FCC Tells Court It Has No "Legal Authority" to Impose Net Neutrality Rules

Most of the same people and companies bitching about the removal of Net Neutrality were the ones a few years back bitching about the implementation of Net neutrality. Sorry to rain on your foamers parade, but the rules werent really enforced anyway.

Now you get to have the states come up with laws, because most of the people in this country are dumb and foam at the mouth whenever they ring the bell. Then you get to defend, with your tax dollars, the lawsuits that will be forthcoming across a multitude of spectrums. Some will not affect you, others will goto the supreme court and then affect you and your tax dollars. In the end, it will be much worse everywhere except California, that whole state is the Websters Definition of Fucked, and i doubt it could get much worse. Then again, every few years they do shock us all with something else right out of Monty Python to slap you in the face, so who knows.
 
Ski said:
You don't often see government agencies fighting to prove they "don't" have the authority to do something. It's usually the opposite.

And this quote, "FCC tells court it has no “legal authority” to impose net neutrality rules."

Then let the states do it.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't allow states to regulate interstate commerce.
mesyn191 said:
No he isn't. The common legal definitions that already exist don't fit the BS he is spewing.


The courts already did in 2016 and they agreed with the then FCC leadership that the FCC can implement NN rules.


Congress delegated regulation to the FCC already though.

And Congress can already decide to pass new laws that change how the internet is regulated or just change the FCC's charter at will too.

The case is a joke and the arguments and actions of Pai's FCC are some of the most blatant cases of regulatory capture and corruption we've ever seen in modern times.
Click to expand...
Broadband was still classified as Title II in 2016.
Wiffle said:
Well then I guess if the FCC says they have no jurisdiction over "broadband" or internet access in general, then its up to the states to hash this all out seeing as how there is no federal authority to regulate "broadband" across all 50 states.

So the FCC can't keep people from using dirty language over the radio, can't keep the Kardashians from exposing themselves on live TV, and can't keep US companies from using anti-competitive practices over the internet within the 48 contiguous states... what good is the FCC then? Why do I pay taxes to support a non-functioning regulatory committee?

...they should go and FCC themselves...

Freaking Clown Convention.

Edit: Communications is an exchange of information. Its the whole basis for language and speech. The internet and computer coding is an evolution and extension of that. Don't be too depressed over this though... at one point in time judges on the supreme court openly and vehemently believed races should be segregated and upheld such legislation because some congressman was offended because he saw 2 people of different races hugging. That was only 100 years ago. Give it another 100 and maybe they will get this "Net Neutrality" right...
Click to expand...
As a Title I information service, the FTC is the regulatory body who has jurisdiction. Regulation of interstate commerce is one of the powers allowed to the federal government in the Constitution, so the 10th Amendment doesn't apply.
 
So... Aren't they moving telephpones to mostly VOIP? (And aren't all cell phone digital voice at this point?) I don't understand how this is even remotely not a grab for complete deregulation of the digital world...
 
tempertantrum said:
So... Aren't they moving telephpones to mostly VOIP? (And aren't all cell phone digital voice at this point?) I don't understand how this is even remotely not a grab for complete deregulation of the digital world...
Click to expand...

You going to replace your phone line with Skype?

You think everyone else is going to do that?

No?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You going to replace your phone line with Skype?

You think everyone else is going to do that?

No?
Click to expand...
I replaced my phone line with a cell phone. Haven't had a landline phone for over 5 years. And yes, my cell does switch to using my wifi for calls when I'm at home sometimes, so technically that's voip, right?
 
Logan321 said:
I replaced my phone line with a cell phone. Haven't had a landline phone for over 5 years. And yes, my cell does switch to using my wifi for calls when I'm at home sometimes, so technically that's voip, right?
Click to expand...

Your cellphone doesn't have a number?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
You going to replace your phone line with Skype?

You think everyone else is going to do that?

No?
Click to expand...

Um, by the definition that is being pushed by the FCC, all modern telephone service is not a telecomunication service. Every phone call, land line or cell, does multiple DB lookups just like any internet transaction. Hell, they've done DB lookups of one form or another going back a century.
 
So essentially the FTC is claiming they have no jurisdiction to enforce net neutrality on ISPs, but simultaneously are claiming they have the authority to *prevent* states from enforcing net neutrality individually. It's gotta be one or the other, right?
 
Logan321 said:
So essentially the FTC is claiming they have no jurisdiction to enforce net neutrality on ISPs, but simultaneously are claiming they have the authority to *prevent* states from enforcing net neutrality individually. It's gotta be one or the other, right?
Click to expand...

Basically Pai needs to pull his head out of the telecoms' asses and back the fuck off.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Is this not in the FCC's power?



We'll probably just disagree here, because I'm referencing 'popular' definitions.



Based on the current Title classification, which has changed.



Sure, but regulatory power is a fluid thing.



I'll clarify that I'm talking about the issue itself, it's clear that Congress has retained the power to make adjustments. My point is that the 'ball is in their court', so to speak, with respect to making adjustments here.



It might be, but for that to be true it needs to be provable; till then, it's a matter of opinion. If it is true, let Mr. Pai hang I say, but do prove it.
Click to expand...


You are completely correct. I had several posts on this topic saying the same things that have disappeared. As I didn't receive a warning I can only assume that someone else did and my comments were removed along with the offender's.

The FCC was birthed and given it's authority under the Federal Communications Act. The FCA defines what is and is not a Title I or Title II service and it lays out what those distinctions mean and how each shall be regulated.

And although the FCC has great power to exercise the authority granted under the FCA, they can not rewrite the Act itself. This is something Congress needs to fix.

Congress is long overdue to address this issue, as well as privacy issues and others. I believe we would all be better served by pushing our elected congressmen to take on these issues then putting it all on Pai. Properly ammended, the FTA would set the FCC on the correct course and I am all about doing things the right way instead of hoping for half assed band-aids applied by functionaries.
 
tempertantrum said:
So... Aren't they moving telephpones to mostly VOIP? (And aren't all cell phone digital voice at this point?) I don't understand how this is even remotely not a grab for complete deregulation of the digital world...
Click to expand...


Need to be careful with this and understand that there is a fundamental difference between a landline phone signal, analogue or digital, and Skype which is a service no different then say Discord or Teamspeak, provided over the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top