Verizon Challenges FCC's Net Neutrality Push
You just don't get it
All these agencies we have are clearly in violation of the US Constitution which only grants such authority to Congress.
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.
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.
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)
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.
(continues)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 àvis 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
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.
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)
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.
"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)
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)
Actually, they ARE saying that. They are telling these businesses what to do with their property for the 'sake of the public'.
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...
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.