General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

35. Thanks, Koko. Clearly, you paid close attention.

Mon Apr 28, 2014, 02:04 AM

Apr 2014

Wu was the subject of an attempted hatchet job on villager's thread and, now, Copps is getting the ax on other threads, but both Copps and Wu clearly know both FCC law and internet regulation very, very well.

Their views are far from unique, too. If you google FCC net neutrality re-classification, you will get a lot of hits showing articles from knowledgeable people. Even the FCC itself does not make a huge deal of the alleged obstacles to re-classification. Nor did the President. You'd think the Executive Branch would at least want a great excuse like that---and the Constitution, too, no less--if they had one?

I have not seen anyone saying with a relevant resume and knowledge of the internet or FCC law say re-classification is a huge deal.

Think I'll go with Copps and Wu and the many who agree with them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"The Buck Stops at the FCC"-(Net Neutrality) [View all] merrily Apr 2014 OP

Thank you, thank you, thank you Armstead Apr 2014 #1

Thank you! On the activism issue, I again refer you to Koko's great thread, unless you have already merrily Apr 2014 #2

K&R Armstead Apr 2014 #38

Thanks for this. elleng Apr 2014 #3

Thank you! A federal regulator of common carriers thinks my post was okay? merrily Apr 2014 #5

Oh, I'm glad, merrily! elleng Apr 2014 #8

Key phrase... "members are named by Presidents" HooptieWagon Apr 2014 #15

Yes, and Earl Warren was nominated by republican Dwight Eisenhower. elleng Apr 2014 #23

Are you really trying to compare Tom Wheeler to Earl Warren? HooptieWagon Apr 2014 #29

Excellent point, but the Ike Warren thing was very different. merrily Apr 2014 #30

And perhaps because while they ARE nominated by Presidents, they 'do not take orders' from sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #16

Presidents don't have a lot of need to give orders to "independent" agency heads. They choose merrily Apr 2014 #31

Either presidents no longer have much choice on who to nominate, considering the huge donations sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #39

Oh, they have a choice. merrily Apr 2014 #42

'Keep voting out sell out politicians'. Exactly. They have the idea that they can take the votes of sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #43

I don't know about Axelrod or Rahm, but I have heard MANY Dem pundits say it on TV whenever merrily Apr 2014 #46

On this thread, anyway, I used Wu not so much because of his claim of merrily Apr 2014 #25

"The FCC has no statutory power to impose common carrier-type regulations on a company... ChisolmTrailDem Apr 2014 #4

Full disclosure: I never thought about it before, one way or the other. merrily Apr 2014 #7

For the FCC to impose common carrier regulations it must classify that way prior to TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #37

Exactly. The FCC may proceed with NN, but obviously has no intention of doing that. merrily Apr 2014 #47

There we go. joshcryer Apr 2014 #6

"The FCC has no statutory power to impose common carrier-type regulations GoneFishin Apr 2014 #9

Yes. merrily Apr 2014 #11

Ok. Thanks. GoneFishin Apr 2014 #12

Or to the more cynical among us, a Republican Cable Lobbyist might have wanted to leave some sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #17

Thanks much, sabrina 1. merrily Apr 2014 #19

It is obvious how much work you put into this. DU used to produce some great research like this sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #21

The worst bit was getting through the opinion. I freeze up merrily Apr 2014 #32

Bookmarking this great post for reference. pa28 Apr 2014 #10

Not bad for a first OP. Lasher Apr 2014 #13

No worries. You can always bookmark for whenever you want to read it merrily Apr 2014 #34

I Merrily recommend this post! Dragonfli Apr 2014 #14

HA! Copps is already being discredited on other threads. merrily Apr 2014 #18

Net neutrality is essential for the future of an internet. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #20

Good points. I also think we need net neutrality because msm is merrily Apr 2014 #26

K&R. nt OnyxCollie Apr 2014 #22

Thanks so much! Agony Apr 2014 #24

You are very welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #33

Merrily...Thank You...Key Points from your Post that are Important: KoKo Apr 2014 #27

Thanks, Koko. Clearly, you paid close attention. merrily Apr 2014 #35

Considering who is 'thrashing' Wu and Copps, lol, I'll go with them also. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #44

Their credentials are in my OP. Pretty damned impressive. merrily Apr 2014 #48

Yes, their credentials are impressive. But when the facts and truth don't match the 'message' sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #52

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." nt merrily Apr 2014 #54

Exactly! Which I do, lol! sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #55

thx for gathering this info & posting Duppers Apr 2014 #28

You're welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #36

Five Epic Fails in the FCC's New Net Neutrality Plan Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #40

Great post, to you, too, Iching. merrily Apr 2014 #41

Thank you.. nt ProudProgressiveNow Apr 2014 #45

You are welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #49

Well written OP. blackspade Apr 2014 #50

Thank you and yes, re-classification, if done properly, would be the solution. merrily Apr 2014 #51

K&R nt Guy Whitey Corngood Apr 2014 #53

kick and rec nt steve2470 May 2014 #56