Support NeoGAF

[Eighty Deuce]

Or, the piece de resistance of GAF thread derails:

Americans don't use electric kettles.

 

[inner-G]

Or, the piece de resistance of GAF thread derails:

Americans don't use electric kettles.

A kettle like the handled cooking thing my grandma has in her kitchen, or is there something else English people call 'kettles'?

 

[adamsappel]

I know I'd love to use an Internet that had to be regulated directly by Ted Stevens. Because it's not a big truck, it's a series of tubes.

 

[Xcellere]

This was quite the thread derail.

 

[Siegcram]

This thread is hysterical.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Thune's bill had tons of loop holes in it. Fuck that shit.

Edit: it never crossed your mind as to why ISPs would back Thune's Bill while opposing net neutrality? You really think it does the same thing?

Read it, and compare its text with the 2010 rules. If Thune's bill did more or less than those rules, that could have come out in the debates over it. But now there will be no debates, because the democratic system of legislation enacted by the Constitution has been short-circuited by the undemocratic system of legislation enacted by statute. The debate that will determine what the law is will not be one involving our elected representatives, broadcast on CSPAN and recorded in the Congressional Record; it will be one behind closed doors by five unelected bureaucrats.

We pay them to create the general laws. I dont pay them to be experts in everything. Representatives and Senators do not have the time or ability to experts in every field. I do not expect them to be able to intelligently decide what level of air particulates are acceptable or how radio spectrum should be allocated and used. I do expect them to delegate that authority to people who are qualified, with oversight. Congress can exercise its oversight authority at any time. It can, by legislation, undo any rule made by an agency it has created. Or even dissolve the agency itself.

We have a mechanism for changing the president's veto authority. Its called a constitutional amendment.

Regarding your first paragraph, I'm not saying they need to be experts at everything. I'm saying they need to be the sole executors of the legislative power. If they just want to defer to agency findings regarding some item or another, so be it. But at least then there's someone accountable to the people with respect to the requirements imposed by federal law.

Regarding your second, that would be the same amendment mechanism through which we could vest some legislative power in someone other than Congress. The question I asked is whether you think Congress' power to make necessary and proper laws authorizes Congress to ignore the Constitution's structural elements (such as its placing the legislative power in Congress, or limiting the president's veto power to vetoing whole bills only)?

Why is it bad when congress delegates rulemaking to a regulatory agency but not bad when they delegate writing their own bills to corporations?

Now, hold on a second. Even assuming your allegation is correct, that bill didn't become law without Congressional action, did it? In fact, it is my position that just that kind of bill-writing could be assigned to executive agencies, who would then have to rely on Congress to enact their propositions. On the other hand, you're the one arguing that those other than our elected representatives should be empowered to enact law.

1. The constitution does not allow OR disallow the creation of federal agencies.

. . .

I don't understand your argument. The FCC isn't legislating. The legislation already exists.

My argument is that an executive agency legislates when the law applicable to a person, group, or industry is one way at one time, and different at another, and the cause of that change is agency action unaccompanied by Congressional enactment.

People still haven't learned not to bother arguing with Metaphoreus?

I like to think that most people who argue with me find me insightful, witty, and charming, however little we may agree (or at least one of those three). It may not be true, but in all seriousness, your comment adds nothing to this discussion.

Funny that you'd put these two words in the same sentence together while simultaneously arguing for an extra level of bureaucratic review be placed upon every action ever taken by a federal agency.

It's true: my suggestion would add another step to process of enacting regulations. But that step would serve to make those regulations more responsive to the people who are to be governed by them.

Admittedly I'm not familiar with that bill, but surely what I'm referring to is a disadvantage of any political system in which leaders change.

Ultimately, yes. But there's a massive difference between being able to achieve the changes you want by electing just one person (the president) and having to elect tens or hundreds of new people (Congress) to enact those changes.

http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2727

http://volokh.com/2012/10/10/the-si...rish-originalism-vs-living-constitutionalism/

Man, originalism and textualism sure does change over the years and has a variety of viewpoints. And what a coincidence that originalism and textualist legal thinkers mostly have conservative viewpoints, biases, and beleifs. But hey, that just means they are more impartial, right?

