Phone Scoop

printed August 4, 2015
See this page online at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=7401&fh=2638746

Home  ›  News  ›

FCC Looks to Quash MetroPCS, Verizon Lawsuits

Article Comments  

all discussions

Of course they did

trenen

Jan 28, 2011, 6:31 PM
Why on earth would a government division restructured by the current Whitehouse administration think that making up illegal laws is wrong? I hope to god this 'quash' doesn't happen or there really is no limit to this new government we are being forced into.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 28, 2011, 6:56 PM
Your so called constitutional arguments have been refuted time & again in numerous recent threads. But you conveniently ignore those cogent rebuttals and blabber on w/ your irrational anti government rhetoric. Apparently, "there really is no limit" to your ignorance & misinformation.

AJ
...
texaswireless

Jan 28, 2011, 7:10 PM
I have no idea what debates you guys have participated in but in this instance he is correct. The FCC does not have a right to make law. Congress is the legislative branch and it would be done there.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 28, 2011, 7:35 PM
We have rehashed this many times over. Congress has already made law -- The Communications Act of 1934 -- creating the FCC and authorizing it to regulate "interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio."

Additionally, the FCC promulgating certain tenets of Net Neutrality is not about making law any more than is the FCC limiting the broadcast power of TV stations, requiring Local Number Portability for wireless carriers, etc. No, this issue is about creating rules & regulations that promote the public good. And the FCC is fully authorized to do so.

AJ
...
texaswireless

Jan 28, 2011, 7:40 PM
Well,

I know I am not a constituational lawyer and I bet neither are you. What I would hope is this goes to court and we get a ruling on the matter.

I do not agree with your assessment that the FCC has boundless powers on these matters and the courts have agreed in the Comcast ruling.

I look forward to reading the courts opinions on the matter rather than having the government disallow the arguments to be made.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 28, 2011, 8:39 PM
I do not agree with your assessment that the FCC has boundless powers on these matters and the courts have agreed in the Comcast ruling.


No well reasoned poster is asserting "boundless powers," only that the FCC has authority from Congress to regulate communications for the public good. Conversely, arguing that Net Neutrality does not serve the public good is a difficult case to make.

I look forward to reading the courts opinions on the matter rather than having the government disallow the arguments to be made.


Many of you have failed to read the FCC motions or simply do not understand them. In a nutshell, both VZW & MetroPCS jumped the gun. FCC Orders are not subject to public co...
(continues)
...
texaswireless

Jan 28, 2011, 8:47 PM
Got it Jacoby and Meyers. Us little folk can't possible comprehend your superior legal mind.

Just because we disagree does not mean we don't understand.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 28, 2011, 9:06 PM
texaswireless said:
Just because we disagree does not mean we don't understand.


Do you understand the definition of the conjunction "or"?

WiWavelength said:
Many of you have failed to read the FCC motions or simply do not understand them.


AJ
...
texaswireless

Jan 28, 2011, 9:44 PM
Do you understand disagree? I read the attached pdf with the motion. It contains the argument for the government. It does not contain the decision of the court.

According to your statement, which I fully understood, we either did not read or we did not understand. The point you attempted to make was our stance is based lack of knowledge of the facts or lack of ability to understand the motion. Both points are accepted as your position and I disagree.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 28, 2011, 11:12 PM
texaswireless said:
I read the attached pdf with the motion.


Did you read the motions prior to posting at 6:10pm or, better yet, before my goading at 7:39pm? Be honest.

texaswireless said:
It contains the argument for the government. It does not contain the decision of the court.


This should be an open & shut case. VZW & MetroPCS have not played by the rules. As FCC licensees, they know that challenging a motion is not allowed until it is published. This is akin to appealing a grade in school that you have not even yet received. So, the court should dismiss the complaints for now. However, VZW & MetroPCS will assuredly refile during the prescribed comment perio...
(continues)
...
texaswireless

Jan 28, 2011, 11:22 PM
I read it before I ever looked at the comments. I do in every circumstance where I choose to comment.

As for the rest of this, your choice of debate tactics and your lack of credentials on the matter suggest this discussion will produce nothing to change my mind.

Go have a drink and argue this with someone else.
...
JeffroPuff

Jan 29, 2011, 12:16 PM
Wait. What were you arguing about? FCC lawsuits or semantics? Oh. Semantics? That's cool.
...
ELawson87

Jan 29, 2011, 1:32 PM
I get tired of repeating myself and this is a lot to type, so I'm just gonna C&P what I posted on the MetroPCS thread:

"Here's your logical, legal perspective:

1) The internet is not a privately-owned enterprise. It is not owned by Comcast, Verizon, Charter, or any other company, despite what they want you to believe. They charge a monthly fee for access, which is perfectly acceptable, but they have no right to control what their customers do with that access.

2) The 5th amendment does not apply. The 5th amendment reads:

"No person shall be held to answer fr 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...
(continues)
...
texaswireless

Jan 29, 2011, 1:38 PM
Not sure if that was directed at me or someone else. Likely someone else and you mis-posted because I attempted to make no argument along those lines.

