Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I'm trying to find your line of reasoning.

    My line of reasoning is so simple that perhaps you overlooked it, so let's present it explicitly:

    1. Among the powers that the FCC has is the power to classify services that it has the authority to regulate.
    2. Congress classified DSL providers--which the FCC has the authority to regulate--under Title 1.
    3. Point 2 does not invalidate point 1.
    4. The courts upheld point 3.

    Really, that's all there is to it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler OK, I guess you threw me off the scent when you said agreed with @izzion on the "looks like a duck" stuff, since you're contradicting that.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla I was saying there that the duck that it looks like is not the duck that he is claiming it looks like. :P


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler Yes, that bit makes no sense with the rest of what you're saying. We're back to, "Congress said A" to "FCC should act as though Congress said B." I mean, I get that you wish Congress had said B. But...they still said A. 🤷🏿♂


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @masonwheeler Yes, that bit makes no sense with the rest of what you're saying. We're back to, "Congress said A" to "FCC should act as though Congress said B." I mean, I get that you wish Congress had said B. But...they still said A. 🤷🏿♂

    How do you figure?

    1. Congress said A.
    2. The FCC has the authority to classify them as B, completely independent of anything Congress did or did not say. (See above, re: the one does not invalidate the other.)
    3. B objectively makes far more sense than A, so it was correct for the FCC to perform the reclassification.
    4. Congress made a mistake. The FCC fixed it, and it was within their authority to do so.

    Nowhere in this reasoning is anyone "acting as if someone had said" something other than what they said.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler OK, so you're really diagreeing about the "looks like a duck" thing.



  • @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @masonwheeler Yes, that bit makes no sense with the rest of what you're saying. We're back to, "Congress said A" to "FCC should act as though Congress said B." I mean, I get that you wish Congress had said B. But...they still said A. 🤷🏿♂

    How do you figure?

    1. Congress said A.
    2. The FCC has the authority to classify them as B, completely independent of anything Congress did or did not say. (See above, re: the one does not invalidate the other.)
    3. B objectively makes far more sense than A, so it was correct for the FCC to perform the reclassification.
    4. Congress made a mistake. The FCC fixed it, and it was within their authority to do so.

    Nowhere in this reasoning is anyone "acting as if someone had said" something other than what they said.

    Step 2 is in dispute (especially for DSL). Note that there's a huge difference between "a regulatory agency won't get overturned on X" (Chevron deference, which is a total crock in and of itself) and "the regulatory agency has the authority to X" (what you're claiming). Chevron deference is a matter of "they're wrong, but not wrong enough to require overturning and upsetting reliance interests."

    I'd be willing to bet that if cable ISPs had existed when the original act was written, they'd have been included with DSL. DSL was included as the only persistent (non-dial-up) ISP at the time. Playing semantic games ("you didn't say X!") is a bad way to do regulation.



  • @boomzilla
    Eh, I think it's more that he's asserting that what we thought a duck looked like in 1996 and what we think a duck looks like in 2017 is different. Which is somewhat understandable, though I think it makes for a poor legal position to justify regulations.

    On the other hand, I'm glad for the FCC treating ISP's as a 1996-DSL-duck.

    All over the same physical connection, we've had 2 different types of service available, one Title II regulated and one not, over the past 20 years. How has the technology for those services changed over 20 years?1

    In 1996, a T1 line (Title II regulated) provided 1.5Mbps down & up of service.
    In 2017, a T1 line provides 1.5Mbps down & up of service.

    In 1996, ADSL (Title I regulated) provided 8Mbps down / 1Mbps up of service.
    In 2017, ADSL provides 24Mbps down & 3.3Mbps up of service, or VDSL provides 300Mbps down & 100Mbps up.

    And if you think DSL (or your other ISP service) is expensive, try pricing a T1 circuit. Yes, they're cheaper than they were in 1996, but T1s are still very expensive, in the realm of hundreds of dollars a month.

    1To be pendantically accurate, the referenced rates are max rates. DSL in particular is sensitive to how close to the CO you are -- or, more accurately, how much line length is between your DSL modem and the hub at the central office or remote extension hub -- and very few DSL accounts can even physically hit the technical max of the specification. And VDSL / VDSL2 adoption isn't moving at terribly fast rates, though I think that has more to do with the fact that fiber optic and coax/cable service have outpaced it in terms of technical value per cost, moreso than any regulation vs non regulation discussion.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Eh, I think it's more that he's asserting that what we thought a duck looked like in 1996 and what we think a duck looks like in 2017 is different. Which is somewhat understandable, though I think it makes for a poor legal position to justify regulations.

