Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pa28

(6,145 posts)
33. I managed to wade through the decision and came to the same conclusion.
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 05:36 PM
Apr 2014

The judge created an opening for the FCC to step in and draft a new, clearer set of rules protecting neutrality. The FCC has a powerful mandate to create rules and they chose to take a dive on Net Neutrality.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A DU Challenge---Draft Ne...»Reply #33