6 ms·

Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece. These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and n

Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece. These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority to the FCC and is acting to put them back in line with the law. It's pathetic the the WaPo used their platform to create more heat than light on this, by selective quoting. Here's a more full quote from Rep Blackburn that explains her position more fully. “The FCC already has the ability to oversee privacy with broadband providers,” Blackburn explained. “That is done primarily through Section 222 of the Communications Act, and additional authority is granted through Sections 201 and 202. Now, what they did was to go outside of their bounds and expand that. They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. They have traditionally been our nation’s primary privacy regulator, and they have done a very good job of it.” The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s. The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it somehow assumes that if the FTC were still regulating this then the Republicans would have left it alone. And that's nonsense. It doesn't matter who is regulating it, what matters is that you have a certain privacy, and soon you won't. That's all this is about.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ComradeTaco 10y ago
You can't just say the regulations are old and therefore invalid because they're old. Remember, the telephone industry was regulated because telephone companies merged and cooperated to create regional monopolies and destroy competition, all at the expense of consumers. Comcast, Time Warner and the like have all been doing the same.
- tomohawk 10y ago
  You also can't just say that the internet is the same as POTS. The FCC has scarcely been better than these companies. It has a history of being a revolving door for companies. Consider what RCA/FCC did to Armstrong back in the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong Just because the FCC does something doesn't mean its good, legal, or whatever. It's just what 3 of 5 unelected, unaccountable appointees cooked up. When the board changes, they can just as easily uncook it up.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    With regards to this, I absolutely can.
  - int_handler 10y ago
    You bring up a good point that many people might not have realized: relying on the FCC to regulate solely without the backing of legislation will not result in the kind of long-term stable regulations and consumer protections that we are looking for because what the FCC decides to do could change on a dime whenever the administration changes.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      The FCC did have the backing of legislation, which is why it took an act of Congress to overturn it.
      - hueving 10y ago
        It had the backing of legislation to do whatever it wanted, leading to instability of regulation. This law was written to prevent an overstep of a non legislative body's ability to legislate. It's true the outcome sucks in this case, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do from a balance of power perspective.
        10y ago
ballenf 10y ago
I'm confused. If these rules that were repealed never went into effect, or only partially, does that mean that our data was already (or is currently) being sold? Does this legislation explicitly condone the collection or sale of browsing data? (I'd still rather have the protection than not, but can't seem to find a good detailed explanation.)
- masonic 10y ago
  does that mean that our data was already (or is currently) being sold? Probably. I doubt that broadband carriers would admit it publicly one way or the other. They've been able to for at least 1.5 years, and counting.
- Preemo 10y ago
  Verizon has been doing this since at least 2012. It's sure as sh*t AT&T and others (not just mobile providers) are doing it as well.
mythrwy 10y ago
<edited> So as it's going to be a flame war apparently I've deleted the comment. I'd just like to register my opinion that I don't see Washington Post is an objective, nor even a trustworthy source at this point. When they print something it's often worth looking deeper into I believe.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  That's entirely incorrect. The Republicans own actions, and absolutely nothing else, portrays them in a bad light.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  >Although Washington Post isn't quite Brietbart yet they appear to be headed rapidly in that direction from my perspective So you've never actually been to Breitbart then? I checked it regularly before the 2016 elections and, in those days, it certainly earned its nickname "stormfront lite." They've toned it down since the additional scrutiny and subsequent mainstreaming of the Trump era, but WaPo has never been and will never even come close to Breitbart. Also Breitbart is an overt propaganda outlet. WaPo may seem biased, but it certainly does not engage propaganda on the same level as Breitbart.
  - masonic 10y ago
    WaPo has never been and will never even come close to Breitbart. Well, they certainly weren't close to the Obama administration or Clinton campaign like WaPo was, as clearly revealed in numerous WikiLeaks-exposed email exchanges. Meanwhile, if you see any factual errors on Breitbart, by all means post them.
    - brownbat 10y ago
