Yes, you are correct in as much as that the classification of ISPs have been going back and forth between the FCC and the courts for a long time among different case. The courts said that the prior court cases were using vague terminology to apply Title 2 to ISPs.
You have said the same thing I have. The only difference is that because I recognize 1) these rules were initiated among party lines they were eventually going to be taken away on party lines 2) if you want to protect NN you have to change the law. 3) whenever there is this much back and forth between the government and the courts about the interpretation of a law it is a safe bet to say that the law is poorly written.
Sure, call me a partisan shill because I think there is a proper way to regulate things and when anything that goes back and forth like this between the government and the courts it is the job of Congress to fix. Would rather be that then be whatever the fuck you are willing to buy any shit anyone is willing to sell with FUD.
Telecommunications is a means of transmission without changing the information. "ISPs supply simply routes packets.". Packets are information on top of a means of communications. How is "routing" not a capability of generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, or making information available on a means of transmission?
deliberately bending language to selfishly have your way.
... welcome to politics and law? Jesus are you 12? Why do you think the judiciary is separate from the legislature? Funny enough, Scalia even remarked about how in EVERY case half of the lawyers are trying to convince the judges to break the law. "Anyway Counsel often encourage judges to do the wrong thing. In fact in every case there's one of the two counsels urging the court to do the wrong thing." - Antonin Scalia.
The sad thing I could agree with you and Scalia but again the law was written in 1934 which is a stretch to properly restrain the legal requirements of modern technology. If you want NN to be protected then you need to have Congress to make the law clear that the FCC cannot change the interrpretation based on the chairman.
No it was not fine as it was because the Supreme Court in 2005 said that ISPs couldn't be classified to be regulated under Title 2. These rules were the latest attempt to bypass that court ruling and get back to the precedent established by the Ninth Circuit that could classify the ISPs as Title 2. IOW, an attempt to ignore the Supreme Court.
Congress is the only one that can fix the law to fix the problem.
Those mounting legal issues won't accomplish much except for hot air and waste of time. Because the Supreme Court in 2005 has already ruled that ISPs cannot be regulated by Title 2 under the current law because the law is fundamentally flawed and outdated because it cannot properly classify modern ISPs.
Congress is the only one that can do anything and rightly so.
You don't need a constitutional amendment. You just need to update the Communications Act to properly classify ISPs as a telecommunications service provider or an information service provider or set up framework for a new classification that is both.
Pretty much this. The FCC tried Net Neutrality-lite regulations and it was shut down by the Supreme Court in 2005. These rules were the latest attempt to use the Communications Act to regulate ISPs but the problem is because the law is so outdated it cannot properly address the fact that an ISP is an telecommunications service provider (able to be regulated as Title 2) and an information service provider (not able to be regulated under Title 2).
If NN is the answer through Title 2 then Congress is precisely the way to get it done instead of an over zealous chairman and president ignoring the courts through power grabs and overreach.
So, let me get this straight. ISPs do not "generate, acquire, store, transform, retrieve, utilize or make available information via telecommunications" in your mind? Maybe you can explain to me how the internet works without any information and is as dumb as a copper line.
The point is the existing law is flawed because it forces telecommunications service providers and information service providers to be a distinct thing which clearly they are not with modern internet and ISPs. That is why you have disagreement from the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme court. Yet, even the Ninth Circuit recognizes some facet of information service. Both can be right and wrong at the same time because both are operating under the flawed distinction in the law that the FCC goes back and forth on. Namely, telecommunications service must be distinct from information service when an ISP is clearly both.
I understand what you are saying but you are being obtuse about it. Can the FCC ignore the law and the courts to give you what you want? No. Change the law because it is flawed. The FCC dancing back and forth does no one any favors.
finessing of language
You do realize that is the entire basis of the judiciary and this entire debacle? Sheesh if you get any more obtuse you'll suffer from acute derangement.
If you believe that is the distinction being made by this vote you are delusional. NN is built on the premise that monopolies have to exist. The way these rules were put in place overstep the authority of the FCC by ignoring the courts and the law, i.e. corruption.
Obama had overstepped his authority in introducing Network Neutrality.
Obama did overstep his authority in introducing NN. Being tricksy with the rules to get the regulations you want that are against what the courts and law say is overstepping your authority.
The law needs to be updated. The courts and government have routinely gone back and forth unable to address the core of the issue and that is how do you classify ISPs. The law makes a distinction but the problem is that an ISP is both.
Congress needs to get involved to classify what an ISP is so that the FCC and FTC can apply the proper classification for regulation.
uh, those 3 are the basis of the issue of classifying ISPs that decide how they will be regulated. The entire NN argument can be summed up in those 3 things. Do I really have to spell it out for you ?
