NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm pretty sure there was this law passed back in in the 30s or so. And the courts pretty much told them this was legal when the struck down the older rules
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
I'm pretty sure there was this law passed back in in the 30s or so. And the courts pretty much told them this was legal when the struck down the older rules
Its only against the law when a democratic black president does it to further his socialistic communistic empire. /s
Coriolanus
Banned
Meta, you're far too clever not to know how delegated competence works. Please do not pretend otherwise.
Now, if you insist on carrying this discussion, i do ask for this bit of honesty, so please tell me, what was the act that created the FCC?
Then we'll move to the next obvious step, checks and balances, where the very simple question will be "can those that delegated the powers revoke them?"
Fenderputty
Banned
You posted this last time in one of these threads. If the people we elected put the people in charge who made the decisions I don't see how this is antidemocratic.
I am cracking the fuck up. Ahahahahaha
spawnsniper
Member
I havent read all up on it, but wouldn't this mean that ISP companies wont try and find "faster speeds?" And will just say fuck it?
Or what about companies that dont have faster speeds available. (Like dsl companies) what happens then?
When does this actually go into effect?
Or what about companies that dont have faster speeds available. (Like dsl companies) what happens then?
When does this actually go into effect?
Jacksinthe
Banned
I had to go into an office and wait for about 5 minutes. On the radio was Rush Limbaugh. There's just too much in that 5 minutes of ear bleeding to write down the outright falsities that came out of his mouth but a quick note:
The gubment will now shut down free speech on the internet and throttle traffic on his website if NN goes thru. He is afraid that right-wing, republican, conservative, etc websites will be throttled or flat-out denied access if they get more traffic than a left-wing, democratic, liberal website just to keep it "fair".
Of course, this is from the same mouth that claims he has "the most listened to radio show in America" which is regulated by, you know, the FCC.
He didn't make the connection.
jackiechan.jpg
The gubment will now shut down free speech on the internet and throttle traffic on his website if NN goes thru. He is afraid that right-wing, republican, conservative, etc websites will be throttled or flat-out denied access if they get more traffic than a left-wing, democratic, liberal website just to keep it "fair".
Of course, this is from the same mouth that claims he has "the most listened to radio show in America" which is regulated by, you know, the FCC.
He didn't make the connection.
jackiechan.jpg
No actually it was Pinko Commie High, located on the border between Vietnam and Laos, but it was completely funded by welfare queens.
Team Filler
Member
Anytime a politician brings up talk about a policy's intricacies, all I hear is, "you wouldn't understand the way in which we are trying to fuck you."
We need to get back to monopolies. Breaking up AT&T was such a bad idea. Imagine how many cool, advanced services we would have if we never broke them up. And probably at dirt cheap prices.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Gotta say I'm surprised we haven't seen libertarians more vocal about this. Many actually support net neutrality.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I will dispute neither fact. However, that doesn't transform a non-democratic enactment into a democratic one. Congress has set up agencies as an alternative to Congress insofar as legislation is concerned. It permits those whom we may hold accountable through elections to wash their hands of the whole enterprise and pass the buck to those whom we may not hold accountable.
The correct question is, "Who makes the law?" If the person or group who makes the law is elected (or the electorate, itself), then that's democracy. Otherwise, it's something else, regardless that some other aspect of government is democratic. Would you be comfortable with Congress and the president delegating their legislative powers to Congressional committees? Like, just get five Representatives and five Senators to agree on something, and it becomes binding law?
The people we elected to make the laws have just been stopped from making a law because somebody else (whom we did not elect) beat them to the punch. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
TTUVAPOR once again the only one representing the TRUTH™ out in the wilds of neoGAF. Sure he has trips like he doesn't believe institutional racism is a thing that is serious and he thought of nuking ISIS, but the reality is he's right on this score. History has shown time and time again that the smaller your government is, the more effective it is. The more ways we find to cobble any authority government has, the better the people flourish. As we can see from the banking crisis in 2007 and 2008, deregulation worked wonders and boosted our economy by untold percentage points.
