FCC net neutrality order released

[TitanTiger 20,472]

http://transition.fc...WlsaWQ9OTU4OA==

You're welcome to read the whole thing, but here are the basics:

• ISP's can't block you from visiting a website. So you can visit any site that you want.

• They can't slow down access to websites. So the sites you want to visit will come to you as quickly as the sites your ISP might favor or have a vested interest in.

• They can't speed up or make certain websites load faster. This is absolutely critical, because if they could speed up certain sites, that functionally means slowing down other sites.

• They can't get between you and any content, application, service, or anything else that you want to access online. That is explicitly one of the rules. Just in case the other rules don't cover something.

• There are no new taxes or fees anywhere in the rules, and there's nothing limiting investment. Period.

[AURaptor 1,122]

There are no new taxes or fees anywhere in the rules, and there's nothing limiting investment. Period.

Yet.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Titan.....thanks for the summary.

[cooltigger21 0]

Titan I know you think I'm being paranoid but I just don't trust any government agency to not overreach. The temptation is just too hard to resist. The FCC has now stepped in to do this little bit. It's all roses and sunshine now. I never expected a massive intrusion at the outset but at some point taxes and fees will be imposed and an attempt of some kind at content control will take place. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, the rest is sure to follow. It will be gradual and around the edges but still ever growing larger. I've said my peace and I'll shut up and let you celebrate.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Titan, the main thing that I am glad to see in everything I have read thus far (I will read the full text of it tomorrow at work) is that they specifically targeted preventing the predatory practices that ISP's have demonstrated a clear and often litigious interest in pursuing, while specifically electing to leave peering and CDN arrangements alone.

[AUDub 11,141]

Awesome. Can't wait for Ajit Pai's spin.

[Aufan59 60]

Titan I know you think I'm being paranoid but I just don't trust any government agency to not overreach. The temptation is just too hard to resist. The FCC has now stepped in to do this little bit. It's all roses and sunshine now. I never expected a massive intrusion at the outset but at some point taxes and fees will be imposed and an attempt of some kind at content control will take place. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, the rest is sure to follow. It will be gradual and around the edges but still ever growing larger. I've said my peace and I'll shut up and let you celebrate.

The providers had already overreached and had blocked and throttled access.

Il take the paranoia of maybe government will over reach compared to the guarantee that the providers had overreached and will continue.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Titan I know you think I'm being paranoid but I just don't trust any government agency to not overreach. The temptation is just too hard to resist. The FCC has now stepped in to do this little bit. It's all roses and sunshine now. I never expected a massive intrusion at the outset but at some point taxes and fees will be imposed and an attempt of some kind at content control will take place. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, the rest is sure to follow. It will be gradual and around the edges but still ever growing larger. I've said my peace and I'll shut up and let you celebrate.

The providers had already overreached and had blocked and throttled access.

Il take the paranoia of maybe government will over reach compared to the guarantee that the providers had overreached and will continue.

This is the part that I can't understand. Why don't people see that abuse, overreach, excessive control and increased costs were already happening to one extent or another because of the virtual monopoly power most ISPs enjoy in a market? Most people have one cable company in their town or city. They are the only game in town for real high speed internet as things like U-Verse, Google Fiber and Verizon FIOS are limited in reach. DSL from AT&T tops out at about 6 Mbps. Satellite internet is even slower (maybe 2 Mbps). As such, they can and do abuse their position because they know you don't have much of a choice.

Montgomery is a rare community that has two cable companies that cover 90% of the city. Even cities as big as Nashville, where I lived for 12 years, only had Comcast as late as 2008. If you lived in the suburbs you often had Charter instead, but not both. Some of the border areas had some overlap and were the lucky few that could pit Comcast and Charter against each other. And I'm sure A&T UVerse is there now. But most towns don't have that luxury.

Comcast and Verizon already were throttling traffic for Netflix to force them to pay up. It was coming for others as well. How much of a leap is it from there to content control. How much higher are prices artificially above what they would be in a more competitive landscape because of cable company mergers out the wazoo and the unspoken actions of the remaining few to divvy up markets and avoid direct competition with each other?

We might not be able to turn back time and bust up the huge mergers that have reduced competition. But we can damn sure stop them from using this artificial Balkanization of territory to give them virtually unlimited gatekeeper power.

[AUDub 11,141]

Well put.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

[cptau 169]

<p>A third federal court ruling will stop the FCC a third time. The lawyers are getting rich anyway.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Courts did not rule that they lacked regulatory authority at all. The ruling was that the FCC's Open Internet Order could not be applied to broadband providers while classified under Title I, but would be applicable if they were classified under Title II.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Courts did not rule that they lacked regulatory authority at all. The ruling was that the FCC's Open Internet Order could not be applied to broadband providers while classified under Title I, but would be applicable if they were classified under Title II.