Law makes distinction. New technology has regulatory body set precedent. Appeals court uses that precedent to establish an acceptable interpretation for that distinction. Supreme Court in a different case overrules the interpretation of the appeals court to use the other classification that is falls under different regulations. Regulatory body is flippant about that distinction.
An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?
The law makes a distinction between the two. The argument comes from the law, court rulings on the law, and regulatory decisions based on the law. Yes, the FTC is a nutty libertarian blog that uses tortured language... -.-
FCC jurisdiction over broadband services arises under the Communications Act. Central to the broadband discussion is a distinction under that Act between “telecommunications services” and “information services.” The former, but not the latter, are subject to substantial mandatory common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. While not subject to the Title II common carrier regulations, information services are treated by the FCC as subject to its general, ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act.
As noted above, a series of regulatory and judicial decisions have helped to clarify both the distinction between information and telecommunications services and the status of broadband services as information services. That clarification is, to an extent, in tension with early regulatory and judicial attempts to grapple with the novel technologies that enabled the provision of Internet access. For example, in 1980, the FCC promulgated rules designed to address, among other things, the growing commerce in data-processing services available via telephone wires (the “Computer II Rules”). With reference to those rules, the FCC subsequently applied certain common carrier obligations, such as non-discrimination, to local telephone companies providing early DSL services. Further, as recently as 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “the transmission of Internet service to subscribers over cable broadband facilities is a telecommunications service under the Communications Act.” Still, the FCC’s current view that broadband services are information services has its roots in earlier decisions by the FCC and the courts. The same Computer II Rules that grounded the early DSL determination distinguished between “basic” and “enhanced” services and did not subject the latter to Title II common carrier regulation.In the following decade, the FCC recognized that ISPs provide not just “a physical connection [to the Internet], but also . . . the ability to translate raw Internet data into information [consumers] may both view on their personal computers and transmit to other computers connected to the Internet.” Moreover, the 1998 Universal Service Report regarded “non-facilities-based” ISPs – those that do not own their own transmission facilities – solely as information service providers. Indeed, even the Ninth Circuit opinion that held that ISPs offering cable broadband were offering telecommunications services recognized that, under the Communications Act and FCC implementing regulations, a significant portion of those services were information services.... In Brand X, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that cable broadband is an information service as a reasonable construction of the Communications Act, reversing a Ninth Circuit decision that had relied on City of Portland as precedent.
The FTC has a good understanding of the issues and concerns. Since they are now going to be the ones regulating the internet, their opinion is appropriate.
The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply
No they still apply because it is part of the law. " It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party (other
I agree but sadly the law makes them distinct. Should the FCC be able to ignore the distinctions made by law to get what you want? The law needs to be updated instead of the FCC over stepping their authority.
It's changing a decision without justification,
There is plenty of justification and the FTC has made good cases why it should be in charge of regulating it as it was before. You are upset that the FCC didn't restate what was stated 10 years ago?
Is an ISP a telecommunications service provider or an information service provider? The law makes that distinction and one of those cannot be regulated by Title 2.
Yes, the law needs to be updated for an industry that changes faster than companies can lay wires.
That is speculation on your part. Every governing body does not want that to happen and it didn't happen when we didn't have these rules and is expressly forbidden by law.
"It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party other than the Commission) who opposes new technology or service proposed to be permitted under this Act shall have the burden to demonstrate that such proposal is inconsistent with the public interest." - Sec. 7 U.S.C. 157
Here is the crux of the matter. What are ISPs? Are they telecommunication service providers or information service providers? That distinction is made by the law and one is not allowed to be regulated by Title 2. Everyone agrees that more competition is needed. The argument is over who has the better legal framework to protect public interest from ISPs while not impeding on innovation and development of new technologies in an industry that changes faster than the regulatory bodies can keep up.
It was an accounting error that withheld birth-control for a few days. It would not have been a problem but it just so happened to be about one year ago and frantic end-of-the-world-debauchery ensued.
I was able to be around some stairs so I was able to push that problem out of the way at the right time.:)
Right... Changing one decision that was made a few years ago in a discussion and legal matter that has been on going for decades is now akin to being a toady in industry. Sounds absurd when you put this into context.
Maybe you can answer the question without being an "industry toady"; Is an ISP a telecommunications service provider or a information service provider?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think on the general principles both sides agree. From there I want to be an optimist on enshrining those principles to law.
Yes, you are correct in as much as that the classification of ISPs have been going back and forth between the FCC and the courts for a long time among different case. The courts said that the prior court cases were using vague terminology to apply Title 2 to ISPs.
You have said the same thing I have. The only difference is that because I recognize 1) these rules were initiated among party lines they were eventually going to be taken away on party lines 2) if you want to protect NN you have to change the law. 3) whenever there is this much back and forth between the government and the courts about the interpretation of a law it is a safe bet to say that the law is poorly written.