Look at all the jobs wegained by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act and Staggers Rail Act of the 1970-1980s! Wait, that actually ended up crippling tens of thousands of American jobs, unions lost all power and the Railroads never recovered after initial pretense of positivity. It was so bad that it had the side impact of crippling many surrounding businesses that depended on railroads for passenger travel.
Whatever, theAirline Deregulation Act led to a flourishing of the airline industry and a net increase in profitability and employment! Actually doing the research, within a few years mergers and bankruptcies destroyed the airline Unions, and thousands of jobs were lost. And nothing improved in the Airline industry. Hm.
Well thethe 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act helped radio stations by allowing companies to own more stations in a single market at a time. Businesses flourished by eating the weak and fortifying itself against economic downturns. Nevermind, seems the actual result was a few companies now own almost all commercial radio stations, creating homogenous radio stations, making it harder for musicians - especially local - to break into the market and once again creating a far more volatile market. On top of that, now most of the news Americans get come from only a few corporations across the country, helped in part by this law.
I guess I don't need to discuss the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Or the many endless ways deregulation has helped the Environment our, we're living in a green Utopia now.
The libertarian dream world is around the corner my friends, and you guys mock because you're scared.
Look at all the jobs we
Whatever, the
Well the
I guess I don't need to discuss the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Or the many endless ways deregulation has helped the Environment our, we're living in a green Utopia now.
The libertarian dream world is around the corner my friends, and you guys mock because you're scared.
The democratic process created the FCC to specifically make regulations like this. If the democratic process doesn't like what the FCC has done they are free to democratically change it. I don't see what your problem is.
Coriolanus
Banned
Meta, do answer the question... what act created the FCC?
Then i`ll tackle your scenario. Pinky swear.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I won't do your homework for you, Cori, no matter how many times you ask.
BeatResetsTheWorld
Banned
Lol, he doesn't want to/isn't going to
Little Green Yoda
Member
:lol
Coriolanus
Banned
I've no idea why you're acting like the people that act pissy when you discuss King, but ok.
Version 3.0
Member
Not having the votes for a bill to pass is "an antidemocratic legislative process"?
I don't think that's a very good description of what's happened here. No one was "stopped from making a law". They just conceded that they don't have the votes for it to pass.
Fenderputty
Banned
Seems like some of the people we elected tried to stop this. They don't have enough support of the people we elected though, so they can't. Sounds like congressional approval by proxy to me.
speculawyer
Member
RustyNails
Member
"I am outraged at Obama trying to stop corporations from fucking me over! OUTRAGED"
"And the FCC is doing what it was created to do, THIS IS UNDEMOCRATIC!"
WarMacheen
Member
Who are these idiots?
ShockingAlberto
Member
Rhomega Beta
Member
My dad was talking about this the other day, saying less "Obamacare for the Intenret" and more "1934 Communications Act for the Internet", which stifled innovation for telephones for decades before we finally got things like voicemail and cell phones.
Sinfamy
Member
Its more like a do not fuck things up more then they already are measure.
Captain Tuttle
Member
Man, my Dad worked for Bell Labs in the 60's 70's and 80's (basically AT&T research arm and skunk works). Since they were a regulated monopoly they could only take a certain percentage of revenue as profit, they just dumped the rest into Bell Labs and research. These guys invented the Transistor, fiber optics, cell phones, modems (my Dad worked on this, it was called the DataPhone) and they came up with The Big Bang Theory among other things. It was a pretty amazing experiment
BertramCooper
Banned
Next step: FCC and/or DOJ need to block the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger.
You are worse than those actively plotting against us.
You can thank that ever loving fucktard from Texas (the oh so great representative Ted Cruz) for that one.
Liberty4all
Banned
TTUVAPOR showing his great wisdom once again, I can't decide yet if this is better or worse then your idea of nuking the middle east to get rid of ISIS.
Wait a sec, that map was supposed to be serious? I've been seeing it for weeks and thought it was a joke lol
WarMacheen
Member
The customer service of this new mega corporation would probably be classified as a terrorist organization.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm not acting pissy, but online forums are hardly the place for the Socratic method. In those King discussions, you'll never see me ask, e.g., "What is the public law number of the ACA? Hm? Hm?" If that information were relevant, I would provide it and explain its relevance.
