Phone Scoop

printed August 31, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=7362&fh=2632885

Home  ›  News  ›

Verizon Challenges FCC's Net Neutrality Push

Article Comments  

all discussions

You just don't get it

crood

Jan 21, 2011, 9:54 AM
Verizon may be out for their own interests, but they're right. The FCC is part of the executive branch. Their job is enforcement of laws made by Congress, not to make their own laws.

All these agencies we have are clearly in violation of the US Constitution which only grants such authority to Congress.
...
Slammer

Jan 21, 2011, 10:15 AM
So you're saying that Congress has no idea what the FCC has done here?

John B.
...
jskrenes

Jan 21, 2011, 10:19 AM
Slammer said:
So you're saying that Congress has no idea what the FCC has done here?

John B.


I'm sure congress has an idea what is going on, as I have spoken to my representatives, and they are quite concerned that this administration is attempting to accomplish by mandate what should be done through our representative republic.
...
Azeron

Jan 21, 2011, 10:40 AM
Stop Presidents from legislating (*signing executive orders*) and then we'll talk. As long as we're going to allow the executive branch powers it should not have I am all for stopping big business from walking over the people.
...
acdc1a

Jan 21, 2011, 11:02 AM
You would have done well in Soviet Russia.
...
Azeron

Jan 21, 2011, 11:37 AM
Thank you.
...
GettingSleepy

Jan 21, 2011, 11:11 AM
Does one wrong justify allowing other wrongs to happen?
...
Azeron

Jan 21, 2011, 11:39 AM
Spare me. Where were you when the executive branch expanded its powers with the Patriot Act? I suppose that wrong was justified. Sure.
...
texaswireless

Jan 21, 2011, 11:58 AM
Well,

In 2001 (or was it 2002) he wasn't on here and neither were you. Neither was I. Are you really asking a question for which you have zero idea of the answer?

If we are going to have this country governed correctly, regardless of your partisan views, you cannot justify actions based upon past indiscretions. Plenty of that to go around with both parties.
...
Azeron

Jan 21, 2011, 1:11 PM
Fine. I am not a member of either party. LEt's move on from there.
...
GettingSleepy

Jan 21, 2011, 11:10 AM
Well VZC may have their own interests in mind when pointing out the flaws in the FCC's proposal, we also have to ask ourselves what does the FCC gain with this? And if the answer to that question is extra power that they shouldn't have, then the price to pay to get Net Neutrality is to great.
...
Hi-z

Jan 22, 2011, 9:09 PM
You do know that the FCC and Congress works for us right? They are not boogie men looking to take over the world.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 21, 2011, 12:30 PM
crood said:
Verizon may be out for their own interests, but they're right. The FCC is part of the executive branch. Their job is enforcement of laws made by Congress, not to make their own laws.

All these agencies we have are clearly in violation of the US Constitution which only grants such authority to Congress.


Are you aware that, in the Communications Act of 1934, Congress created the FCC expressly to regulate "interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio"? By way of legislation, Congress has delegated that authority to the FCC. Thus, to say that the FCC is "clearly in violation of the US Constitution" is nonsense.

"SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FE...
(continues)
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 12:43 PM
'regulating' is not the same as making up its own laws. It was designed to regulate laws approved by Congress. Between Obama's new powers to 'shut down the Internet', the ability for certain offices to 'shut down websites without warrant', and now NN - our access to the 'free market' Internet is turning into the locked-down China market.

The unconstitutionality of it, btw, comes from the 5th Amendment (some also argue the 1st). The government is not allowed to take private property for public use without just compensation to the owner (aka, eminent domain). In order for this to apply, ISPs would have to be deemed a 'utility provider', which they are not.
...
AudibleNarcotic

Jan 21, 2011, 12:56 PM
I feel like you are failing to see the fact that without net neutrality it opens the door for these corporations to block or trottle down what ever websites that they see fit. You want to try to envoke China and their blatent censorship but you are comparing it to the wrong side of the table. God forbid the government steps in to protect us from this.
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 1:02 PM
The Internet has not had any issues with this since its inception. There are a handful of users that abuse the service (torrents, illegal file-sharing, etc), but otherwise nothing has changed. These companies HAVE to change their rates because more and more people are using their service which means it's more and more expensive for these companies to operate and maintain their service. Through NN, this will make it even more expensive for ISPs to provide service, which will degrade OUR experience and slow down or completely inhibit the growth of new technology. You think it's bad now, you just wait until NN goes full-swing and companies REALLY hammer down on speed and access. Prices will SKYROCKET. And again, NN is in direct violation of the...
(continues)
...
AudibleNarcotic