      > Meanwhile, if you see any factual errors on Breitbart, by all means post them. I liked this one: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best-correction-since-forever http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best-co...
st3v3r 10y ago
"The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s." That's silly. That's like saying phone doesn't deserve protection from wiretapping because there never was a law specifically against it.
breatheoften 10y ago
Actually no -- an obscure interpretation of a one off line in an unrelated law was used to prevent the FTC from regulating here. The FTC tried to regulate -- and was shot down because it was determined that FCC had authority. Then the proposals were re-worked through the FCC -- now the same people who claimed FTC didn't have regulatory authority are now claiming that FCC doesn't and FTC does. Not classic government overreach, classic right wing misdirection.
aanm1988 10y ago
> Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece You mean you thought you would stick to classic conservative viewpoints about overreach, toss in a bit of media bashing for good measure.
che_shirecat 10y ago
I don't understand why people like yourself have to try to reframe and deflect attention on everything to fit your political narrative. Why can't you just see the problem for what it is and hold the representatives with your political affiliation accountable? Who really cares who our "traditional" privacy regulator is if neither of them end up able/willing to do the regulating? Why are you trying to frame this as a mistake made by the "previous president" when every single vote cast to repeal the only possible legal barrier to the commoditization of the internet activity of US citizens was cast by house/senate republicans? Are you perhaps suggesting that republicans would be the ones behind pushing a law through congress protecting internet privacy? I cannot comprehend how you can rationalize this (UM ACTUALLY... THIS IS OBAMA'S FAULT!) drivel in your head without some serious cognitive dissonance
- ComradeTaco 10y ago
  He's quoting a woman that accepted more than 650k from ISPs for reelection campaigns.
- kobeya 10y ago
  Because the truth matters. You're reacting to this based on the politically spun narrative that was fed to you when you first encountered the issue. The truth is actually a fair bit more complex. This is a case of a regulatory agency overstepping its bounds and seizing jurisdiction outside of the domain allowed for it by Congress. That's the language in which the bill is framed, the the way in which it has been discussed in the past weeks and months that is has gotten (minimal) coverage. Then the issue got picked up and spun when somebody called attention to the fact that the FCC's regulations (which they were not authorized to make) were more consumer-friendly than the FTC's. That's true, and it's a real problem. But that does not mean that the answer is to sanction the FCC's power-grab here. The right thing to do is to pursue consumer regulatory protections _within the confines of the law_, which means either petitioning the FTC or new legislation. Don't confuse concern over process with favoring the resulting outcomes.
  - breatheoften 10y ago
    The FTC previously proposed essentially this same rule and was shot down by the courts as not having authority.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Procedural arguments are a way to avoid dealing with the substantive issue. The elephant in the room is that one political party thinks it's totally fine to exploit your information for as much commercial gain as can be mined from it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system You are conflating two different orders; the reclassification was part of the 2015 open internet order (and was expressly laid out as a legal option in the court decision striking down the 2010 open internet order), not the 2016 privacy order at issue here. > They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. The FTC has no authority over even the non-telephone operations of the telephone companies who are many of the major ISPs.
matthew-wegner 10y ago
The FTC did regulate ISPs, until they sued AT&T over their "unlimited" claims and lost in appeal. In losing, they actually lost the ability to regulate ISPs at all. AT&T wanted this. Here's the ruling: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-16585.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1... Seeing this coming, FCC proposed privacy rules around the same time: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-39A1_Rcd.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-39A1_Rc... Which did go into effect on January 3rd: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... Among the privacy requirements, there are also mandatory breach notifications. The industry's response is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/01/As-Filed_NCTA-Recon-Petition-WC-16-1063.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0... . They complained about the breach requirements, and also claimed the difference between them being opt-in for advertising profiling vs Google et al being opt-out violated their First Amendment rights. A coalition of Internet advertisers filed a similar response: http://ana.net/getfile/24564 http://ana.net/getfile/24564 . Here, they claim another First Amendment conflict with: "The creation, analysis, and transfer of consumer data for marketing purposes constitutes speech" So yes, please dig deeper. This is a year-long end to a battle that AT&T successfully opened up in their appeal. It's over; the ISPs won, at the expense of individual American privacy.
