4 ms·

> No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug

by jack9 9y ago

ABCLAW 9y ago
Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II classification is in place.
- jack9 9y ago
  > Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    No, it isn't correct in context. There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior state (see the regulatory history I pointed you to), which is where the problem is. If we were going back to the defacto 2015 internet, no one would care. But we aren't doing that. Pretending that we are by framing the issue as a rollback is intentionally deceitful by people who know better.
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  Title II goes back to 1934[0], and it is what allowed Ma Bell to stagnate for 50 years, thwarting any innovation and competition in the space (which is why we had to break it up in the '80s). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Str...
dragonwriter 9y ago
It's inaccurate because regulations for neutrality under bases that have since been closed off by the courts were in place in the time period referenced. The current regulations were put into place to replace those regulations with ones grounded in what the courts had pointed to as the remaining available basis for net neutrality regulations. So, it's “lets strip new regulations because in the past, things were okay with old regulations that cannot be revived.”

> No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug

by jack9 9y ago

> No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. Seems on the nose to me shrug

Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... You aren't going back in time. The FCC will not have the tools it did prior to Title II enactment to enforce NN. This is WHY Title II classification is in place.

jack9 9y ago
> Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. I have, so that's not compelling. I'm interpreting the statement in the proper context, at a practical level. We're a little far removed from the statement, so look at it again: That argument is akin to saying "let's strip the regulations because ___ wasn't so bad before." That's correct in context. Of course you have to start with some new (Ajit's plan isn't just remove Title II) and some pre-existing conditions. The consequences he posits are unrealistic because technical capability is different (but he won't address that). There's not much to say when opposition spokesholes starts taking a purposefully phrased metaphor literally as a premise. SMH
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  No, it isn't correct in context. There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior state (see the regulatory history I pointed you to), which is where the problem is. If we were going back to the defacto 2015 internet, no one would care. But we aren't doing that. Pretending that we are by framing the issue as a rollback is intentionally deceitful by people who know better.
libertyEQ 9y ago
Title II goes back to 1934[0], and it is what allowed Ma Bell to stagnate for 50 years, thwarting any innovation and competition in the space (which is why we had to break it up in the '80s). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#Str...

dragonwriter 9y ago

It's inaccurate because regulations for neutrality under bases that have since been closed off by the courts were in place in the time period referenced. The current regulations were put into place to replace those regulations with ones grounded in what the courts had pointed to as the remaining available basis for net neutrality regulations. So, it's “lets strip new regulations because in the past, things were okay with old regulations that cannot be revived.”