    Could be. It's really difficult to untangle his meaning and avoid contradictions.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Could be. It's really difficult to untangle his meaning and avoid contradictions.

    TIL you have no understanding of concepts such as irony or nuance.



  • @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @ben_lubar said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @ben_lubar said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @djls45 said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @ben_lubar said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    So the current action wouldn't have happened because the 2015 action was illegal.

    The current action did happen, so are you saying that the FCC broke the law for literally no reason just to annoy liberals?

    The current action undid the breaking of the law that the FCC did back in 2014-15.

    If the FCC broke the law by changing the classification of a type of carrier, then doing that exact same thing would also be breaking the law.

    Ah, I understand your confusion now. Think more like, "It's illegal to drive faster than the speed limit." So in 2015 they started going too fast and then they just now let off the gas pedal a bit and are now driving within the legal speed limit.

    Except that in your analogy, driving within the speed limit is not illegal. This would be more like speeding in one direction in 2015 and then speeding on the way back now in an attempt to fix it.

    Yes. That's the point. They went back to operating within the law. Your analogy is like an analogy that's flawed because it's wrong.

    Wouldn't it technically depend on whether they reclassified it or simply removed the previous classification?

    Can you explain why you think it might?

    The claim, as I understand it, was that during the Hussein regime the FCC had changed the classification of a certain type of carrier, when they had no right to change such a classification. If they have no right to change it, then it would seem to follow that they had no right to change it back, but they would have a right to acknowledge that the first change was null and void.

    By way of analogy:

    Suppose you see an old lady walking along the side of a street. You pick her up (without asking) and place her on the sidewalk. If the woman complains that you had no right to do so, picking her up and placing her back in the street would be a second offense. On the other hand, if she got back in the street of her own accord, that would be a different matter.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Could be. It's really difficult to untangle his meaning and avoid contradictions.

    TIL you have no understanding of concepts such as irony or nuance.

    You "know" a lot of wrong things, so that you know these things does not surprise me at all.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    The claim, as I understand it, was that during the Hussein regime the FCC had changed the classification of a certain type of carrier, when they had no right to change such a classification. If they have no right to change it, then it would seem to follow that they had no right to change it back, but they would have a right to acknowledge that the first change was null and void.

    Yeah, and that fails the logic test, where you're claiming that following the law is breaking the law. The point here isn't the "changing" it's the end state after the change.

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Suppose you see an old lady walking along the side of a street. You pick her up (without asking) and place her on the sidewalk. If the woman complains that you had no right to do so, picking her up and placing her back in the street would be a second offense. On the other hand, if she got back in the street of her own accord, that would be a different matter.

    Yes, this is a bad analogy. To be more correct it would say that you lifted her up and held her up. She told you that you had no right to do that so you put her down. The flaw in your analogy is that you're ignoring that you're continuing to do something contrary to her rights, namely, hold her in the air, just like the FCC enforced their 2015 regulations after they made the regulations (otherwise, what would be the point?).


  • Impossible Mission - B

    Here's one that ought to make @boomzilla's and @izzion's heads explode: the ISPs wanted to be classified under Title II... when it was beneficial for them. (But try asking them to make good on the required tradeoffs and all hell breaks loose.)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Here's one that ought to make @boomzilla's and @izzion's heads explode: the ISPs wanted to be classified under Title II... when it was beneficial for them.

    Ah! Another thing you "know" incorrectly and without justification. Why should that make my head explode? Why should I even care?

    I think you form your opinions too easily based on narratives and imputed motives and therefore have difficulty understanding a principled position independent of those things.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla :rofl: You're projecting again. This may, in fact, be the most bizarre thing you've ever said in one of these debates, and that's really saying something!



  • @masonwheeler
    Except that Verizon hasn’t been installing that fiber strictly for ISP service. They’ve been replacing existing copper line telephone service and installing PSTN over fiber line to do so, which is still a Title II regulated service.