- zoul 10y ago
  Selling your customers’ private browsing data constitutes speech… Wow. Just wow.
  - wapz 10y ago
    Yeah that statement makes it sound like everyone is using their browser in a public park on a 60' projector making it available for the ISP to sell.
- andrewla 10y ago
  Thanks for posting this -- very informative! That decision seems insanely broad; there's nothing in there that prevents AT&T from buying a breakfast cereal company and selling corn flakes that claim each 1 pound box contains 80 pounds of cereal and will make you live forever. At the same time, it doesn't seem to apply to ISP broadly; only ISPs that qualify as common carriers. Although the definition of common carrier seems overly broad itself, according to [1], even pointing out that Disney is a common carrier because their roller coasters in their theme parks carry passengers [2]. Has any attempt been made to amend either the FTC acts or the FCC acts to clarify the extent to which entities are classified as common carriers only as regards to those activities which meet the definition? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier [2] Gomez v. Superior Court (Walt Disney Co.) (2005) 35 C4th 1125, http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/35C4t1125.htm http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/35C4t1125.htm
deelowe 10y ago
The FTC recently lost their ability to regulate ISPs. That's why it was done this way. If the FTC had not been stripped of it's powers, then there would have been no need.
pnathan 10y ago
nit: The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to. obscures the reality that the opposition party - and its grassroots supporters was ruthless in opposing all that Obama did, often for no apparent reason. For instance, the SCOTUS nominee. It was poor behavior, giving us "legislative debt", as it fostered executive action over legislative action.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Couple of issues here: 1. The opposing party's opposing the ruling party is a natural process of government. It's the normal state of things. Your saying that it was "poor behavior" implies that it was an anomaly, that the Republicans did something wrong by not supporting everything Obama wanted to do, and that the minority party is supposed to accede to every demand of the ruling party, which would be absurd. 2. The Democrats only controlled Congress for 2 of Obama's 8 years. You imply that, even when Congress is not controlled by the President's own party, that Congress should accede to his demands. This is absurd. It's not how our government works, it's not how it's ever worked, and it's not how it was intended to work--indeed, exactly the opposite is the case. 3. If your implications were true, you should be criticizing the Democrats for doing exactly the same thing right now with far more vehemence. 4. The ostensibly "grassroots supporters" of the current opposition is actually ruthless. Were there violent riots in the streets of cities across the country when Obama was elected?
  - foota 10y ago
    Your comments that this isn't how the government was intended to work are spot on -- the founders did not want a two party system.
    - warlox 10y ago
      Of course, the math says that with the current voting system, any third party that emerges as a major force will always consume one of the existing major parties, leading the nation back to a two party system. I wonder why people always ignore this inconvenient theorem.
tzs 10y ago
> To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority to the FCC and is acting to put them back in line with the law. It was the FCC that decided in the first place to classify ISPs as information services rather than common carriers. They have the authority from Congress to do that, and I'm aware of nothing in the laws that granted that authority that say that once the FCC makes such a classification they cannot later revisit that and change the classification. > The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s. There have been several additions and amendments to the 1930s laws, such as the Telecommunication Act of 1996. It is disingenuous to suggest that the FCC is relying on 1930s laws for their authority.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. False. Parts of the regulation went into effect 30 days after publication. Parts went into effect 90 days after publication. Part would have gone into effect 6 months after publication. Part would have gone into effect 12 months after publication. See pg. 202 of the Report and Order.
acjohnson55 10y ago
So then, surely, the current Republican leadership in government will pass these rules the "right way"? I thought not.
VikingCoder 10y ago
> get an actual law passed ... the previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to. Right, the Republican Congress was very happy to work the prior President on sensible legislation.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it somehow assumes that if the FTC were still regulating this then the Republicans would have left it alone. And that's nonsense. It doesn't matter who is regulating it, what matters is that you have a certain privacy, and soon you won't. That's all this is about.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ComradeTaco 10y ago

