General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

11. Copps has been advocating for that for years, but he still hasn't come up with a

Sat Apr 26, 2014, 03:02 PM

Apr 2014

legal argument that would effectively change 30 years of the FCC not classifying Internet services as telecoms....the thing is, if you propose that the FCC suddenly reclassify, what's the legal justification you will use to 1) get enough Commission votes, and 2) pass the DC Circuit court, (and SCOTUS, where this would head) particularly in light of these two rulings:

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
FCC v. Fox Tele. Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009)

Effectively, to reclassify, you would have to prove that the past 30 years of Agency determinations, and directives have been wrong. Further, you would have to overcome the very high standard set by SCOTUS in Fox regarding industry reliance. Copps still hasn't told us HOW you do that.

Look--effectively, Copps needs to come up with a reliance argument that will pass the courts. He didn't while he was commissioner, and I don't think he will, now.

If I thought his idea had a snowball's chance in Hell of working, I'd support it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A DU Challenge---Draft Net Neutrality Rules better than the FCC-- [View all] msanthrope Apr 2014 OP

Shouldn't we wait to see the court's response to the DOJ's appeal MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #1

No. We should not. Appeals take years, and rules that address the current legal situation msanthrope Apr 2014 #4

Hey!! RobertEarl Apr 2014 #35

Indeed--he can snap his fingers and take care of everything!!! He's godlike! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #39

So the president is powerless? RobertEarl Apr 2014 #44

Since the FCC has been an independent executive agency with commissioners for a very long msanthrope Apr 2014 #46

An independent agency whose chairman Obama just appointed in November. Lasher Apr 2014 #62

Who was your candidate for the position? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #79

Erm, sorry, it's not that easy treestar Apr 2014 #53

Not my job. MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #102

I'll throw in the NuclearDem amendment, a "fuck off Comcast" clause. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #2

Totally there with that....currently trying to end my service....it's going kinda like this... msanthrope Apr 2014 #5

Bookmarked so I can read all the proposed solutions! greatauntoftriplets Apr 2014 #3

So far.... msanthrope Apr 2014 #6

For some reason, I'm not surprised. greatauntoftriplets Apr 2014 #7

Funny how when you ask for solutions, rather than ranting, it goes silent!!! msanthrope Apr 2014 #8

But it's so much more fun to rant! greatauntoftriplets Apr 2014 #10

And blame Obama. Let's not forget that Obama is supposed to be Superman, and outwit all msanthrope Apr 2014 #12

And somehow, some way, he should control all the courts and dictate their decisions! greatauntoftriplets Apr 2014 #14

Absolutely!! Obama should be a dictator when we really, really need him to be.... msanthrope Apr 2014 #20

You forgot to add my current favorite to that mix... greatauntoftriplets Apr 2014 #22

Oh yeah....that crowd. That's turned to farce. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #25

Much that is intended as serious discussion these days... greatauntoftriplets Apr 2014 #27

Schtick has replaced actual content. But I sense a turning tide. I think some DUers realize they msanthrope Apr 2014 #28

So now we are Putinistas RobertEarl Apr 2014 #36

I think Putinistas are those who post crap from RT and the like in support of Putin, whilst msanthrope Apr 2014 #42

Funny how when people make suggestions they get shot down with... Armstead Apr 2014 #72

I haven't shot down anyone's idea....but I have pointed out the difficulties msanthrope Apr 2014 #74

And thren you complain that no one is responding Armstead Apr 2014 #76

Well...no one had. And frankly, no one has yet to come up with an idea msanthrope Apr 2014 #78

That's your opnion and you're welcome to it. But don't mischaracterize those who disagree Armstead Apr 2014 #80

And I aparently committed the sin of using a grasshopper, too, to illustrate msanthrope Apr 2014 #82

Not bad -- Just annoying Armstead Apr 2014 #83

That's a grasshopper for you entomology challenged! adirondacker Apr 2014 #31

OMG!!! Thank you for that!! I should know better than to trust the YouTube!!! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #32

A former FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, gave the solution yesterday. pa28 Apr 2014 #9

Copps has been advocating for that for years, but he still hasn't come up with a msanthrope Apr 2014 #11

I don't get your focus on the FOX case, the court upheld the FEC's ability to regulate indecent TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #57

^^^^THIS^^^^ Lasher Apr 2014 #65

Not really...see above. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #75

? Above Lasher's post is Kentuckian's, the one that leaves a mark. merrily Apr 2014 #98

The Fox case reaffirmed the idea of industry reliance. That's the hurdle you face msanthrope Apr 2014 #77

It is all about the votes, the FCC is the body vested to make such designations, they were the body TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #94

You know better than someone who was an FCC Commissioner for over 10.5 years? merrily Apr 2014 #99

And of course, you're better able than Copps to determine MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #101

I suspect if Mr. Copps had a winning legal strategy, we'd be reading about it. msanthrope Apr 2014 #106

Michael Copps is correct. They don't need any more compelling justification for GoneFishin Apr 2014 #29

I managed to wade through the decision and came to the same conclusion. pa28 Apr 2014 #33