Sure, call me a partisan shill because I think there is a proper way to regulate things and when anything that goes back and forth like this between the government and the courts it is the job of Congress to fix. Would rather be that then be whatever the fuck you are willing to buy any shit anyone is willing to sell with FUD.
Telecommunications is a means of transmission without changing the information. "ISPs supply simply routes packets.". Packets are information on top of a means of communications. How is "routing" not a capability of generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, or making information available on a means of transmission?
deliberately bending language to selfishly have your way.
... welcome to politics and law? Jesus are you 12? Why do you think the judiciary is separate from the legislature? Funny enough, Scalia even remarked about how in EVERY case half of the lawyers are trying to convince the judges to break the law. "Anyway Counsel often encourage judges to do the wrong thing. In fact in every case there's one of the two counsels urging the court to do the wrong thing." - Antonin Scalia.
The sad thing I could agree with you and Scalia but again the law was written in 1934 which is a stretch to properly restrain the legal requirements of modern technology. If you want NN to be protected then you need to have Congress to make the law clear that the FCC cannot change the interrpretation based on the chairman.
Everything was fine as it was.
No it was not fine as it was because the Supreme Court in 2005 said that ISPs couldn't be classified to be regulated under Title 2. These rules were the latest attempt to bypass that court ruling and get back to the precedent established by the Ninth Circuit that could classify the ISPs as Title 2. IOW, an attempt to ignore the Supreme Court.
Congress is the only one that can fix the law to fix the problem.
Those mounting legal issues won't accomplish much except for hot air and waste of time. Because the Supreme Court in 2005 has already ruled that ISPs cannot be regulated by Title 2 under the current law because the law is fundamentally flawed and outdated because it cannot properly classify modern ISPs.
Congress is the only one that can do anything and rightly so.
You don't need a constitutional amendment. You just need to update the Communications Act to properly classify ISPs as a telecommunications service provider or an information service provider or set up framework for a new classification that is both.
Pretty much this. The FCC tried Net Neutrality-lite regulations and it was shut down by the Supreme Court in 2005. These rules were the latest attempt to use the Communications Act to regulate ISPs but the problem is because the law is so outdated it cannot properly address the fact that an ISP is an telecommunications service provider (able to be regulated as Title 2) and an information service provider (not able to be regulated under Title 2).
If NN is the answer through Title 2 then Congress is precisely the way to get it done instead of an over zealous chairman and president ignoring the courts through power grabs and overreach.
This is akin to removing anti-monopoly laws
No it isn't. This is akin to a poorly outdated law being interpreted in 2 ways that are both correct and wrong at the same time.
Congress fixing that poorly outdated law is the proper course of action instead of the FCC overstepping their authority and ignoring the courts.
Obviously you are a troll. court disagreement and a indecisive government is justification enough.
So, let me get this straight. ISPs do not "generate, acquire, store, transform, retrieve, utilize or make available information via telecommunications" in your mind? Maybe you can explain to me how the internet works without any information and is as dumb as a copper line.
The point is the existing law is flawed because it forces telecommunications service providers and information service providers to be a distinct thing which clearly they are not with modern internet and ISPs. That is why you have disagreement from the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme court. Yet, even the Ninth Circuit recognizes some facet of information service. Both can be right and wrong at the same time because both are operating under the flawed distinction in the law that the FCC goes back and forth on. Namely, telecommunications service must be distinct from information service when an ISP is clearly both.
I understand what you are saying but you are being obtuse about it. Can the FCC ignore the law and the courts to give you what you want? No. Change the law because it is flawed. The FCC dancing back and forth does no one any favors.
finessing of language
You do realize that is the entire basis of the judiciary and this entire debacle? Sheesh if you get any more obtuse you'll suffer from acute derangement.
Not if the Congress gives it that authority, which it has. The Federal Reserve is not part of the government as the Congress has decided.
The Federal Reserve is not part of the government. The FCC is.
If you believe that is the distinction being made by this vote you are delusional. NN is built on the premise that monopolies have to exist. The way these rules were put in place overstep the authority of the FCC by ignoring the courts and the law, i.e. corruption.
Big money was on both sides.
Obama had overstepped his authority in introducing Network Neutrality.
Obama did overstep his authority in introducing NN. Being tricksy with the rules to get the regulations you want that are against what the courts and law say is overstepping your authority.
The law needs an update.
The law needs to be updated. The courts and government have routinely gone back and forth unable to address the core of the issue and that is how do you classify ISPs. The law makes a distinction but the problem is that an ISP is both.
Congress needs to get involved to classify what an ISP is so that the FCC and FTC can apply the proper classification for regulation.
ISPs providing Internet access are clearly NOT information service providers.
