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

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
40. Five Epic Fails in the FCC's New Net Neutrality Plan
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 11:52 AM
Apr 2014

Fail #1: Let’s fix this by proposing new rules (that we can’t enforce)

The whole reason the FCC ended up in court (twice) is that it based its Net Neutrality rules on a shaky legal foundation. When the Bush-era FCC decided to classify cable and telco broadband as an “information service” instead of a “telecommunications service,” it surrendered the FCC’s power to protect the open Internet. These bad decisions finally caught up with the agency in January.

The reason the court threw out the FCC’s rules is simple: Telling ISPs they cannot block or discriminate is an obligation the FCC can impose only on telecommunications service providers. Information services are exempt from these obligations. Since these FCC decisions treat broadband the same way they’d treat any website or application, the agency can’t prohibit a broadband provider from discriminating any more than it can bar a website owner from rejecting an ad or an R-rated comment.

Fail #2: Applaud us for mentioning the existence of Title II

The FCC’s announcement says the agency will “keep Title II authority on the table” — meaning that the agency may consider reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act at some point in the future. This is supposed to soothe the millions of people, businesses and organizations that have called on the FCC to reclassify.

But leaving Title II “on the table” is a bit like saying the Constitution is still “on the table.” Title II is the law of the land; only Congress can take it off the table.

The court told the FCC it can’t have it both ways: Either broadband is a common-carrier network that’s subject to rules that prevent blocking and discrimination — or broadband is an information service, which means ISPs can discriminate.

Title II isn’t an option to be reserved for later. It’s the only option that will protect Internet users.

Fail #3: The FCC’s love affair with 706

The FCC keeps trotting out section 706 of the Telecommunications Act as a solution. But as we’ve explained before, the FCC can’t protect free speech and prevent discrimination under the so-called Section 706 authority mentioned in Wednesday’s announcement. Last month’s court decision made that crystal clear.

more;
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/20-6


Great Post BTW.... also everyone pay attention to
your TV news if open internet is even discussed during the day as news....and any politicians speaking about it on TV...... I only know that Sen. Sanders is doing this
in any substance of discussion.

I would like to see some democrats speak up about this.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"The Buck Stops at t...»Reply #40