    That they’re also upselling improved internet service over that line wouldn’t invalidate the subsidy any more than a new ILEC/CLEC installing copper line to a house would be ineligible for Universal Service Fee subsidies if they also offered VDSL alongside the phone service.

    And also the USF is bad and should feel bad should be repealed (by Congress, not the FCC)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla :rofl: You're projecting again. This may, in fact, be the most bizarre thing you've ever said in one of these debates, and that's really saying something!

    So, when I do the opposite of the thing that I accuse you of, I'm projecting? Also, why are you avoiding answering the questions? You made an assertion, now back it up.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @izzion So in other words... exactly what I said. They take advantage of Title II when it's convenient for them, and even take advantage of loopholes to run Internet service over it, but fight tooth and nail to avoid the attendant obligations.



  • @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    and even take advantage of loopholes to run Internet service over it

    It's not a loophole, it's a design feature - Internet service (via DSL) was explicitly and intentionally classified as an information service, not a Title II common carrier service.

    One can argue whether or not that was a good idea, or whether or not that classification still makes sense in 2017 compared to 1996, but it's arguing in bad faith to claim it's a "loophole", and the FCC is not the right entity to decide if Congress should change its mind. Nor is the President, nor is the Supreme Court.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    So, when I do the opposite of the thing that I accuse you of, I'm projecting?

    ...you really believe that, don't you?

    http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/oh-wait-youre-serious-let-me-laugh-even-harder.jpg

    Also, why are you avoiding answering the questions? You made an assertion, now back it up.

    Which one? You're being incredibly vague here.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    ...you really believe that, don't you?

    Well, yeah. It's pretty obvious from the words.

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Which one? You're being incredibly vague here.

    :rolleyes:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Here's one that ought to make @boomzilla's and @izzion's heads explode: the ISPs wanted to be classified under Title II... when it was beneficial for them.

    Ah! Another thing you "know" incorrectly and without justification. Why should that make my head explode? Why should I even care?

    Emphasis added for less vagueness.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    One can argue whether or not that was a good idea, or whether or not that classification still makes sense in 2017 compared to 1996,

    One can also argue that it did not make sense even in 1996.

    but it's arguing in bad faith to claim it's a "loophole",

    How so?

    and the FCC is not the right entity to decide if Congress should change its mind.

    Once again, I never said they were. Please drop this strawman line of "reasoning". What I said was that the FCC has the authority to classify things, and if Congress also makes a classification, this does not change that.

    Nor is the President,

    OK... not sure why we're dragging Presidents into this, but whatever. 🤷♂

    nor is the Supreme Court.

    Ah, so now you are explicitly rejecting the principle of Judicial Review?


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Here's one that ought to make @boomzilla's and @izzion's heads explode: the ISPs wanted to be classified under Title II... when it was beneficial for them.

    Ah! Another thing you "know" incorrectly and without justification. Why should that make my head explode? Why should I even care?

    Emphasis added for less vagueness.

    ...that's your ever-so-important "question" I was "avoiding answering"? Seriously? :rolleyes:

    OK, for the benefit of those among us with 🦊-grade reading comprehension, I was being



  • @masonwheeler
    Judicial Review is the concept that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional. It does not empower the Supreme Court to say "Congress wrote a constitutional law that says X, but we think that the times have changed so now the law should say Y."



  • @masonwheeler With judicial review, the court's job is to say "this law was applied/not applied properly to this case" or "this law is null and void because of a conflict with a higher law (either facially or as applied to this case)." In neither case can it "fix" a law because it doesn't make sense.

    Congress says X.
    FCC says "but Y would make more sense, so Y"
    Court says one of

    1. X because the FCC doesn't have the right to change that.
    2. Y because although the FCC doesn't have the right to change that, we'll exercise Chevron deference because it's a close call and there are serious reliance effects involved.

    What it can't (legally) say is "Y, because the FCC's argument is better." That's playing policy games, which is not in the Court's remit.

    If you want it changed, go talk to Congress. Not the FCC. That's a primary feature of the American separation-of-powers system.

    I'm convinced that we should abolish Chevron deference and push all rule-making back onto Congress. That would a) force Congress to pass fewer regulations and b) give a modicum of accountability for the regulations instead of just saying "let the un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats decide (and change their minds whenever they want."