Jan 21, 2011, 1:12 PM
You may be right that we have not yet seen these issues... but that is because the discussion of these such practices are new. The fact of the matter is that the issues I am talking about will become a reality if something isn't put into place to stop it. To say that a problem isn't a concern becuase we haven't yet seen it is pretty flawed logic. Thats like saying we shouldn't worry about the prospect of new diseases because we have not yet seen them, so they clearly won't ever become real. The rates are going to change regardless of net neutrality. There are not many examples out there of companies not doing everything they can to make as much profit as possible.
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 1:16 PM
You're right, the rates are going to change regardless..however they are most likely to be CHEAPER if things are left the way they are because options can be given to the consumer. If everything must be socialized, the cost will skyrocket for everyone. Either way, just because 'something hasn't happened' doesn't mean the FCC can create illegal jurisdictions that contradict amendments. Amendments exist for a reason.
...
mycool

Jan 21, 2011, 1:42 PM
trenen said:
If everything must be socialized, the cost will skyrocket for everyone.


While I don't believe that everything should be "socialized" there are a couple of things to note.

Firstly, some socialization is healthy. I'm sure you agree that having things such as policeman, firefighters, roads and freeways, etc. is a good use of socialization. It would not make sense to have an expectation that everyone defend themselves, put out their own fires, build their own roads, etc. But, this is a moot point, because Net Neutrality isn't any form of socialization. If having rules and regulations upon an industry can be deemed "socialization" then every single industry is socialized.

Why is it that other...
(continues)
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 2:01 PM
'equal access to all people at the same cost' is the epitome of socialization. The only people that don't understand this concept are socialists, commies, and liberals. In others words, poor people against capitalism.

Net neutrality divests control over the Internet from the private sector to the government. The objective is to eventually remove all capitalism from every industry and have it completely controlled by the government. While it is not 'to the word' socialism, it is definitely leading down other roads worse than that. What do you think bailouts are? Bailouts are basically buying out the industry being bailed. The government now has control over banks, healthcare, automobiles, and inevitably the Internet because the government ...
(continues)
...
WiWavelength

Jan 21, 2011, 2:44 PM
trenen said:
'equal access to all people at the same cost' is the epitome of socialization. The only people that don't understand this concept are socialists, commies, and liberals. In others words, poor people against capitalism.


Stop w/ these trashy appeals to ridicule. You make some arguable points. But this is not one of them.

AJ
...
lollipop

Jan 21, 2011, 6:55 PM
um.. you should look at what the internet is.... because you have zero clue what you are talking about.

The internet is not owned by anyone. Infact, if anyone owns the internet it would be the massive server farms owned by companies like Amazon. Comcast, Verizon, Att, Time warner, and whatever other ISP under the sun do not have any control or ownership factor in the internet. They are merely gate keepers providing people ACCESS to the internet. The internet itself is comprised of public, private, and government owned networks interlinking with one another.

All of what an ISP does is provide you access to that network. An ISP in general terms would be like a privately owned gate placed on roads it does not own.

Now ...
(continues)
...
thebigsaxon

Jan 24, 2011, 3:53 PM
I have to laugh at this post and just the overall naivete from the OP.

1. The internet was built off of DARPAnet, which was a network designed to withstand a nuclear holocaust.
2. The vast majority of the internet infrastructure was built off of US Government subsidies. While ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc may build out the backbone, they are re-paid so to speak by the US & IRS. Government grants were used extensively in the 1990's to build out the base of the internet as we know it.
3. Socialism is not bailing out business'. I would know, I'm a German Socialist.
4. European Socialist governments have the fastest spec speeds in the world for broadband and the most robust infrastructure's in the world. It epitomizes what the Europea...
(continues)
...
mycool

Jan 21, 2011, 1:33 PM
trenen said:
The Internet has not had any issues with this since its inception. There are a handful of users that abuse the service (torrents, illegal file-sharing, etc), but otherwise nothing has changed. These companies HAVE to change their rates because more and more people are using their service which means it's more and more expensive for these companies to operate and maintain their service.


No, actually, more customers means it's LESS expensive for companies to operate and maintain their services. You're quoting a common fear coined "The Exaflood". You're making a large leap of an assumption. Basically, you're saying that the AVERAGE cost for bandwidth consumption will surpass the AVERAGE revenue f...
(continues)
...
mycool

Jan 21, 2011, 1:00 PM
trenen said:
'regulating' is not the same as making up its own laws. It was designed to regulate laws approved by Congress.