I want to read the courts ruling on the subject. No offense Perry but I have zero knowledge of your internet law firm and prefer to let the proper authority review the subject matter.
...
ELawson87

Jan 29, 2011, 7:21 PM
It was directed at you, because you mentioned legal arguments and I gave you some.

I do notice, however, that your response isn't a counter-argument so much as claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have a law degree [yet], when I think I made a very clear, concise, articulate argument for my position. I also assume that you agree, because you aren't trying to counter it.
...
jhr2112

Jan 29, 2011, 7:10 PM
Having worked in commercial radio in the past for many years I can tell you the FCC does have broad powers and for good reason. They were created to make regulations on an ever changing industry. You cant hold up progress and technology just to wait for congress to pass a law that might take years. I personally don't see why anyone, except maybe corporations, would be against net neutrality. I would have gone a lot further to protect consumers..
...
trenen

Jan 28, 2011, 8:40 PM
They have not been refuted. The law the FCC passed is unconstitutional. No branch of government is allowed to create laws that conflict with that. Although, apparently Obama and his loony followers seem to think so or this conversation would not be happening.
...
WiWavelength

Jan 28, 2011, 9:03 PM
trenen said:
They have not been refuted. The law the FCC passed is unconstitutional. No branch of government is allowed to create laws that conflict with that. Although, apparently Obama and his loony followers seem to think so or this conversation would not be happening.


Yes, your inferior arguments have been refuted. Start your reading here:

http://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=7 ... »
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=7 ... »
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=7 ... »

AJ
...
ELawson87

Jan 29, 2011, 1:24 PM
How many times do I have to prove you wrong in other threads before you'll get off this "WAAAH UNCONSTITUTIONAL CAUSE I DUN LIEK IT" kick?
...
Iknownothing

Jan 29, 2011, 1:35 PM
By "looney followers" I assume you mean the majority of voters and plurality of americans that elected him.
...
Iknownothing

Jan 29, 2011, 2:32 PM
I don't get it. Since world war II there have been 5 wars that I can think of. Not one of them has been declared by congress. The last administration was literally syping on it's citezens without a warrant, and you pick now to be upset that the fcc of all things is not wanting isp's to be able to censor the net? I dont get it. And to blame Obama and his "looney followers" is, in the light of recent history, patatently absurd. I mean, I really dont get it.

Gor God's sake the previous administration wanted to make it within the auspices of the executive branch to imprison citizens outside the reach of the judicial system and you choose to get riled up by some kind of perceived power grab the the f freaking cc to do I cant imagine what....
(continues)
...
texaswireless

Jan 29, 2011, 4:06 PM
How do you know he wasn't against your alleged mis-deed from previous government regimes?

Is this a political debate website or a website about wireless in general?

How do you know he was not against the same government intervention elsewhere?

As a libertarian I am against government intervention in almost all aspects, from regulating industry to the "war on drugs" yet I don't debate about those other things here. This isn't the place for that in my opinion yet based on your thread if I haven't declared my position here I must not have been against it.

Really? Is that your debate stance? That is why I bowed out earlier in this thread. Nobody is making case references and linking to judicial precedent. You people are linking ...
(continues)
...
Iknownothing

Jan 29, 2011, 5:15 PM
I may be engaging in a political debate but certainly I am not the only one. To single one side out (as you have certainly done with the nomenclature of "you people") is one sided.

This debate has continued over several news items so there are things argued here you may not have read yet. There have been plenty of legal references in these debates. I leave you to read them and make your own judgments.

I dont know what he was arguing for or against in 2003. Like I said several times, I might be wrong, but I doubt it. Particularly since his frequent assumption that all those that disagree with him are "Obama crazies" or "lefist loons" certainly betrays a political bias.

No this is not my debate stance. My debate stance has been...
(continues)
...
texaswireless

Jan 29, 2011, 5:30 PM
Not trying to defend him in general but I do believe you lessen your position by making the "where were you when?" type post. You assume his position on a matter rather than having specific citations on his position.

You two just happened to be ones to make my point for me. Neither were around when you referenced a subject not entirely related to this debate and you assumed his position on the matter.

Stick to the discussion at hand and his current position and someone like me wouldn't have anything to say. For the most part you didn't pull out the "you disagree with me because you aren't smart enough to understand my position" card. By the way, my biggest pet peeve of them all.
...
ELawson87

Jan 29, 2011, 7:16 PM
Pretty sure I've made several coherent legal arguments that, so far, no one has bothered trying to challenge. I guess bitching about the "gubment" and making ridiculous claims based on a twisted form of faux-economics rooted in a completely false premise is a lot easier than confronting arguments made on legitimate Constitutional grounds.
...
lollipop

Feb 1, 2011, 7:26 PM
Lol Libertarians. They want limited government where industry has more rights then the people.

If Government cannot regulate Corporations then what stops a corporation from denying you your rights as a worker?

Libertarian society would never work because any outside institution coming in with more money and a better product would have destroyed our industries. Hell, GM would have died back in the 80s and so would the rest of the big three.
...

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