FCC Looks to Quash MetroPCS, Verizon Lawsuits
Of course they did
AJ
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
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.
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)
Just because we disagree does not mean we don't understand.
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
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.
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)
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.
"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)
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.
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.
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:
https://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff= ... »
https://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff= ... »
https://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff= ... »
AJ
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.