This isn't a debate about originalism or textualism. If you think a different method of Constitutional or statutory interpretation is better suited to the judicial-as-opposed-to-legislative project, then simply substitute that method for my reference to originalism and textualism. My point is only that courts, as wielders of the judicial power, should not consider their own political preferences in deciding cases; and their methods should be those best designed to most narrowly circumscribe the opportunities for such preferences to creep into their analysis.

They granted all legislative powers to Congress who legislated an agency to make sure that our modern society can function. Why would we need an amendment when it is constitutional? As for approval of the people, I was clearly referring to polls and popular will. The discussion of a constitutional amendment is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.

The Constitution provides that no legislative power may be exercised by anyone other than Congress (hence "shall be vested"). If executive agencies are exercising the legislative power, then they are violating the vesting clause (though, again, I emphasize that this is my reading of the Constitution, not the reading the courts have given it). If we wish to permit agencies to participate in the legislative function, we should amend the Constitution to authorize their participation. Until then, the people have not consented to be governed by them, and their enactments should not be treated as law.

So you think Congress needs to approve every single measure a Federal Agency proposes even if they've already passed statutes to give that Federal Agency the power to enact those measures?

Not necessarily. But I think a good start would be that if an agency must make a rule to effect a change, then that rule should be enacted by Congress rather than the agency. If it can effect a change without making a rule--say, if a blog post would suffice--then maybe Congressional action isn't necessary.

 

[ISOM]

So you think Congress needs to approve every single measure a Federal Agency proposes even if they've already passed statutes to give that Federal Agency the power to enact those measures?

That can't seriously be your argument. It makes no practical sense.

Its easier to put him on ignore. I did, once I realized that he was an idiot and serious.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Snip

Great list of points

 

[Branduil]

Now, hold on a second. Even assuming your allegation is correct, that bill didn't become law without Congressional action, did it? In fact, it is my position that just that kind of bill-writing could be assigned to executive agencies, who would then have to rely on Congress to enact their propositions. On the other hand, you're the one arguing that those other than our elected representatives should be empowered to enact law.

The congressional actions that give the FCC authority to reclassify the internet already happened. Not seeing the problem nor do I understand why with all of actual problems with accountability in the government, huge corporations being slightly inconvenienced is the real death blow for democracy.

 

[Sulik2]

No local loop unbundling means this is still only a half measure.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

The congressional actions that give the FCC authority to reclassify the internet already happened. Not seeing the problem nor do I understand why with all of actual problems with accountability in the government, huge corporations being slightly inconvenienced is the real death blow for democracy.

Furthermore, if congress had a major problem with the FCC's decisions, they can easily pass a law to change the regulation in question.

 

[Drifters]

While this OK, it is only half the battle as the content not access is the can being kicked. What a cluster fuck.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The congressional actions that give the FCC authority to reclassify the internet already happened. Not seeing the problem nor do I understand why with all of actual problems with accountability in the government, huge corporations being slightly inconvenienced is the real death blow for democracy.

My point has nothing to do with the merits of a given action. My point has to do with the method of taking that action. I get that Congress created the FCC and has given it authority over this and that, but I deny that those facts change the nature of the FCC as unelected and its conduct as undemocratic. I think our elected officials should be on the hook for any changes to federal law, and the system of agency rulemaking undermines that objective.

And, as a general note, I don't think this discussion is a derailment of the thread. Instead, I think it's precisely what this thread concerns: the article in the OP reports that Congress will not so much as debate enacting net neutrality through statutory enactment because an executive agency has decided to do it for them.

As another general note, nobody tell ISOM all the nasty things I've been saying about him.

 

[Branduil]

My point has nothing to do with the merits of a given action. My point has to do with the method of taking that action. I get that Congress created the FCC and has given it authority over this and that, but I deny that those facts change the nature of the FCC as unelected and its conduct as undemocratic. I think our elected officials should be on the hook for any changes to federal law, and the system of agency rulemaking undermines that objective.