You can't just say the regulations are old and therefore invalid because they're old. Remember, the telephone industry was regulated because telephone companies merged and cooperated to create regional monopolies and destroy competition, all at the expense of consumers. Comcast, Time Warner and the like have all been doing the same.

tomohawk 10y ago
You also can't just say that the internet is the same as POTS. The FCC has scarcely been better than these companies. It has a history of being a revolving door for companies. Consider what RCA/FCC did to Armstrong back in the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Howard_Armstrong Just because the FCC does something doesn't mean its good, legal, or whatever. It's just what 3 of 5 unelected, unaccountable appointees cooked up. When the board changes, they can just as easily uncook it up.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  With regards to this, I absolutely can.
- int_handler 10y ago
  You bring up a good point that many people might not have realized: relying on the FCC to regulate solely without the backing of legislation will not result in the kind of long-term stable regulations and consumer protections that we are looking for because what the FCC decides to do could change on a dime whenever the administration changes.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    The FCC did have the backing of legislation, which is why it took an act of Congress to overturn it.
    - hueving 10y ago
      It had the backing of legislation to do whatever it wanted, leading to instability of regulation. This law was written to prevent an overstep of a non legislative body's ability to legislate. It's true the outcome sucks in this case, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do from a balance of power perspective.
      - 10y ago

ballenf 10y ago

I'm confused. If these rules that were repealed never went into effect, or only partially, does that mean that our data was already (or is currently) being sold? Does this legislation explicitly condone the collection or sale of browsing data? (I'd still rather have the protection than not, but can't seem to find a good detailed explanation.)

masonic 10y ago
does that mean that our data was already (or is currently) being sold? Probably. I doubt that broadband carriers would admit it publicly one way or the other. They've been able to for at least 1.5 years, and counting.
Preemo 10y ago
Verizon has been doing this since at least 2012. It's sure as sh*t AT&T and others (not just mobile providers) are doing it as well.

mythrwy 10y ago

<edited> So as it's going to be a flame war apparently I've deleted the comment. I'd just like to register my opinion that I don't see Washington Post is an objective, nor even a trustworthy source at this point. When they print something it's often worth looking deeper into I believe.

st3v3r 10y ago
That's entirely incorrect. The Republicans own actions, and absolutely nothing else, portrays them in a bad light.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
alistproducer2 10y ago
>Although Washington Post isn't quite Brietbart yet they appear to be headed rapidly in that direction from my perspective So you've never actually been to Breitbart then? I checked it regularly before the 2016 elections and, in those days, it certainly earned its nickname "stormfront lite." They've toned it down since the additional scrutiny and subsequent mainstreaming of the Trump era, but WaPo has never been and will never even come close to Breitbart. Also Breitbart is an overt propaganda outlet. WaPo may seem biased, but it certainly does not engage propaganda on the same level as Breitbart.
- masonic 10y ago
  WaPo has never been and will never even come close to Breitbart. Well, they certainly weren't close to the Obama administration or Clinton campaign like WaPo was, as clearly revealed in numerous WikiLeaks-exposed email exchanges. Meanwhile, if you see any factual errors on Breitbart, by all means post them.
  - brownbat 10y ago
    > Meanwhile, if you see any factual errors on Breitbart, by all means post them. I liked this one: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best-correction-since-forever http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/breitbart-issues-best-co...

st3v3r 10y ago

"The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s." That's silly. That's like saying phone doesn't deserve protection from wiretapping because there never was a law specifically against it.

breatheoften 10y ago

Actually no -- an obscure interpretation of a one off line in an unrelated law was used to prevent the FTC from regulating here. The FTC tried to regulate -- and was shot down because it was determined that FCC had authority. Then the proposals were re-worked through the FCC -- now the same people who claimed FTC didn't have regulatory authority are now claiming that FCC doesn't and FTC does. Not classic government overreach, classic right wing misdirection.