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Here's one that ought to make @boomzilla's and @izzion's heads explode: the ISPs wanted to be classified under Title II... when it was beneficial for them.

    Ah! Another thing you "know" incorrectly and without justification. Why should that make my head explode? Why should I even care?

    Emphasis added for less vagueness.

    ...that's your ever-so-important "question" I was "avoiding answering"? Seriously? :rolleyes:

    OK, for the benefit of those among us with 🦊-grade reading comprehension, I was being

    Ah, projecting your reading skills on others, eh? Sorry, I thought you were trying to make a point with that post.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @benjamin-hall said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Congress says X.
    FCC says "but Y would make more sense, so Y"
    Court says one of

    1. X because the FCC doesn't have the right to change that.
    2. Y because although the FCC doesn't have the right to change that, we'll exercise Chevron deference because it's a close call and there are serious reliance effects involved.
    1. Y because the FCC does have the right to change that.

    What it can't (legally) say is "Y, because the FCC's argument is better." That's playing policy games, which is not in the Court's remit.

    Which isn't what it said. AIUI it said that the FCC does have such classification authority. Why is this apparently so difficult for everyone to understand?



  • @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    but it's arguing in bad faith to claim it's a "loophole",

    How so?

    How many "loopholes" do you use to reduce your taxes?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Which isn't what it said. AIUI it said that the FCC does have such classification authority. Why is this apparently so difficult for everyone to understand?

    Yes, we're saying that the Court was dropped on its head as a baby to decide that the FCC can ignore Congress.



  • @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @benjamin-hall said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Congress says X.
    FCC says "but Y would make more sense, so Y"
    Court says one of

    1. X because the FCC doesn't have the right to change that.
    2. Y because although the FCC doesn't have the right to change that, we'll exercise Chevron deference because it's a close call and there are serious reliance effects involved.
    1. Y because the FCC does have the right to change that.

    What it can't (legally) say is "Y, because the FCC's argument is better." That's playing policy games, which is not in the Court's remit.

    Which isn't what it said. AIUI it said that the FCC does have such classification authority. Why is this apparently so difficult for everyone to understand?

    No. It said that they didn't decide whether they had the classification authority or not, but that because of Chevron deference they didn't have to. There's a big difference there. "We're not going to stop you this time for other reasons" is not the same as "you have the right to."


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @benjamin-hall Which court case are you focusing on? Because I'm starting to get the distinct impression that it's not the one I'm thinking of.



  • @masonwheeler said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @benjamin-hall Which court case are you focusing on? Because I'm starting to get the distinct impression that it's not the one I'm thinking of.

    The one @izzion mentioned. His point #4 was that they upheld the FCC's reclassification on Chevron grounds without deciding if it was actually legal. That's a common trick courts pull--they'll uphold (or strike down) a lower decision without actually reaching the merits. Either on standing grounds, on justiciability (as in "that's not our place to decide"), or procedural grounds, or one of the many many other such avenues.

    Just because the Court didn't strike down a regulation does not mean that the regulation was actually a valid exercise of power. That complainant might not have had the right case, or there might be reliance issues, or...etc.



  • @benjamin-hall
    To be more pendantically correct... in the 2012 Verizon v FCC case, the court noted (as historical fact) that the FCC, when classifying ISP services as Title I, had claimed it had the right to reclassify to Title II. Later in the opinion, the court held that the Title I classification was valid and that the regulations that Verizon were contesting were not allowable because of the Title I classification, without commenting on whether the 1990s FCC's assertion that they could reclassify to Title II was valid (because it wasn't in dispute / a point of that case).

    There was no reclassification at all that was at issue in the 2012 Verizon v FCC case - the initial classification of Title I had been upheld several times before that case and was accepted by both parties in that case.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @benjamin-hall said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    The one @izzion mentioned. His point #4 was that they upheld the FCC's reclassification on Chevron grounds without deciding if it was actually legal. That's a common trick courts pull--they'll uphold (or strike down) a lower decision without actually reaching the merits. Either on standing grounds, on justiciability (as in "that's not our place to decide"), or procedural grounds, or one of the many many other such avenues.

    Just because the Court didn't strike down a regulation does not mean that the regulation was actually a valid exercise of power. That complainant might not have had the right case, or there might be reliance issues, or...etc.