They are. If enough people actually thought the FCC existing was bad, they could vote in politicians who will abolish the FCC.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

They are. If enough people actually thought the FCC existing was bad, they could vote in politicians who will abolish the FCC.

Don't forget to add the ATF and DEA to that list.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ultimately, yes. But there's a massive difference between being able to achieve the changes you want by electing just one person (the president) and having to elect tens or hundreds of new people (Congress) to enact those changes.
.

This is a telling statement. It says the elections you win don't matter.

While I admit there was some stupid partisan opposition to Bush's executive actions on a hole democrats don't oppose them as a matter of principle.

This is the summation of the conservative philosophy, "you can't enact your policy because reasons". Come hell or high water we'll come up with a mechanism that prevents you from doing it. From silly court cases, undemocratic structures of government (FPTP non-proportional representation, with rules that forbid districts to be created how people actual live), changing definitions of federalism to suit your needs, ignoring previous statutes (the FCC's charter), and all maner of things.

You can dress it up in fancy volokh inspired frisking/gishgallop you want

 

[Ralemont]

They are. If enough people actually thought the FCC existing was bad, they could vote in politicians who will abolish the FCC.

I'm glad someone brought up the part about all this that's actually democratic.

 

[Metaphoreus]

They are. If enough people actually thought the FCC existing was bad, they could vote in politicians who will abolish the FCC.

But then the question is not, e.g., "Should we compel net neutrality?" but "Should the FCC exist?" The elected legislators become further removed from the question of federal law, and consequently, insulated from it.

You can dress it up in fancy volokh inspired frisking/gishgallop you want

... none of which I've done. You seem to be faulting me for having multiple posts to respond to, but I don't think blame for that can be placed on me.

 

[DrForester]

Are you talking about this?

What the hell...

 

[Siegcram]

Don't forget to add the ATF and DEA to that list.

Are you one of those people who thinks the county sheriff is the law of the land?

 

[Link]

Furthermore, if congress had a major problem with the FCC's decisions, they can easily pass a law to change the regulation in question.

They tried. That's literally the OP. Thankfully, they don't have the votes.

 

[B-Dubs]

Are you talking about this?

What in the name of...

 

[Branduil]

But then the question is not, e.g., "Should we compel net neutrality?" but "Should the FCC exist?" The elected legislators become further removed from the question of federal law, and consequently, insulated from it.

Abolishing the FCC is just one option. They could also pass legislation on net neutrality if they wanted to. But they don't have the votes, so they can't.

Democracy in action.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Abolishing the FCC is just one option. They could also pass legislation on net neutrality if they wanted to. But they don't have the votes, so they can't.

Democracy in action.

Nah. We'll get the law without democracy, thank you very much. That's the point: suddenly members of Congress don't have to go on the record for or against net neutrality (or Title II regulation more generally)--they can just let the FCC decide and spin their own positions however they think their constituents prefer.

 

[Branduil]

Nah. We'll get the law without democracy, thank you very much. That's the point: suddenly members of Congress don't have to go on the record for or against net neutrality (or Title II regulation more generally)--they can just let the FCC decide and spin their own positions however they think their constituents prefer.

And yet a bunch of them have gone on the record anyway. It's not like we don't know where they stand.

 

[Irnbru]

The worst thing I've heard today is about the bundling, Jesus fucking Christ what a mess that would be, considering the amount of bullshit that already goes into bundled bills and shit. Like, really... Yes let's just dump all this stuff into one bill that's coming from different agencies. What, do you want the government to move more slowly than the quisinart it already is?!

 

[Metaphoreus]

And yet a bunch of them have gone on the record anyway. It's not like we don't know where they stand.

That's the "spin" part. None of them have to commit to anything, because they'll never be called on to vote.

 

[Link]

That's the "spin" part. None of them have to commit to anything, because they'll never be called on to vote.

Sounds like the standard plan for the House under Boehner.

 

[speculawyer]

Are you talking about this?

