FCC chair heads into two-week political hazing period FCC chair Tom Wheeler may have called the passing of net neutrality rules "the proudest day of my public policy career" but he is going to pay for it over the next two weeks. The former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries will appear in front of no less than five congressional committees in the next two weeks and …
How come it's "government overreach" when it's regulation that prevents telcos from abusing their monopolies to harm consumers but it's "necessary" when it's regulation that prevents anyone (especially municipalities, community groups or or forth) from competing with said monopolies?
A government should work to prevent the concentration of power and to set up barriers to abuse of power in case it does end up concentrated. This benefits the many.
If the government should become about allowing and then protecting concentrations of power, this benefits the few. At which point, the question really becomes why the many should allow it to continue.
Overreach.... that's coming from the Republicans and guess why? The lobbyist money is talking here.
If the government should become about allowing and then protecting concentrations of power, this benefits the few. At which point, the question really becomes why the many should allow it to continue.
Simple really... for the many to take control will involve gunfire, bombs, and many refugees headed north and south. Many will complain but given the way this country is being run and where we're headed with "surveillance", few will try. The government has too much power and those yahoos in Congress seem to be re-writing the rules as they go. Take a good look at the "letter" the Repubs sent to Iran. That has all the smell of a palace coup. If the people rise up, I do believe it'll a massive civil war. There's just too much power at stake for those with it to give up quietly or to say "Ah yes, the voters have spoken. I'll go quietly."
Whenever you big government morons don't have an argument and don't know what the hell you're talking about, its a monopoly. But government power, overreach, unchecked judiciaries... Why they're just all saints and can do no wrong as long as they go after the boogieman "monopolies".
You are a moron!
By saying that I believe that governments are "saints" you have proven only yourself to be the moron, sir. My track record of railing against governments is pretty well established.
I am sorry if sticking up for "the people" instead of "those who already have nearly unchallengeable power over tens or even hundreds of millions of individuals" bothers you. Actually, I'm not sorry. If that bothers you, you're probably a horrible, horrible person, and I'm actually pretty glad that I irritate you.
"I am sorry if sticking up for "the people" instead of "those who already have nearly unchallengeable power over tens or even hundreds of millions of individuals" bothers you. Actually, I'm not sorry. If that bothers you, you're probably a horrible, horrible person, and I'm actually pretty glad that I irritate you."
Potts Law states that:
Every net neutrality discussion at El Reg turns into an excuse for Trevor Potts to explain how he is a good person, on the side of the people, and everyone who disagrees with him is evil.
All Hail St Trevor - the saintliest man in the world.
"Every net neutrality discussion at El Reg turns into an excuse for Trevor Potts to explain how he is a good person, on the side of the people, and everyone who disagrees with him is evil."
Lots of people - especially on these forums - beleive that sticking up for "the people" instead of one's self (or only for the rich/elite/the "right" people) is "evil". Now, do I, personally, believe that putting the needs of the many before your own is "good" and that being selfish is "evil"? Yes, yes I do. But I also recognize that there's a minority of folk out there who worship their own personally misinterpretation of Ayn Rand's works and believe selfishness is "good" and selflessness is "evil".
When Net Neutrality - or really, any economic discussion of any kind comes up - the supply side economics chowderheads will appear out of a portal in order to preach their religion. So yes, I absolutely do, and will and take great pleasure in posting stuff that I know full well will annoy them.
I do so because I'm not pure and "good" and wonderful at heart. I do it because just as the twisted Randians feel an uncontrollable compulsion to tell the world that selfishness is the One True Belief, I get a sort of maleficent glee from raising their blood pressure and contributing that little bit to ruining their day.
Also, just for the record, Potts is different from Pott's. Potts would indicate multiple individuals with the past name "Pott". It is the plural form of tacking the "s" on the end of things. Pott's would be possessive and indicate ownership. In this case, a possessive ("Pott's law") would be the proper bit of grammar to demonstrate your point.
In any case, I'm glad that I've made your day a little worse. Cheers!
"How come it's 'government overreach'?"
Duh. Because of the separation of powers in the US constitution, and the checks and balances built into the system that stop a Government agency exceeding its legal authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/09/how-net-neutrality-became-a-separation-of-powers-story/
Congress makes the laws, and if it wanted an agency to regulate data services, it would have written those powers into the law. As it is the Telcomms Act specifically excludes data services from Title II regulation.
Feeling virtuous and morally superior isn't a sufficient justification to rip up the separation of powers because you feel like it, or because you think the "many" are oppressed by the "few" (nice rhetorical turn there Trevor) which you seem to do on every political issue.
The Constitution is there to protect the people from people like you, basically.
"A government should work to prevent the concentration of power"
Maybe it should, but it does so by passing laws, and administering the laws that have been passed. Are all Canadians this thick?
"Congress makes the laws, and if it wanted an agency to regulate data services, it would have written those powers into the law."
