![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
And without that classification they couldn't regulate it. Again you keep trying to downplay something that is critical as nothing at all. That is clearly BS.
Nope. If you read the wiki you'll see they regulated all kinds of things. Its all stated their clearly. Their powers were intended to be broad. Congress itself was quite explicit in its clarifications over time too stating that telecommunciations was anything transmitted information without making changes to it essentially.
No it didn't. You can tell the FCC didn't believe that because of 2015 decision to regulate in NN per the rules already posted. The Repub members of the FCC chair believed it didn't (ie. Pai) but then they're generally against any and all regulation of business by default anyways.
That some rulings were excluded is also besides the point when talking about a complex set of rules. There'll always be exceptions in those cases. What matters is what it did broadly.
No you haven't. You disagreeing with me isn't a refutation. Especially when frequently your "refutations" boil down to "nuh uh" and usually have no supporting links, even bad ones.
The FCC has to have knowledge of what is going on at the time + the courts work slow + its a common tactic by either side in a court case to stall things for years if possible. If you know anything about the courts you'd know that and you'd never ask such questions.
If you want to argue that because regulation and enforcement is imperfect it must be useless, or something to that effect, then I'd point NOTHING is perfect and there'll always be regulatory and/or enforcement issues no matter what you do. IOW you're being dishonest if you're expect perfection or anything close to it.
[/quote]
That doesn't say what you're claiming it does at all!! Its also a argument put forth by the ISP's and and shitbird shills like Heritage that ignores previous court decisions at that!! Funny how a self proclaimed proponent of NN such as you keeps trying to back the ISP's views here isn't it? Despite courts already ruling in other cases earlier that the FCC did indeed have the power to do punitive regulations too. For an example of information on that subject:
"In addressing these questions, we apply the familiar two-step analysis of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). As the Supreme Court has recently made clear, Chevron deference is warranted even if the Commission has interpreted a statutory provision that could be said to delineate the scope of the agency’s jurisdiction. See City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013). Thus, if we determine that the Commission’s interpretation of section 706 represents a reasonable resolution of a statutory ambiguity, we must defer to that interpretation. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43." -Verizon v. FCC, No. 11-1355, Slip at 18 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2014)"
Basically the FCC said at one time it wasn't really sure if it had the powers to regulate and then later changed its mind (2010 Open Internet Order), they got sued over that in a different case and the FCC decision was upheld because the court found that the FCC is able to change its mind on how regs are interpreted and implemented which is a necessary part of doing its job as tech changes over time. Just like any other govt. regulatory organization essentially.
This case wasn't even filed until early 2017 dude. By that time it was Pai and the other chumps running the show and regulatory capture was in full effect. Check the dates. You expecting the Wheeler era FCC to use time travel to do enforcement or what?
Using specific language in obtuse manners is highly dishonest and a big part of the problem I'm having with your claims here. That is what you have to address.
I cut n' pasted it dude. They got caught red handed. If that isn't evidence to you, in a actual legal document that was accepted by the court no less, then you're just flat out full of it at this point.
Since they're getting sued for it they're quite clearly NOT falling through the cracks though. That it isn't the FCC doing it is besides the point too given the grounds of the lawsuit which is partially on the basis of the Wheeler FCC's NN rules.
That doesn't matter. What matters is what they were doing at the time the NN rules were still in effect. And if they were still doing it, which it going by the document they were, then they're caught red handed and that older email is proof they knew and purposefully knew what they were doing and why.
Except if they got paid suddenly those bandwidth problems either went away or got mitigated greatly at the expense of others who didn't pay. That is extortion. And for some reason you're determined to ignore that fact.
Nope. Disagreeing over means or type of extortion is irrelevant. Again they got caught saying they'd force those who didn't pay to lose quality of service. There is litterally nothing you can say to justify that, especially as a self proclaimed proponent of NN.
Again, they litterally said they did. That quote from the exec's email lays it out for you as simple as possible. There is no other way to read or interpret it without being fundamentally dishonest at this point.
To Spectrum clearly. You keep going out of your way to take their side here why also going out of your way to crap on the FCC's NN decisions. No proponent of NN would ever do either of those things.
Calling the power to regulate something "nothing" for one WRT the Title II decision. You remember when you did that? There are others but the way you just blew that off as if it was nothing was particularly absurd.
Most of the effects were tied up in lawsuits that were working their way through the courts (note the date of the ruling 2016! for a case began in 2015 not long after the NN rules were passed by the FCC), just like this one. It was litterally locked up in court cases that were dragged out as long as possible. On top of that Congressional Repubs, who controlled Congress than as now, were already doing stuff to block the implement of the NN rules before they were even passed. And by the time the favorable rulings in the courts began to come in it was too late. A new admin was in power and they appointed more stooges like Pai to the FCC to kill it and that was that.
He is a known liar though who has a long history of distorting the truth in favor of established companies and of removing consumer protections as he considers them to be "anti free market". Again as a self avowed NN advocate you'd know that and you wouldn't trust a known bad source of information like that either. Especially one who is highly anti-NN no matter what.
With a Repub controlled Congress (from 2010 onwards) a "clean" NN like you claim to want could never be passed then or now. There was flat out no possibility of it since the Repubs had chosen to block NN to guarantee "freedoms". If you don't understand or are ignorant of the political reality of the time, or now, you won't understand what is going on here at all.
And if you're going to keep letting perfect be the enemy of better then you're in for a loooooong life of disappointment.
Last edited:
