Dear FCC: Thanks for Listening to Team Internet!

Electronic Frontier Foundation ^ | 26 February, 2015 | J. Gillula and Mitch Stoltz

[Ray76]

We know what they wanted to do to newspapers, tv, and radio. None of those are utilities - which is what saved them.

Making internet a utility places it under their control. They will be able to claim that the “critical information needs” of this or that "community" is not being served "properly", that this or that website is "biased", that an ISP must provide "balance" in the websites made available over their network. etc. We know their intentions.

[Ray76]

Since when does an agency define their jurisdiction rather than have it given them by Congress?

[murron]

It doesn’t matter if what the FCC did was a good thing or not. What matters is if this stands, they have now been given authority to regulate the internet, which they did not have before today’s action. This leaves the door open for future regulations. This should be challenged on the grounds that they have no authority to oversee the internet. Period.

[murron]

“But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.”

The FCC doesn’t have this authority. It’s not theirs to abuse.

[Colonel_Flagg]

But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.

As long as you're dreaming, fellas, would you like a pony?

[Amendment10]

"What matters is if this stands, they have now been given authority to regulate the internet, which they did not have before today’s action."

Note that the Founding States made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected government bureaucrats like those running the FCC. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative (regulatory) powers whether it wants it or not.

So what’s going on with these new third-party regulations by the FCC is this. The elected members of the corrupt, RINO-controlled Congress are unconstitutionally hiding behind the non-elected members of the FCC with regards to this unpopular federal policy.

[DouglasKC]

For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done. We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.

Freaking idiots. It's like giving a grizzly bear a stack of steaks and telling him he only should eat one bite. Who's dumber...the grizzly bear or the idiot who believes he'll stop at one bite?

[Ray76]

   

The FCC Would Never Abuse It's Authority

 

Since when does an agency define their jurisdiction rather than have it given them by Congress?

[Nuc 1.1]

Silly Stoltz, Net Nutrality is about curtailing free speech and curtailing private property rights.

[dfwgator]

Or as PJ O’Rourke says, it is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

[AZLiberty]

The Electronic Freedom Foundation outs itself as the Electronic Socialism Foundation.

By all means, let’s hand over massive power to the government to fix something that isn’t broken. What can possibly go wrong?

[Biggirl]

Fed courts here it comes!