aanm1988 10y ago

> Before getting all spun up, I'd dig a little deeper on the issue than what the WaPo does in this piece You mean you thought you would stick to classic conservative viewpoints about overreach, toss in a bit of media bashing for good measure.

che_shirecat 10y ago

I don't understand why people like yourself have to try to reframe and deflect attention on everything to fit your political narrative. Why can't you just see the problem for what it is and hold the representatives with your political affiliation accountable? Who really cares who our "traditional" privacy regulator is if neither of them end up able/willing to do the regulating? Why are you trying to frame this as a mistake made by the "previous president" when every single vote cast to repeal the only possible legal barrier to the commoditization of the internet activity of US citizens was cast by house/senate republicans? Are you perhaps suggesting that republicans would be the ones behind pushing a law through congress protecting internet privacy? I cannot comprehend how you can rationalize this (UM ACTUALLY... THIS IS OBAMA'S FAULT!) drivel in your head without some serious cognitive dissonance

ComradeTaco 10y ago
He's quoting a woman that accepted more than 650k from ISPs for reelection campaigns.
kobeya 10y ago
Because the truth matters. You're reacting to this based on the politically spun narrative that was fed to you when you first encountered the issue. The truth is actually a fair bit more complex. This is a case of a regulatory agency overstepping its bounds and seizing jurisdiction outside of the domain allowed for it by Congress. That's the language in which the bill is framed, the the way in which it has been discussed in the past weeks and months that is has gotten (minimal) coverage. Then the issue got picked up and spun when somebody called attention to the fact that the FCC's regulations (which they were not authorized to make) were more consumer-friendly than the FTC's. That's true, and it's a real problem. But that does not mean that the answer is to sanction the FCC's power-grab here. The right thing to do is to pursue consumer regulatory protections _within the confines of the law_, which means either petitioning the FTC or new legislation. Don't confuse concern over process with favoring the resulting outcomes.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  The FTC previously proposed essentially this same rule and was shot down by the courts as not having authority.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Procedural arguments are a way to avoid dealing with the substantive issue. The elephant in the room is that one political party thinks it's totally fine to exploit your information for as much commercial gain as can be mined from it.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system You are conflating two different orders; the reclassification was part of the 2015 open internet order (and was expressly laid out as a legal option in the court decision striking down the 2010 open internet order), not the 2016 privacy order at issue here. > They did a swipe at the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC. The FTC has no authority over even the non-telephone operations of the telephone companies who are many of the major ISPs.

matthew-wegner 10y ago

The FTC did regulate ISPs, until they sued AT&T over their "unlimited" claims and lost in appeal. In losing, they actually lost the ability to regulate ISPs at all. AT&T wanted this. Here's the ruling: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/15-16585.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/29/1... Seeing this coming, FCC proposed privacy rules around the same time: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-39A1_Rcd.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-39A1_Rc... Which did go into effect on January 3rd: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28006/protecting-the-privacy-of-customers-of-broadband-and-other-telecommunications-services https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28... Among the privacy requirements, there are also mandatory breach notifications. The industry's response is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/01/As-Filed_NCTA-Recon-Petition-WC-16-1063.pdf https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/0... . They complained about the breach requirements, and also claimed the difference between them being opt-in for advertising profiling vs Google et al being opt-out violated their First Amendment rights. A coalition of Internet advertisers filed a similar response: http://ana.net/getfile/24564 http://ana.net/getfile/24564 . Here, they claim another First Amendment conflict with: "The creation, analysis, and transfer of consumer data for marketing purposes constitutes speech" So yes, please dig deeper. This is a year-long end to a battle that AT&T successfully opened up in their appeal. It's over; the ISPs won, at the expense of individual American privacy.