    Or because it wasn't a point that needed to be decided because it had already been decided in an earlier case, when the Court struck down the FCC's initial Net Neutrality rules and pointed out that they couldn't do this without first reclassifying ISPs under Title II, which they had the authority to do but had not done.

    By the time challenges to the Open Internet Order came around, there was no need for the courts to rule on that specific point because they had already done so earlier. The legal challenge basically amounted to "the FCC did exactly what the court specifically said they ought to do, and we still don't like it."



  • @masonwheeler Did the Court say,
    "You can't do that because it only applies to Title II and ISPs have to be reclassified as such for you to apply it to them" or did it say,
    "You can't do that because it only applies to Title II and you have to reclassify them as such for you to apply it to them"?


  • Dupa

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I still stand by my position that the Title II reclassification was not a valid reclassification by the FCC, but in doing further research to "prove my point", I can definitely see evidence to support the other side of the argument.

    Well, only if you think that the FCC should be able to legislate instead of Congress, IMO.

    That’s a funny argument, especially coming from you. At one point it is “but law!” and soon it becomes “but my feelz about law!”

    Shame.



  • @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    The claim, as I understand it, was that during the Hussein regime the FCC had changed the classification of a certain type of carrier, when they had no right to change such a classification. If they have no right to change it, then it would seem to follow that they had no right to change it back, but they would have a right to acknowledge that the first change was null and void.

    Yeah, and that fails the logic test

    I'm sorry, all you have shown is that you do not have a clue as to what logic actually is. Will not be replying further on this thread.

    , where you're claiming that following the law is breaking the law. The point here isn't the "changing" it's the end state after the change.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @kt_ said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I still stand by my position that the Title II reclassification was not a valid reclassification by the FCC, but in doing further research to "prove my point", I can definitely see evidence to support the other side of the argument.

    Well, only if you think that the FCC should be able to legislate instead of Congress, IMO.

    That’s a funny argument, especially coming from you. At one point it is “but law!” and soon it becomes “but my feelz about law!”

    Shame.

    It sounds like you don't understand our government (or are lazily trolling). Congress writes the laws and (extra Constitutionally, says me) sometimes delegates legislative powers to executive branches (like the FCC). In this case you have the FCC contradicting legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    And actually, “but my feelz about law!” is exactly what I see @masonwheeler and his crushes Techcrunch doing.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I'm sorry, all you have shown is that you do not have a clue as to what logic actually is. Will not be replying further on this thread.

    If you really think that then it's probably for the best.


  • Dupa

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @kt_ said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I still stand by my position that the Title II reclassification was not a valid reclassification by the FCC, but in doing further research to "prove my point", I can definitely see evidence to support the other side of the argument.

    Well, only if you think that the FCC should be able to legislate instead of Congress, IMO.

    That’s a funny argument, especially coming from you. At one point it is “but law!” and soon it becomes “but my feelz about law!”

    Shame.

    It sounds like you don't understand our government (or are lazily trolling). Congress writes the laws and (extra Constitutionally, says me) sometimes delegates legislative powers to executive branches (like the FCC). In this case you have the FCC contradicting legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    That’s the issue I’m seeing here, there, these are your feelz. As @izzion said, it looks like FCC has the power to reclassify ISPs. But you want only congress to be able to do that, because “that’s how your democracy works”.

    And actually, “but my feelz about law!” is exactly what I see @masonwheeler and his crushes Techcrunch doing.

    Of course you do. How could you not? Please, aunt Thelma, take off your glasses.


  • Dupa

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I'm sorry, all you have shown is that you do not have a clue as to what logic actually is. Will not be replying further on this thread.

    If you really think that then it's probably for the best.

    When the number of people who don’t want to debate stuff with you keeps increasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good debater. It might mean your a good masturbater. Or circlejerker.



  • @kt_
    I've said that the FCC claims it has the power to reclassify ISPs. That claim has not been fully litigated (though some of the early stages of the court cases litigating the 2015 OIO went in favor of the FCC, in the same courts that found in favor of the earlier regulations, before the DC Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court eventually found against them).

    Congress hasn't specifically given the FCC the power to determine classifications contrary to what Congress has set. So it's likely that courts would eventually find that DSL was Title I since Congress explicitly classified it as such (though not guaranteed... see "the individual mandate is a tax"...), though given the latitude of the courts' deference to agencies when Congress doesn't explicitly specify (via Chevron), even assuming they did find DSL was Title I, it's anyone's guess which way the Court would come down on other types of ISPs being classified as Title II... legal opinions don't often make a ton of sense one way or the other.