Of course not. But changing the law other than through the votes of those democratically elected to change it (as the FCC is doing), is.
... hence stopping them from making the law. According to Thune, Democrats weren't even willing to discuss a new law until after the FCC acted.
The idea you're proposing sounds more like authoritarianism-subject-to-democratic-veto, to me. Laws don't get made through Congressional inaction.
I am curious, what are your thoughts on the Supreme Court, then? That is clearly an undemocratic institution that effectively makes or breaks legislation based on its decisions.
Also, Is the Supreme Court simply wrong, then, about the FCC and other regulatory agencies? mean, the Supreme Court deemed that the legislature could create the FCC and those institutions to do exactly what they are doing now, and told the government and the FCC that if they want to regulate it like a utility. Clearly, they do not think it is unconstitutional or undemocratic.
Do you think all of those and any other agency that can make decisions should be abolished? If so, how would that be workable? Creating agencies to make some decisions so that our government can function, but having those appointed by our elected officials seems perfectly in line with how our democratic system was envisioned and set up.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm comfortable with the judicial power being wielded by those who are not elected, and see it as an important check on unfettered democratic power. If federal judges were elected, then it's unlikely that recognition of same-sex marriage would have progressed as quickly as it has, for instance. Courts should be more concerned with the requirements of the law than with the whims of the populace.
I don't think agencies should be able to make the kinds of legislative decisions that they currently do. I'd rather they be required to suggest legislation to Congress than that they have their own legislative regulation-making power. Otherwise, as I said, Congress gets to wash its hands of federal laws, and nobody gets held accountable.
(Of course, I recognize that executive agencies must have some discretion in how the law is implemented, but I don't think that discretion should extend to the kinds of industry-defining decisions the FCC purports to make here.)
Coriolanus
Banned
Socratic method relies on sides coming to terms with how little they know, mate.
Here i'm asking you what you already know.
I also pre-answered your hypothetical before you even formulated it (that was the "next obvious *step*" bit), and that was possible precisely because i'm assuming that you already know the most common questions and answers that would follow in this discussion.
But courts aren't unbiased actors solely concerned with the letter and the law and constitutionality. They have always interpreted legislation and therefore have made legislation. Moreover, there decisions have largely depended on their own personal views and biases. As for the Court protecting minority rights and liberty, well, that has only been a reality since the Warren court. Before, they certainly did not protect civil rights or put a check on democratic passions in that regard.
I just find it a rather odd distinction. The Supreme Court is a much more undemocratic institution than federal agencies and it has infinitely greater power and influence. I mean, hell, what did the FCC do? All it did was call a spade a spade. They simply recognized what the internet is. It is a public utility. Therefore, they re-chategorized it, which by the legislature and the supreme court, they have the power to do.
BeatResetsTheWorld
Banned
That is the funniest shit I've heard in a long time
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Are you talking about this?
Jesus Christ this makes me spit with range the more I look at it. FUCK!
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Federal courts have remarkably little law-making authority. They aren't common-law courts, so must defer to existing Congressional enactments or (in state-law cases) state law. And courts in general don't legislate through interpretation. There are only so many ways to interpret a provision, and when courts act dutifully, they aren't going to stray from those, regardless of their personal views or biases. Moreover, courts don't reach out and decide to change the law on a whim--there must be an actual case or controversy brought before the courts by outside parties before the courts will opine on an issue.
Even setting all of those differences aside, one very important difference remains: the judicial power is assigned to undemocratic courts in our democratic Constitution. Much as I dread the use of the phrase, "we the people" gave the courts that power. You'll search in vain for our grant to executive agencies of the legislative or judicial powers, though they now exercise both concurrently with Congress and the courts.
Executive agencies should not have the discretion to either call a spade a spade, or not. Congress shouldn't be giving them sufficient leeway to make that determination, especially when the consequences of whether the tool is a spade or not are as significant as they are in this case. At the very least, when the change in classification is as significant as it is here, reclassification should be a legislative task, not an executive task, and Congress should be making the call.
Why not?
- Status