Well, you parsed that pretty well and now a $half a billion dollars will be given to lawyers to fight it out as opposed to possibly being invested in new technologies or even jobs. This ruling amounts to little more than the full employment act for lawyers.

[channonc 466]

What's your beef with lawyers? Everyone hates them till you need one.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Courts did not rule that they lacked regulatory authority at all. The ruling was that the FCC's Open Internet Order could not be applied to broadband providers while classified under Title I, but would be applicable if they were classified under Title II.

Well, you parsed that pretty well and now a $half a billion dollars will be given to lawyers to fight it out as opposed to possibly being invested in new technologies or even jobs. This ruling amounts to little more than the full employment act for lawyers.

It's not parsing, it's demonstrating understanding of the ruling in question and the difference in Title I and Title II classifications. You completely misinterpreted the court ruling. He simply corrected you.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Courts did not rule that they lacked regulatory authority at all. The ruling was that the FCC's Open Internet Order could not be applied to broadband providers while classified under Title I, but would be applicable if they were classified under Title II.

Well, you parsed that pretty well and now a $half a billion dollars will be given to lawyers to fight it out as opposed to possibly being invested in new technologies or even jobs. This ruling amounts to little more than the full employment act for lawyers.

It's not parsing, it's demonstrating understanding of the ruling in question and the difference in Title I and Title II classifications. You completely misinterpreted the court ruling. He simply corrected you.

We'll see. My bet is this will be tied up in the courts in a protracted court battle for a long time soaking up $100s of millions of dollars that could have been more productively spent but thats just me. I know you're a big pro government guy. Im not and feel the direction all this is going is not going to end well for the citizens of the US but again, thats just me.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Courts did not rule that they lacked regulatory authority at all. The ruling was that the FCC's Open Internet Order could not be applied to broadband providers while classified under Title I, but would be applicable if they were classified under Title II.

Well, you parsed that pretty well and now a $half a billion dollars will be given to lawyers to fight it out as opposed to possibly being invested in new technologies or even jobs. This ruling amounts to little more than the full employment act for lawyers.

It's not parsing, it's demonstrating understanding of the ruling in question and the difference in Title I and Title II classifications. You completely misinterpreted the court ruling. He simply corrected you.

We'll see. My bet is this will be tied up in the courts in a protracted court battle for a long time soaking up $100s of millions of dollars that could have been more productively spent but thats just me. I know you're a big pro government guy. Im not and feel the direction all this is going is not going to end well for the citizens of the US but again, thats just me.

The one constant we can all set a sundial by: TheBlueVue's utter inability to read, much less comprehend, anyone else's political philosophies.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Courts did not rule that they lacked regulatory authority at all. The ruling was that the FCC's Open Internet Order could not be applied to broadband providers while classified under Title I, but would be applicable if they were classified under Title II.

Well, you parsed that pretty well and now a $half a billion dollars will be given to lawyers to fight it out as opposed to possibly being invested in new technologies or even jobs. This ruling amounts to little more than the full employment act for lawyers.

This ruling is Title II classification. The half a billion dollars that Comcast, Verizon, or whoever spends on further litigation is not detracting from new technologies. They wanted the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order struck down for a reason. They will want this struck down for the same reason, and that reason is not so that they are free to provide you with better or faster service. They are only interested in investing in new technologies when they simply have no other choice. They would rather charge you more or the same, for less service. Require an example? Look at the data caps imposed on most cable broadband services. Look at the data caps imposed on your mobile plan. Those were not always there, and they are certainly not necessary.

They see the success of Netflix, they desperately want a piece of that pie, and they want to get that piece of pie by using their customers as hostages rather than by competition. None of this would have been necessary if Comcast and Verizon had chosen to act like reasonable companies and provide their customers the service they are paying for, instead of thinking that customer base entitles them to use those paying customers as hostages against the other companies delivering content that those paying customers wish to view. This is what the internet would look like for a Comcast customer in the absence of net neutrality:

Netflix has to pay Comcast in order for a paying Comcast customer to be able to watch Netflix at a usable speed. Netflix, or Hulu, or whatever refuses to pay, Comcast throttles their traffic to the paying customer. In the meantime, the paying Comcast customer that desires to watch TV online ends up with the following choice: watch Comcast's Xfinity, or watch a lot of buffering with your 20mbps connection. Comcast wants you to pay them for internet access, and they also want the internet to pay them for you to be able to access the internet.

That is the kind of corporate goal that led to the FCC getting involved. The FCC did not want to get involved, and they were perfectly content to allow broadband to remain under Title I. They have said so repeatedly, and their actions over the last fifteen years have been completely consistent with what they say. The scenario listed in the above paragraph is the ONLY thing that net neutrality prevents. This issue was never about "fast lanes" or paid prioritization; that is a red herring. "Fast lanes" have existed for years; they are called peering and content delivery networks (CDN). The goal of the core net neutrality opponents was always to get the ability to make the above paragraph a reality enshrined into law.