I'm assuming this is a clever satire.

But the sad thing about it is that if you add it all up, it really doesn't cost much more than the rip-off prices that we currently pay for broadband service.

 

[guek]

I like to think that most people who argue with me find me insightful, witty, and charming

The most unintentionally funny comment of the thread. Oh my!

 

[Branduil]

That's the "spin" part. None of them have to commit to anything, because they'll never be called on to vote.

Yeah they definitely wouldn't spin or remain uncommitted if the FCC didn't exist.

 

[Fathead]

Regarding your first paragraph, I'm not saying they need to be experts at everything. I'm saying they need to be the sole executors of the legislative power. If they just want to defer to agency findings regarding some item or another, so be it. But at least then there's someone accountable to the people with respect to the requirements imposed by federal law.

I don't want them to pretend to be experts by having to manually signing off on all the rules. Again, due to the oversight function inherent in the delegated authority, congress does exercise its legislative power by choosing not to change the rules. So the people accountable for a rule change by any government agency are in fact, congress. If you do not like an EPA rule change, you hold congress repsonsible as they automatically sign off on any rule change, unless they choose to override.

Regarding your second, that would be the same amendment mechanism through which we could vest some legislative power in someone other than Congress. The question I asked is whether you think Congress' power to make necessary and proper laws authorizes Congress to ignore the Constitution's structural elements (such as its placing the legislative power in Congress, or limiting the president's veto power to vetoing whole bills only)?

Congress has the authority to use its own legislative power as it sees fit. It is necessary and proper for congress to delegate some decision making on legislative policy to dedicated experts while maintaining oversight of that authority. This is a settled point of law despite your protestations. Congress does not have the authority to change the executive branch's authority, at least not without using the proscribed method of changing the constitution.

In short, congress can use its own legislative authority how it sees fit, including delegating that authority to agency it keeps oversight of. It cannot change the presidents authority without an amendment. Both of these points are settled law.

You can feel free to say you want it different, and try to organize a movement to change it to your view. Good luck convincing people that Congress needs to waste more time than they already do.

 

[Fathead]

That's the "spin" part. None of them have to commit to anything, because they'll never be called on to vote.

By not introducing legislation to change the rule, they are tacitly agreeing to the change.

 

[Piecake]

This isn't a debate about originalism or textualism. If you think a different method of Constitutional or statutory interpretation is better suited to the judicial-as-opposed-to-legislative project, then simply substitute that method for my reference to originalism and textualism. My point is only that courts, as wielders of the judicial power, should not consider their own political preferences in deciding cases; and their methods should be those best designed to most narrowly circumscribe the opportunities for such preferences to creep into their analysis.

And my thinking is that that is impossible. I mean, that sort of thinking just leaves us with abominations like Citizens United (which I know you like) whose textual and orignalist arguments are so absurd that they are laughable. But hey, apparently this was the original meaning of The Constitution because Kennedy told me so...

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2010/03/02/federalism-free-markets-and-free-speech/

Either the Constitutional court system should be abolished or judges should just admit that they are making decisions based on their understanding of the constitution and case law. That way, at least we won't need to deal with these sanctimonious judges who claim to divine the 'stated' meaning of the Constitution, case law and legislation. I mean, please.

 

[HideyoshiJP]

I'm assuming this is a clever satire.

But the sad thing about it is that if you add it all up, it really doesn't cost much more than the rip-off prices that we currently pay for broadband service.

It wasn't satire, necessarily. It was an illustration to help explain traffic shaping with respect to paid priority based tiering.

 

[AtomicSymphonic]

The dingo done good.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Amazing thread boys. Carry on.

 

[AtomicSymphonic]

So people are for govt control of the internet....great.....

Can't fathom why people are for this.

Because ISPs aren't doing any F***ING better. Read all the news articles for yourself out there. About Comcast's rather horrible customer service, Time Warner's monopolies... Cox's lack of ability to delivered "as advertised" speeds.

It's time for regulation. Free market didn't solve anything here.

 

[hateradio]

I'm assuming this is a clever satire.