Well, you quote a completely partisan new magazine to support your completely partisan take on the issue which just happens to actually be wrong. The Telecommunications Act was put into place in order to prevent Title II from having to be used to regulate data, amongst many other things...but it did not remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II, should that be required.
In fact, Congress has no means to place data services under Title II as the law only grants that power to the FCC. They could, in theory, draft another set of laws that would again make the need for Title II irrelevant, but unless they tear up a whole bunch of laws and rewrite them they can't remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II. And the Telecommunications Act absolutely did not remove that legal authority from the FCC.
Furthermore, the US Congress has become nothing more than a grandstanding show of doing absolutely fucking nothing of value, and as much of negative value as possible for the better part of 5 years. With very few exceptions, Congress does fuck all, because obstructionist politics resonate with...well, with people like you.
"The Constitution is there to protect the people from people like you, basically."
Actually, no. The Constitution was to form the basis of a system of government which would allow the people to govern themselves. This was in opposition to governance by an aristocracy and a monarch. It offered multiple protections against various forms of government overreach, but does not prevent the federal government of the United States from regulating inter-state commerce.
The internet is in every way possible interstate commerce. It is international commerce in it's truest form. It is also a vehicle for freedom of expression, education, health and life sciences and a whole raft of other aspects of our lives that absolutely fall under the purview of the federal government.
What's more, the basic laws and regulations for regulating the Internet go back to before it's creation. because it is an evolution of existing technologies and real world concerns, rather than a completely new thing.
But you know, there are countries out there that do, in fact, "protect" their citizens from "people like me". You know, people who understand the law, the spirit and intent of the law, the larger economic and political issues as they affect municipal, state, federal and international spheres and who believes that doing what's right by the majority must be the ultimate goal of any system of governance.
I realize you're trying very hard to turn the United States into one of those countries. I hope for the sake of US citizens you fail. The types of folks who build nations only to benefit the indulgent few usually end up building some pretty shitty nations. Maybe you could just do your fellow citizens a favour and move to one of them, eh?
"The Telecommunications Act was put into place in order to prevent Title II from having to be used to regulate data, amongst many other things...but it did not remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II, should that be required."
My students would receive a Fail mark for attempting such an argument. I have explained why already in this thread. Most tutors would also deduct points for vanity and arrogance. You don't just get it wrong, but you think you can bluster your way using rhetoric. For example:
" there are countries out there that do, in fact, "protect" their citizens from "people like me". You know, people who understand the law, the spirit and intent of the law...
You have demonstrated you don't understand the law at all. You don't understand the separation of powers, the boundaries of authority, the idea of legislative intent. You steamroller over all of them.
"...the larger economic and political issues..."
I think you mean "The Larger Potts". I described your behaviour earlier. Whenever you're challenged, you use the rhetoric of moral superiority. You're doing it again.
"The types of folks who build nations only to benefit the indulgent few "
QED.
"My students would receive a Fail mark for attempting such an argument."
Your students have a shit teacher. You have used Argumentum Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well (special case of Argumentum Ad Hominem), Appeal to Authority and many, many other logical fallacies in your blustering vitriolic idiocy in this thread. It's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, and if you actually presume to attempt to teach anything related to politics or history to others then you should be locked away as a danger to all mankind.
Also: like it or not, moral issues absolutely are at the core of politics and law. From the formation of nations themselves to the rationale used by Supreme Court justices to - without question - the creation of laws by various elected officials. That you get bent feelers when I call you out on the fact that you are morally bankrupt just makes me gleefully happy. The angrier you get, the happier I am.
You have come in and made a bunch of claims and backed them up with absolutely nothing. Not morality, not law...nothing. Just your own religious interpretation about how the Constitution of your nation "should" be read...which your own top legal beaks disagree with.
You have a partisan chip on your shoulder and clear problem with anything that smacks of the greater good. So please, continue in your blithering. I hope that whenever someone Googles your name they find this thread, your inane witterings and the incontrovertible proof of not only your delusions of self importance but your amorality and hatred for your fellow man.
The law isn't on your side. Morality isn't on your side. Nothing is on your side, excepting your own ego. Best feed it then. Its all you have.
(And that, by the by, is how Argumentum Ad Hominem is properly done.)
"supply side economics chowderheads will appear out of a portal in order to preach their religion."
No doubt, but there are chowderheads of all religions on the internet. Your vanity - as the most righteous and caring person in the room - blinds you to some of your own defects.
I have replied to your other comment and do not need to repeat it. At issue is legislative intent and the legal authority of the agency. Just as I predicted, when challenged, you resort to self-righteous moralising.
"No doubt, but there are chowderheads of all religions on the internet. Your vanity - as the most righteous and caring person in the room - blinds you to some of your own defects."
I honestly don't see where you get "most righteous and caring person in the room" from someone who fairly publicly takes pleasure in your anger and intellectual disquiet. I am, however, interested that my having a moral code which places the needs of the many above the needs of the powerful few so deeply upsets you.