[homersapien 11,357]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. This has nothing to do with the "rule of law".

The courts never disagreed on the principle of regulation or appropriateness of the regulation. The courts disagreed based solely on the classifications defined in the existing regulation. A technicality if you will. This fixes that.

[homersapien 11,357]

Titan I know you think I'm being paranoid but I just don't trust any government agency to not overreach. The temptation is just too hard to resist. The FCC has now stepped in to do this little bit. It's all roses and sunshine now. I never expected a massive intrusion at the outset but at some point taxes and fees will be imposed and an attempt of some kind at content control will take place. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, the rest is sure to follow. It will be gradual and around the edges but still ever growing larger. I've said my peace and I'll shut up and let you celebrate.

The providers had already overreached and had blocked and throttled access.

Il take the paranoia of maybe government will over reach compared to the guarantee that the providers had overreached and will continue.

This is the part that I can't understand. Why don't people see that abuse, overreach, excessive control and increased costs were already happening to one extent or another because of the virtual monopoly power most ISPs enjoy in a market?....

Because some people elevate their paradigms over simple facts.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. This has nothing to do with the "rule of law".

The courts never disagreed on the principle of regulation or appropriateness of the regulation. The courts disagreed based solely on the classifications defined in the existing regulation. A technicality if you will. This fixes that.

So there wont be ANY lawsuits contesting that, right? It's really good to know its such a simple fix. :-\

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. This has nothing to do with the "rule of law".

The courts never disagreed on the principle of regulation or appropriateness of the regulation. The courts disagreed based solely on the classifications defined in the existing regulation. A technicality if you will. This fixes that.

So there wont be ANY lawsuits contesting that, right? It's really good to know its such a simple fix. :-\

Of course there will be lawsuits. Comcast, et al really want the ability to compete with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and whatever the next disruptive technology that comes down the pike - not by coming out with a superior product that wins you over on its own merits - but by artificially throttling or otherwise disadvantaging it, using their virtual monopoly position to be the gatekeeper. So sure, they will sue.

And they will lose based on the same criteria that they won the last time.

[alexava 6,973]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. This has nothing to do with the "rule of law".

The courts never disagreed on the principle of regulation or appropriateness of the regulation. The courts disagreed based solely on the classifications defined in the existing regulation. A technicality if you will. This fixes that.

So there wont be ANY lawsuits contesting that, right? It's really good to know its such a simple fix. :-\/>

no the lawsuits that were happening to stop this are not needed now.

[channonc 466]

I guess Im the only one that still believes in the rule of law in America. Im not arguing the presumed merits or warts of these FCC Net Neutrality regulations. I do find several aspects of its passage somewhat troubling. Am I the only one troubled that the FCC can proclaim for itself regulatory powers that two, count'em 2 federal courts, had previously ruled they do not have? The rulings stated unequivocally the internet could not be regulated like a utility but that is exactly what the FCC is doing.

For me, the debate is about the rule of law. If it is viewed as no problem that an agency of government can proclaimed for itself powers that federal courts have already ruled twice they do not have, at what point does that kind of usurpation of power become a problem? It is also very troubling that Obama continues with what appears to be a clandestine regulatory obsession. Meaning, he has no problem but, in fact, rather seems to favor passing new regulations before anyone has a chance to review them or publicly debate them. This methodology seems contrary to the proper role of an entity designed to serve its constituents rather than dictate policy to them and, quite honestly, seems to share dangerous similarities to the very tyranny our founders worked diligently to avoid. Clearly they could not plan for every eventuation of technology but they did formulate a rule of law which in this case is being ignored.

This may be good policy, only time will tell but, I have serious concerns about the way it was implemented and where that kind of governance is heading.

Once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. This has nothing to do with the "rule of law".

The courts never disagreed on the principle of regulation or appropriateness of the regulation. The courts disagreed based solely on the classifications defined in the existing regulation. A technicality if you will. This fixes that.

So there wont be ANY lawsuits contesting that, right? It's really good to know its such a simple fix. :-\

Of course there will be lawsuits. Comcast, et al really want the ability to compete with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and whatever the next disruptive technology that comes down the pike - not by coming out with a superior product that wins you over on its own merits - but by artificially throttling or otherwise disadvantaging it, using their virtual monopoly position to be the gatekeeper. So sure, they will sue.

And they will lose based on the same criteria that they won the last time.

And I am not sure why that is a problem for Blue? Anyone in America has the right to sue, I thought he was all about keeping the status quo and the American way.