As someone who waded it through it last night to write an OP, merrily Apr 2014 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author GoneFishin Apr 2014 #50

I don't agree with that...where in the decision are you referencing? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #81

Yes, I know you don't. Oh well. GoneFishin Apr 2014 #97

regulate the net as a public utility nt msongs Apr 2014 #13

And I think you do that by offering municipal broadband. Because as I outlined above, I don't think msanthrope Apr 2014 #17

The ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states Lasher Apr 2014 #63

That is the point, to chase our tails. This is all about taking the pressure off the Federal level TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #95

The municipal broadband argument is easily discredited as a false dilemma. Lasher Apr 2014 #96

I came across this article.... Segami Apr 2014 #15

That's a pretty good summary of what is going on--I would agree that the chance of the Congressional msanthrope Apr 2014 #16

Why did Obama appoint a Corporate, Republican Cable Lobbyist to the FCC? sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #18

You know I don't answer your questions, Sabrina, but I will be happy to grade your efforts msanthrope Apr 2014 #19

Of course I could do better than a Corporate, Cable lobbyist at the FCC. I did not appoint him. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #21

Than I cannot wait to read your rules! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #23

Was I appointed to the FCC without my knowledge? The Cable Lobbyist already wrote the rules sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #24

I understand your reluctance to take up the challenge. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #26

Because he is a corporatist who is to the right of Reagan. He always favors corporate profits GoneFishin Apr 2014 #30

Perhaps the same reason he appointed Rs who want to privatize the USPS to the Postal Commission? merrily Apr 2014 #103

You spend a lot of time explaining how we can't have a nice Internet. Why? DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #34

No, I actually don't think reclassification is a bad idea---but as I noted upthread, I've yet to see msanthrope Apr 2014 #37

Thanks for the reply. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #38

um.. G_j Apr 2014 #41

Declare that the Internet (orginally developed by government) is an essentil public utility... Armstead Apr 2014 #40

I think you do that by short circuiting the legal fights and pushing for municipal broadband. msanthrope Apr 2014 #43

I agree. That would be the ideal solution Armstead Apr 2014 #45

Well, I actually think municipal broadband is a localized fight that is winnable, city by city. msanthrope Apr 2014 #47

I argue it doesn't work that way. joshcryer Apr 2014 #68

YES! Sorry I missed your post before repeating you.! ancianita Apr 2014 #49

+1 RedCappedBandit Apr 2014 #55

Obama should have the FCC declare the Internet a publicly owned utility. Nationalize it. Period. ancianita Apr 2014 #48

Municipal broadband is good only as a supplement to fighting for universal net neutrality, GoneFishin Apr 2014 #51

Now now outrage is more fun and easier! treestar Apr 2014 #52

If you're not outraged you're not paying attention Armstead Apr 2014 #58

It's awesome!! Major Hogwash Apr 2014 #61

4. Watch as msanthrope keeps moving the goalposts SwankyXomb Apr 2014 #54

Where did she move the goalposts from then? stevenleser Apr 2014 #56

She moved them to the land of make believe by trying to assert that the FCC doesn't own designation TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #60

Exactly. +1000 GoneFishin Apr 2014 #73

Interesting legal challenge The Traveler Apr 2014 #59

FCC Rule: ISPs are Common Carriers. joshcryer Apr 2014 #64

Awesome, Josh...tell me how you get the commission votes for that. Then, tell me msanthrope Apr 2014 #84

If the GOP thought like you, the Democrats would be in charge Armstead Apr 2014 #85

It's not defeatism....it's called legal strategy. You actually need to have one other than msanthrope Apr 2014 #87

Like I said...Look at the outrageous things the GOP comes up with Armstead Apr 2014 #89

So you want the Democrats to act like Republicans? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #90

Tactically yes. Armstead Apr 2014 #91

This is the stickler. You don't want this SCOTUS reviewing it. joshcryer Apr 2014 #104

thank you that's where legal strategy hits political reality..... msanthrope Apr 2014 #105

So what if you and two other lawyers agree? Lasher Apr 2014 #66

Have you seen this? "Before you rant about Comcast/Netflix issue being related to Net Neutrality.. Cha Apr 2014 #67

Boom, Comcast you're dead davidpdx Apr 2014 #69

The backlash cometh. Unrecommended a whole bunch. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #70

Do you not understand the difference between "allowed" and "required"? Scuba Apr 2014 #71

I'll take "trying to defend the indefensible" for $1000 Scuba ! marmar Apr 2014 #86

DU rec...nt SidDithers Apr 2014 #88

Reclassification Is Not a Dirty Word ProSense Apr 2014 #92

Subterfuge is why people hate lawyers n/t whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #93

Better tell the President right away MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #107

You sound miffed that your President is keeping a campaign promise. nt msanthrope Nov 2014 #108

No, I'm thrilled as long as it's not BS. nt MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #109

Are you accusing the President of BS? nt msanthrope Nov 2014 #110

"Any bill I sign must include a public option" MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #111

Oh Manny....if Congress didn't include the public option, should the President msanthrope Nov 2014 #112

My "much-touted Cornell education"? MannyGoldstein Nov 2014 #113