But the sad thing about it is that if you add it all up, it really doesn't cost much more than the rip-off prices that we currently pay for broadband service.

I think the rip-off is still cable, internet on its own is pricey but not that expensive, and in some cases it doubles in speed or gets an upgrade every few years.

 

[demon]

Because ISPs aren't doing any F***ING better. Read all the news articles for yourself out there. About Comcast's rather horrible customer service, Time Warner's monopolies... Cox's lack of ability to delivered "as advertised" speeds.

It's time for regulation. Free market didn't solve anything here.

Some people can't admit that the free market fails in certain circumstances. But to them, that's literally blasphemy.

 

[Syriel]

Or, the piece de resistance of GAF thread derails:

Americans don't use electric kettles.

Mentioning electric kettles in a thread on GAF is like mentioning Nazis elsewhere on the Internet. Once it has been unleashed, all hope is lost.

Because ISPs aren't doing any F***ING better. Read all the news articles for yourself out there. About Comcast's rather horrible customer service, Time Warner's monopolies... Cox's lack of ability to delivered "as advertised" speeds.

It's time for regulation. Free market didn't solve anything here.

The free market works in limited circumstances.

I'm getting unbundled Internet-only service (100 mbps up and down) for $500/year.

No modem. Just an Ethernet drop to my apartment.

Spoiler

Webpass rocks!

 

[AtomicSymphonic]

lol. "Private Sector".

Government requires that their 200bn+ dollar investment benefit everyone equally. How is that neutral?

Government is for the people, by the people. Once a private service (that was originally a government invention) becomes so ubiquitous that it is almost impossible to go through a normal life without it, there should be some sort of regulation to ensure it can be equally accessed at promised speeds.

ISPs haven't been doing that the past couple of decades... So, naturally, it's time for the BS to stop.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

I feel like I missed something major about electric kettles.

On topic, when is the vote for the Title II stuff up? Thursday or something?

 

[Syriel]

I feel like I missed something major about electric kettles.

Ask EuroGAF. It's a fetish.

As for Title II, I wonder if we're going to start seeing Universal Service Fees on Internet access now.

 

[AtomicSymphonic]

The free market works in limited circumstances.

I'm getting unbundled Internet-only service (100 mbps up and down) for $500/year.

No modem. Just an Ethernet drop to my apartment.

Spoiler

Webpass rocks!

Correct. It is limited in this case by legalized monopolies and ISPs are ruining it for themselves by not delivering quality service.

If they had delivered quality service and try to not exploit the uneducated consumers out there, this wouldn't be happening.

 

[AtomicSymphonic]

I feel like I missed something major about electric kettles.

On topic, when is the vote for the Title II stuff up? Thursday or something?

Thursday, February 26, 2015, at 9:30 AM EST

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Thursday, February 26, 2015, at 9:30 AM EST

Cool. Thank you.

 

[Finalizer]

I feel like I missed something major about electric kettles.

I know there was a big hubaloo in a previous thread about them, particularly that Euros are really surprised/irritated that Murricans don't use 'em. From the sound of it, it probably wasn't the first time that rodeo went down, nor will it be the last.

FWIW, fat stupid American here, ended up getting one for my Mother's birthday after looking around at 'em online since reading that previous thread. So far she really likes it, it's a lot faster at boiling water for her daily tea + oatmeal. My sister was impressed enough that she wants to get one too. So consider us converted.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

I'm assuming this is a clever satire.

IIRC that is real and is what anti Net Neutrality guys feel is an actual good, working, solution.

 

[Terrell]

I don't want a cable company dictating which sites get more speed and such, but I still do not like the idea of government needing to step in to "manage" things.

EDIT: Govt forcing companies to actually pay salary employees their hours worked over 40 though, that's a solid idea. Companies making people work over time yet not paying them for it is complete bs.

First, providers had the opportunity to operate in a way that didn't bring this option into play. They decided money squeezed from their monopolies was more important.

Second, you can't be for government intervention in one aspect and not for it in another when both are for the public good.