zoul 10y ago
Selling your customers’ private browsing data constitutes speech… Wow. Just wow.
- wapz 10y ago
  Yeah that statement makes it sound like everyone is using their browser in a public park on a 60' projector making it available for the ISP to sell.
andrewla 10y ago
Thanks for posting this -- very informative! That decision seems insanely broad; there's nothing in there that prevents AT&T from buying a breakfast cereal company and selling corn flakes that claim each 1 pound box contains 80 pounds of cereal and will make you live forever. At the same time, it doesn't seem to apply to ISP broadly; only ISPs that qualify as common carriers. Although the definition of common carrier seems overly broad itself, according to [1], even pointing out that Disney is a common carrier because their roller coasters in their theme parks carry passengers [2]. Has any attempt been made to amend either the FTC acts or the FCC acts to clarify the extent to which entities are classified as common carriers only as regards to those activities which meet the definition? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier [2] Gomez v. Superior Court (Walt Disney Co.) (2005) 35 C4th 1125, http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/35C4t1125.htm http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/35C4t1125.htm

deelowe 10y ago

The FTC recently lost their ability to regulate ISPs. That's why it was done this way. If the FTC had not been stripped of it's powers, then there would have been no need.

pnathan 10y ago

nit: The previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to. obscures the reality that the opposition party - and its grassroots supporters was ruthless in opposing all that Obama did, often for no apparent reason. For instance, the SCOTUS nominee. It was poor behavior, giving us "legislative debt", as it fostered executive action over legislative action.

alphapapa 10y ago
Couple of issues here: 1. The opposing party's opposing the ruling party is a natural process of government. It's the normal state of things. Your saying that it was "poor behavior" implies that it was an anomaly, that the Republicans did something wrong by not supporting everything Obama wanted to do, and that the minority party is supposed to accede to every demand of the ruling party, which would be absurd. 2. The Democrats only controlled Congress for 2 of Obama's 8 years. You imply that, even when Congress is not controlled by the President's own party, that Congress should accede to his demands. This is absurd. It's not how our government works, it's not how it's ever worked, and it's not how it was intended to work--indeed, exactly the opposite is the case. 3. If your implications were true, you should be criticizing the Democrats for doing exactly the same thing right now with far more vehemence. 4. The ostensibly "grassroots supporters" of the current opposition is actually ruthless. Were there violent riots in the streets of cities across the country when Obama was elected?
- foota 10y ago
  Your comments that this isn't how the government was intended to work are spot on -- the founders did not want a two party system.
  - warlox 10y ago
    Of course, the math says that with the current voting system, any third party that emerges as a major force will always consume one of the existing major parties, leading the nation back to a two party system. I wonder why people always ignore this inconvenient theorem.

tzs 10y ago

> To do the regulations, the FCC reclassified the internet as basically ye olde telephone system, which then made it subject to their purview based on laws created in the 1930s. This is classic overreach. Congress never gave this authority to the FCC and is acting to put them back in line with the law. It was the FCC that decided in the first place to classify ISPs as information services rather than common carriers. They have the authority from Congress to do that, and I'm aware of nothing in the laws that granted that authority that say that once the FCC makes such a classification they cannot later revisit that and change the classification. > The lesson here really is that if the issue is really important, then get an actual law passed instead of trying to contort regulatory authority based on laws from the 1930s. There have been several additions and amendments to the 1930s laws, such as the Telecommunication Act of 1996. It is disingenuous to suggest that the FCC is relying on 1930s laws for their authority.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> These regulations were only voted on late in 2016 and never went into effect. False. Parts of the regulation went into effect 30 days after publication. Parts went into effect 90 days after publication. Part would have gone into effect 6 months after publication. Part would have gone into effect 12 months after publication. See pg. 202 of the Report and Order.

acjohnson55 10y ago

So then, surely, the current Republican leadership in government will pass these rules the "right way"? I thought not.

VikingCoder 10y ago

> get an actual law passed ... the previous president could certainly have done this, but chose not to. Right, the Republican Congress was very happy to work the prior President on sensible legislation.