forget that this can (and will) be undone in 2016 if we end up with a republican president.

I'm really not trying to be partisan here or scare you into voting against Republicans, but I don't see how a republican president wouldn't appoint Pai (or a similar lackey) as the head of the FCC.

At least find out if your candidate would overturn this ruling, it is probably the most important economic decision of this decade, and you don't want someone who is wrong on this.

Well, that's assuming A) This isn't so incredibly beneficial to consumers that politicians would be afraid to risk their reelection if they proposed a repeal; or B) The Republicans have 60 or more votes (Republicans and some Democrats necessary) to get the bill out of Committee and have a vote on the floor.

Senate and Congress have nothing to do with overturning this ruling.

All it takes is the president single-handedly appointing a majority Republican FCC board, and the vote would go the other way.

 

[soulsabr]

Solidstate89[/url]":11fwqkmy]

Buxaroo[/url]":11fwqkmy]And as usual per the subhuman mentality of FOX news...they tell the SAME story with a different headline that is ENTIRELY wrong.

"FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02 ... -meddling/

Again, for those with double digit IQs, there is a DIFFERENCE between the "internet" and "internet service providers".....

The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.

AUUUGH! So-called? Remained secret? God dammit, FUCK YOU FOX NEWS.

In my 37+ years of life I can't ever recall Fox being actual news.

 

[THavoc]

EDNYLaw[/url]":rbdzctmq]

THavoc[/url]":rbdzctmq]

EDNYLaw[/url]":rbdzctmq]
I'm not even sure how there would be an argument. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the states. I don't think there's any way someone can argue (without just being flat out wrong) that the internet is not interstate commerce.

Just to prove the interstate commerce point, I'll mention a case, the name of which I've forgotten, that said that a single farmer growing wheat (I believe) in contravention to a law stating not to grow wheat was actually affecting interstate commerce. The reasoning behind the judicial decision was, when you take it in the aggregate and add up all the people like this farmer, who are growing wheat in contravention to the law, their actions have a perceptible effect on interstate commerce.

So, I really don't understand how there can be any real question as to whether the FCC has this authority. The federal government is reserved this authority by the Constitution under both the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The FCC is the ultimate rule maker of communication transmissions (subject to congressional law making, of course).

See? Insightful!

But I was mostly referring to those here in the comments section that are saying "it's an overreach" or "State's Rights", etc.

Well, I mean, since the 90's when Reinquist was Chief Justice, there's been a decline in the expansive authority granted to the federal government under the Commerce Clause. But still, I mean I literally cannot think of how this is an overreach. Who, but the FCC is allowed to regulate communications? Absolutely no one at the state level (unless they want to provide more protections or something like that, but they certainly cannot decrease the level of protection or regulations implemented by the FCC). Congress does have the authority to make laws, but they specifically delegated the rule making authority to the FCC.

So, absent a new law stating the FCC doesn't have the authority to make rules (which would literally be insane as that's an agency's sole purpose, well not sole, they do enforcement too, so 1/2 of their purpose), I can't see how this is an overreach. It's like saying the IRS doesn't have the authority to enact regulations supplementing the tax code, or the DOL cannot make rules and regulations supplementing labor law.

The argument's premise (that there was an FCC overreach or a States' rights issue) just doesn't make sense as States have literally never had a right to interfere with the FCC, and the FCC, since it's inception, has always had rule making authority. Where's the counterargument come from? What's the basis?

Don't get me wrong. I know and understand how the FCC works and why.

But it's always nice to see an expert talk back to those claiming the FCC can't much like Wheels does when someone says there's no global warming or CO2 isn't a pollutant, etc.

 

[EDNYLaw]

Flit[/url]":1f4pghgx]

EDNYLaw[/url]":1f4pghgx]

Flit[/url]":1f4pghgx]Don't forget that this can (and will) be undone in 2016 if we end up with a republican president.

I'm really not trying to be partisan here or scare you into voting against Republicans, but I don't see how a republican president wouldn't appoint Pai (or a similar lackey) as the head of the FCC.

At least find out if your candidate would overturn this ruling, it is probably the most important economic decision of this decade, and you don't want someone who is wrong on this.

Well, that's assuming A) This isn't so incredibly beneficial to consumers that politicians would be afraid to risk their reelection if they proposed a repeal; or B) The Republicans have 60 or more votes (Republicans and some Democrats necessary) to get the bill out of Committee and have a vote on the floor.

Senate and Congress have nothing to do with overturning this ruling.

All it takes is the president single-handedly appointing a majority Republican FCC board, and the vote would go the other way.

Well, while technically true, that doesn't tend to happen often. Most agencies do not reverse their precedent in two years. If that was the case, there would be no agency integrity as the rules would be subject to change at the drop of a hat. It'd be an unsustainable business environment as businesses would literally never know what rules will be in effect the next day.

If this is going to change, it'll change through congressional action. At least, that's my opinion.

 

[Papageno]

soulsabr[/url]":20wrxzy3]

Solidstate89[/url]":20wrxzy3]

Buxaroo[/url]":20wrxzy3]And as usual per the subhuman mentality of FOX news...they tell the SAME story with a different headline that is ENTIRELY wrong.

"FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02 ... -meddling/

Again, for those with double digit IQs, there is a DIFFERENCE between the "internet" and "internet service providers".....

The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.

AUUUGH! So-called? Remained secret? God dammit, FUCK YOU FOX NEWS.

In my 37+ years of life I can't ever recall Fox being actual news.

As Jane Curtin quipped during the SNL 40th Anniversary special, "I used to be the only pretty blonde woman anchoring the fake news. Now they have a whole network devoted to that!"

 

[THavoc]

Flit[/url]":2a68ozfo]

EDNYLaw[/url]":2a68ozfo]

Flit[/url]":2a68ozfo]Don't forget that this can (and will) be undone in 2016 if we end up with a republican president.

I'm really not trying to be partisan here or scare you into voting against Republicans, but I don't see how a republican president wouldn't appoint Pai (or a similar lackey) as the head of the FCC.

At least find out if your candidate would overturn this ruling, it is probably the most important economic decision of this decade, and you don't want someone who is wrong on this.

Well, that's assuming A) This isn't so incredibly beneficial to consumers that politicians would be afraid to risk their reelection if they proposed a repeal; or B) The Republicans have 60 or more votes (Republicans and some Democrats necessary) to get the bill out of Committee and have a vote on the floor.

Senate and Congress have nothing to do with overturning this ruling.

All it takes is the president single-handedly appointing a majority Republican FCC board, and the vote would go the other way.

Actually, Congress does since they were the ones who gave the FCC the original laws to begin with. All they have to do it pass a new law saying the FCC can't regulate the Internet or something along those lines.