The supreme court disagrees with you. 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
See my other postfor more details.
uh, those 3 are the basis of the issue of classifying ISPs that decide how they will be regulated. The entire NN argument can be summed up in those 3 things. Do I really have to spell it out for you ?
Law makes distinction. New technology has regulatory body set precedent. Appeals court uses that precedent to establish an acceptable interpretation for that distinction. Supreme Court in a different case overrules the interpretation of the appeals court to use the other classification that is falls under different regulations. Regulatory body is flippant about that distinction.
What are you missing from this story?
For starters
or AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).
or 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Yes, there is plenty of justification.
An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?
The law makes a distinction between the two. The argument comes from the law, court rulings on the law, and regulatory decisions based on the law. Yes, the FTC is a nutty libertarian blog that uses tortured language... -.-
FCC jurisdiction over broadband services arises under the Communications Act. Central to the broadband discussion is a distinction under that Act between “telecommunications services” and “information services.” The former, but not the latter, are subject to substantial mandatory common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. While not subject to the Title II common carrier regulations, information services are treated by the FCC as subject to its general, ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act.
As noted above, a series of regulatory and judicial decisions have helped to clarify both the distinction between information and telecommunications services and the status of broadband services as information services. That clarification is, to an extent, in tension with early regulatory and judicial attempts to grapple with the novel technologies that enabled the provision of Internet access. For example, in 1980, the FCC promulgated rules designed to address, among other things, the growing commerce in data-processing services available via telephone wires (the “Computer II Rules”). With reference to those rules, the FCC subsequently applied certain common carrier obligations, such as non-discrimination, to local telephone companies providing early DSL services. Further, as recently as 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “the transmission of Internet service to subscribers over cable broadband facilities is a telecommunications service under the Communications Act.” Still, the FCC’s current view that broadband services are information services has its roots in earlier decisions by the FCC and the courts. The same Computer II Rules that grounded the early DSL determination distinguished between “basic” and “enhanced” services and did not subject the latter to Title II common carrier regulation.In the following decade, the FCC recognized that ISPs provide not just “a physical connection [to the Internet], but also . . . the ability to translate raw Internet data into information [consumers] may both view on their personal computers and transmit to other computers connected to the Internet.” Moreover, the 1998 Universal Service Report regarded “non-facilities-based” ISPs – those that do not own their own transmission facilities – solely as information service providers. Indeed, even the Ninth Circuit opinion that held that ISPs offering cable broadband were offering telecommunications services recognized that, under the Communications Act and FCC implementing regulations, a significant portion of those services were information services.... In Brand X, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that cable broadband is an information service as a reasonable construction of the Communications Act, reversing a Ninth Circuit decision that had relied on City of Portland as precedent.
The FTC has a good understanding of the issues and concerns. Since they are now going to be the ones regulating the internet, their opinion is appropriate.
The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply
No they still apply because it is part of the law. " It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party (other
An ISP is both.
I agree but sadly the law makes them distinct. Should the FCC be able to ignore the distinctions made by law to get what you want? The law needs to be updated instead of the FCC over stepping their authority.
It's changing a decision without justification,
There is plenty of justification and the FTC has made good cases why it should be in charge of regulating it as it was before. You are upset that the FCC didn't restate what was stated 10 years ago?
Is an ISP a telecommunications service provider or an information service provider? The law makes that distinction and one of those cannot be regulated by Title 2.
Yes, the law needs to be updated for an industry that changes faster than companies can lay wires.
your choices get worse.
That is speculation on your part. Every governing body does not want that to happen and it didn't happen when we didn't have these rules and is expressly forbidden by law.
"It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party other than the Commission) who opposes new technology or service proposed to be permitted under this Act shall have the burden to demonstrate that such proposal is inconsistent with the public interest." - Sec. 7 U.S.C. 157
Here is the crux of the matter. What are ISPs? Are they telecommunication service providers or information service providers? That distinction is made by the law and one is not allowed to be regulated by Title 2. Everyone agrees that more competition is needed. The argument is over who has the better legal framework to protect public interest from ISPs while not impeding on innovation and development of new technologies in an industry that changes faster than the regulatory bodies can keep up.
It was an accounting error that withheld birth-control for a few days. It would not have been a problem but it just so happened to be about one year ago and frantic end-of-the-world-debauchery ensued.
I was able to be around some stairs so I was able to push that problem out of the way at the right time. :)
McConnel recommended him. Obama nominated him. The Senate appointed him.
Right... Changing one decision that was made a few years ago in a discussion and legal matter that has been on going for decades is now akin to being a toady in industry. Sounds absurd when you put this into context.
Maybe you can answer the question without being an "industry toady"; Is an ISP a telecommunications service provider or a information service provider?