  • Dupa

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @kt_
    I've said that the FCC claims it has the power to reclassify ISPs. That claim has not been fully litigated (though some of the early stages of the court cases litigating the 2015 OIO went in favor of the FCC, in the same courts that found in favor of the earlier regulations, before the DC Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court eventually found against them).

    Congress hasn't specifically given the FCC the power to determine classifications contrary to what Congress has set. So it's likely that courts would eventually find that DSL was Title I since Congress explicitly classified it as such (though not guaranteed... see "the individual mandate is a tax"...), though given the latitude of the courts' deference to agencies when Congress doesn't explicitly specify (via Chevron), even assuming they did find DSL was Title I, it's anyone's guess which way the Court would come down on other types of ISPs being classified as Title II... legal opinions don't often make a ton of sense one way or the other.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    @boomzilla, so as you can see, my point still stands.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @kt_ said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    That’s the issue I’m seeing here, there, these are your feelz. As @izzion said, it looks like FCC has the power to reclassify ISPs. But you want only congress to be able to do that, because “that’s how your democracy works”.

    There is a legal theory that the FCC can, yes. The FCC only has the powers that Congress gives them. Congress passing a law overrides anything the FCC does or says. Congress said, in a law, that ISPs providing DSL connections to consumers were to be regulated under Title I.

    And yeah, that is how our government is designed to work, so. 🤷🏻♂

    @kt_ said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @boomzilla said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @chozang said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    I'm sorry, all you have shown is that you do not have a clue as to what logic actually is. Will not be replying further on this thread.

    If you really think that then it's probably for the best.

    When the number of people who don’t want to debate stuff with you keeps increasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good debater. It might mean your a good masturbater. Or circlejerker.

    There's always that possibility. But he kept on saying obviously incorrect things, so if he's just going to insist on repeating that, it really is better.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @kt_ said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @izzion said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    @kt_
    I've said that the FCC claims it has the power to reclassify ISPs. That claim has not been fully litigated (though some of the early stages of the court cases litigating the 2015 OIO went in favor of the FCC, in the same courts that found in favor of the earlier regulations, before the DC Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court eventually found against them).

    Congress hasn't specifically given the FCC the power to determine classifications contrary to what Congress has set. So it's likely that courts would eventually find that DSL was Title I since Congress explicitly classified it as such (though not guaranteed... see "the individual mandate is a tax"...), though given the latitude of the courts' deference to agencies when Congress doesn't explicitly specify (via Chevron), even assuming they did find DSL was Title I, it's anyone's guess which way the Court would come down on other types of ISPs being classified as Title II... legal opinions don't often make a ton of sense one way or the other.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    @boomzilla, so as you can see, my point still stands.

    Yes, I don't disagree that there's a legal theory about that. But also, as you can see, so does my point.


  • ♿ (Parody)


  • Considered Harmful

    Yeah, Pai, it's … faster in absolute terms. So that's good. How did that go?

    Average internet connection speed in the United States from 2007 to 2017
    616210-blank-754.png
    Looks like a rapid increase from about 2014 on, which matches other surveys:

    USA entered the top 10 for the first time, recording a +22% increase to average internet speeds.

    Statista doesn't have data after 2017, but others do:
    ookla_fastest-countries_fixed_0921.png
    2019: US #8
    2020: US #9
    2021: US dropped out of top 10

    :mlp_shrug:

    Regarding the bandwidth throttling: yes, some EU idiot who doesn't know how Netflix works actually asked them to throttle bandwidth.
    Seems like Netflix' decision to actually do that instead of giving the EU guys a lesson in streaming infrastructure was quite independent though, otherwise why would they have throttled in the US as well?



  • @LaoC said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    Seems like Netflix' decision to actually do that instead of giving the EU guys a lesson in streaming infrastructure was quite independent though, otherwise why would they have throttled in the US as well?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @LaoC said in Benefits of the repeal of Net Neutrality:

    So that's good. How did that go?

    We all died. It was terrible. @Mason-Wheeler and other net neutrality kooks hardest hit.


Log in to reply