Somehow, you see that as vanity. I'm not saying I'm not a vain person - I think we all are, to some extent - but there is something really broken inside of you if "caring for others" makes you "vain". Really, really broken.
"I have replied to your other comment and do not need to repeat it."
No, actually, you didn't. You made a claim that the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to place data services under title II, but backed it up with fuck all. You're wrong. They do have that authority. The Supreme Court, when bounding the previous Net Neutrality attempt said as much. The sort version was "you don't have the legal authority to create a Net Neutrality compromise. If you want to impose this you need to classify under Title II". Which is exactly what they did. They also have the legal authority to forbear parts of Title II, which they did.
The FCC did not reach for powers it didn't have here. It didn't invent new powers. It used the tools it had (finally!) The fact that you don't like what they did, or that you believe they should have that authority doesn't matter. You are caught in the is/ought problem and can't shake yourself loose.
"At issue is legislative intent and the legal authority of the agency."
No. There is no issue with the legal authority of the agency. It is perfectly within its rights to do what it did. In fact, placing data services under Title II is one of the only powers it actually has.
"Just as I predicted, when challenged, you resort to self-righteous moralising."
You mean the part, several comments ago where I explained in plain English that you're wrong? No, actually, I'm pretty sure that I discussed things like Title II authority, the limits of authority, and why the federal government does in fact have the right to regulate here.
That I threw in some shots at you being an idiot and got your feelers all twisted up doesn't really distract form that. It just makes it a hell of a lot more interesting. Especially since you keep coming back to bellow your righteous indignation.
Oh, woe! Your ego! How low a blow, how callous this show! If only, (if only!) these heathens would listen to you, they'd know!
Maybe when you're all growed up you can learn about playing nice with others. After that we can work on your Randian belief that selfishness is virtue. Before you die we might almost make you human!
Maybe.
Until then, I'm just going to mock you. Because, in addition to being outright wrong in your analysis, you're not a very good or nice person. And so I will make my day better at your expense and feel no guilt about that whatsoever.
That makes me far from "the most caring person in the room", but I am really learning to live with - and like - the practice of selective benevolence. That whole part of being a tolerant person where you are supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Not a fan. So Praise Jibbers, let's have a beer!
Oh, and side note, having an ego and sense of self importance such that you feel the need to put the title "Dr" in your forum name really - really - destroys your credibility as regards lecturing others about "vanity". Just for the record. Because you don't seem to know that.
I smell sympathy for a freaking unelected tyrant bureaucrat that just destroyed the Net as we know it. It isn't the job of a government agency to make law's, they are only to enforce law's created by congress and yet your blatant ignorance in this puff piece attempting to make congress look like the problem means you are not only stupid but your stupidity is the main reason these tyrants have the balls to do as they wish.
It isn't the job of a government agency to make law's, they are only to enforce law's created by congress and yet your blatant ignorance in this puff piece attempting to make congress look like the problem means you are not only stupid but your stupidity is the main reason these tyrants have the balls to do as they wish.
Correct. The agency can't make laws, only Congress can.
However, given the way the laws have been passed over the last 200 years, agencies are given the power to "regulate". A good example is the FTC. They don't pass laws, they regulate so that Congress doesn't have to pass a law for everything. The FCC regulates also. By your definition, Congress would have the final say on spectrum usage. They don't. They granted that power to the agency. Same for communications.
The current band of tyrants right now is in Congress. Both parties, scheming and back-stabbing for power.
No, not here, because the law is so clear. Legislative intent is not ambiguous in any way. Congress could have given data services their own Title. Congress discussed it, and strongly decided not to. It could have given data services their own Title. It didn't.
When an agency's authority is so clear cut and strictly delineated, there is no ambiguity. By trying to do Title II-lite the Courts said no. Twice. If you want an FCC doing Title II things, you need a new law.
"The current band of tyrants right now is in Congress. Both parties, scheming and back-stabbing for power."
Wow? Is this new? I thought it was called politics. I suggest some Shakespeare.
You, sir, are an idiot. The most recent unelected bureaucrat that served as President of the US was George W. Bush (or Shrub, as we like to call him in Texas, when not disparaging him as a dam' Yankee). Also, you apparently have no freaking clue as to how argument works.
"particularly following what appeared to be a sudden change in approach following President Obama's unexpected intervention."
I would like to think that the President said something along the lines of "If you don't step in and do the right thing, not only will your children and grandchildren suffer from the current trend, but your name will be the one they said should have done something. Do the right thing for all Americans not just a select few."
Let's not forget the volume of Americans that asked for this ruling.
We're taking about a guy that actually got to hear the ISP CEOs talking behind closed doors when he was their lobbyist, he knows exactly how bad it could have really gotten had the FCC not stepped in. I would like to think he did the right thing for the right reasons.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