Close, but no. Look here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fe dregulations.htm


The Federal Rulemaking Process
The process of creating and enacting federal regulations is generally referred to as the “rulemaking” process.

First, Congress passes a law designed to address a social or economic need or problem. The appropriate regulatory agency then creates regulations necessary to implement the law. For example, the Food and Drug Administration creates its regulations under the authority of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, the Controlled Su
...
(continues)
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 1:06 PM
It's unconstitutional because it directly violates the 5th amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

By forcing ISPs to allow anyone and their mother full access to their privat...
(continues)
...
WiWavelength

Jan 21, 2011, 1:32 PM
trenen said:
It's unconstitutional because it directly violates the 5th amendment.

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Wireless spectrum is not private property; it is public property. So, your Fifth Amendment argument vis à vis wireless ISPs is null & void.

Additionally, you conveniently use the First Amendment to support your argument against Net Neutrality, yet fail to acknowledge that Net Neutrality helps ensure First Amendment rights to Internet users.

AJ
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 1:39 PM
The 'spectrum' might not be, however all the hardware that makes that spectrum work is private, as well as the land it's built on (in most cases).

As for the 1st amendment, it actually violates that too as NN requires companies to provide all content against their will. If a company doesn't support something, they would be forced to share it, which violates their rights. A quick Google search has more information for you on that.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 21, 2011, 3:15 PM
trenen said:
The 'spectrum' might not be, however all the hardware that makes that spectrum work is private, as well as the land it's built on (in most cases).


That wireless infrastructure (i.e. private property) is worthless w/o access to public spectrum. And, honestly, the same argument could apply to wired ISPs, as their wired infrastructure is cut off at the neck if not for access to public right of way. So, if ISPs want to claim the full rights of private industry, then they need to figure out new ways to conduct business w/o the crucial use of public property.

As an analogy, this is no different from a long haul trucker who is subject to regulations regarding weight, length, hazardous materials,...
(continues)
...
Slammer

Jan 21, 2011, 8:03 PM
I would hope that your post would wrap things up and put them to bed.

Yet some people are so against government, that they would cut their own limbs off to rid themselves of government control while failing to acknowledge the same or worse control coming from the otherside.

John B.
...
tzsm98

Jan 26, 2011, 10:31 AM
Net Neutrality is a First Amendment issue.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Anything other than Net Neutrality forces a government sanctioned abridging of the freedom of speech. If my data packet is blocked, slowed, edited vis a vis another data packet in a manner that is meant to restrict access or publication of my packet because the FCC, acting under law of Congress, allows it Congress has abridged my freedom of speech.

Net Neutrality is not a Fifth Amendment issue.
"No person shall be held t...
(continues)
...
crammy1

Jan 21, 2011, 10:23 PM
great post, i mirror slammer's response to this =)
...
mycool

Jan 21, 2011, 1:49 PM
trenen said:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Good that you are actually quoting sources and evidence now. Bad on the interpretation of it. Private property isn't being taken for public use in these cases. They aren't saying "hey, the fiber lines you laid down are now ours." They're saying "these are the rules you have to abide by to be in this industry."

By your own argument, that's like saying regulating how much smog can come out of a factory smokestack is somehow taking the factory smokestack away from the private company and placing it into public hands. No, they're not taking the property. They're creating rules on the industry, simple as tha...
(continues)
...
trenen

Jan 21, 2011, 2:03 PM
Actually, I'm not the one that interpreted that, lawyers did. Google it.

Actually, they ARE saying that. They are telling these businesses what to do with their property for the 'sake of the public'.
...
crammy1

Jan 21, 2011, 10:25 PM
trenen said:

Actually, they ARE saying that. They are telling these businesses what to do with their property for the 'sake of the public'.

and so what? isn't that what the gov't is for, to protect public interest? so they should make this regulations...
...
lollipop

Jan 21, 2011, 7:02 PM
Um... when an ISP doesn't use government money to make there network then they can argue for the 5th amendment which i find funny. You talk how you are pro-constitution but you are arguing that a non-living construction is a HUMAN BEING!

Also they are under the utilities act... Look up copper wires and look up the laws on how and where you can place copper wires. The only reason you can get DSL or FiOS in cable operated areas is due to a loophole in the law. Since FiOS is placing glass lines into the ground and not copper they don't have to have contracts.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2015 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.
2