Posted on 12/14/2017 10:36:00 AM PST by ColdOne
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to repeal net neutrality rules, over the objection of Democrats in Congress, Internet activists and online companies.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, and Commissioner Brendan Carr, all Republicans, supported the proposed rollback of the Obama-era rules. Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel opposed the change.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Thank you for you patience with this discussion.
It’s important to define commerce for the following reason. Regardless that the corrupt, post-FDR era feds are now regulating insurance, the unconstitutional Obamacare insurance mandate for example, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified the following.
Insurance policies are contracts, not commerce, regardless if the parties negating the contract are domiciled in different states. Congress’s Commerce Clause powers therefore do not include regulating insurance policies.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
In fact, regardless that people pay for airline ticket to fly from one state to another, such a transaction is evidently regarded as a contract.
Contract of carriage
That being said, note that Thomas Jefferson had suggested interpreting Congress’s limited powers narrowly, the Commerce Clause in this example, forcing the states to amend the Constitution for new federal powers if necessary.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
Like I said, when the threats from the left now don’t materialize they will have opened eyes, especially if we on the right are there to point it out to them.
My liberal friends are going bonkers saying it is going to raise internet rates big time and restrict internet access.
“Techies, particularly 40 year old and under techies,”
Your Geritol is showing. Anyone 40 and under today is a “techie”.
I don’t know where this is going to lead, but I would absolutely hate for it to create a cable TV package model for the internet.
The price I paid for the bowling ball has nothing to do with it.
OK, forget the example of buying it from UPS.
What nn says is that UPS has to charge me the same price for shipping a bowling ball no matter who I bought it from.
They have to charge me the same shipping if I bought it from Dick's and carried it into the UPS store as they would if I bought it from Academy and carried it into the UPS store.
They shouldn't care who I bought it from - they should just ship it at their appropriate rate.
Exactly the sentiment of the pro-nn side as well.
They're worried about what the ISPs can now do without the nn rules constraining them.
I think both sides like the way the internet has been handled and want it to continue as is (except for the ISPs who want to tap new revenue strteams), but both are worried about tomorrow.
That's one of the complicated things about this argument - it's all about hypotheticals.
If so much of broadband wasn't effectively a monopoly it would be a no-brainer - let the market decide.
One of this interesting things is that nothing REQUIRES our ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to be “non-neutral,” that is, nothing requires our ISPs to discriminate based on the content or source of our personal internet traffic.
It is one more example of leftist progressives wanting to boss everyone around.
Gosh, if everyone is actually SO in favor of “net neutrality” then you figure they would DO it whether there is a law about it or not. I don’t plan to steal stuff whether there is a law or not. So why would these supposedly highly principled progressive ISP corporations “discriminate” just because there is no law on it? They are free to pass on all costs they have evenly to all their subscribers even though it is really unfair to charge the same to someone who only uses e-mail and someone with 4 in the family where they stream 4k video on 4 machines for 10 hours a day.
But if I want a company that discriminates, I should be able to have that too.
That is the biggest problem: in general there is only 1 or 2 or maybe 3 good options at the most to choose from for ISP in any given area. So it becomes like electricity or gas, public-utility-like because there is only so much easement space to tolerate multiple unities.
Electricity in “de-regulated” states like Texas gets around it some by having one single company per area that handles the power lines and delivery, and multiple other companies that sell you electricity plans. It gets weird and complicated but encourages competition and choice — there are good plans and there are weirdo plans for snowflakes.
Network delivery on a single network with multiple subnets might be a lot more subject to abuses than just keeping track of kilowatt hours and time of day.
I am glad for more freedom — and to be doing the opposite of what the progressive national socialists want — while on top of that, they and their minions can still keep doing just what they want, EXCEPT now they do not any longer get to boss me around and tell me what I cannot do.
Bossy leftist fascists suck.
Repealing NN is a good thing. Frankly, I can’t remember all the arguments in favor of repeal, but I remember at the time, reading about them, and being glad the new FCC group was going to have republicans in charge, who wanted it repealed. Besides, anything O’Bomboy was in favor of, I’M AGAINST!
Net neutrality is a fricken government take over. When has that ever worked?
The other approach? Leads to Corporate Fascism. Big companies buy the POLs (both parties) and write the law to suit them eliminating upstart competitors.
No nothing more than government control of the internet.
Yep. Exactly. Government and Big Corporate.
” By striking it down, providers will be able to provide increased performance for those willing to pay.”
Thanks for putting it bluntly. If you want better quality, pay for it. There is no free lunch.
Thanks. I don’t think my liberal friends would even comprehend this!!
It really gets down to. Who do I trust more Government or business. ....I’ll go with Capitalism.
Liberalism destroys everything it touches........everything. That would have included the internet if this “thing” was allowed to go.
Liberalism is the BORG of this century and should be treated as such....they’re insane.
I see - you demand poorer and limited services at higher prices just to tic off the leftists. Good plan. You’ll show them!
Well, the liberal fascist lose that round. Keep the Internet free, without screens or filters from the Obamatron types.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.