4 ms·

Technically it should be only under the authority of Congress.

24gttghh 9y ago
Technically Congress can empower Executive agencies to perform responsibilities granted to it under the Constitution. e.g. Congress empowers the FDA to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Congress created the FCC to enforce the Communications Act of 1934. Congress created the CIA in 1947 in the National Security Act, etc, etc. AFAIK none of those 3-letter agencies, nor the countless others would exist without the Congress approving it first (and then of course being approved by the Executive, to quiet the pedantic's...)
- apendleton 9y ago
  Right, the only question here is whether or not the FCC can preempt state regulation under existing statutory authority, and existing precedent suggests that maybe it can't. Pretty much everyone agrees that, given additional statutory authority, this kind of regulation would be constitutionally kosher.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Indeed. However, I am wary to rely on SCOTUS to do the right thing, if/when it gets to that point. I'd much prefer Congress specifically mandate a free and open internet, with no regard given to the type or originator of data being moved about. I feel as though such an idea really deserves it's own Constitutional amendment as well, it it is truly so critical to the free flow of information in today's society. Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law with respect to preventing the free flow of data on the public internet; Congress shall take necessary steps to prevent data from being throttled based on: identity of the publisher, content, size, or frequency of transfer; except in cases where such volumes of data can be shown to be a deliberate, malicious attempt to prevent access to a given publisher(s) content.
    - briandear 9y ago
      To play Devil's advocate here -- what's stopping you from starting an ISP and treating traffic however you want? I personally don't want the government "taking necessary steps to prevent data from being throttled.." because that means we've just given the government permission to be actively monitoring and controlling the internet -- including direct monitoring of the ISPs, and by extension full access to the content of your traffic -- ostensibly to "protect" you from throttling. The government would have to be able to inspect your traffic in order to ensure it isn't being discriminated against. You want to know how you stop throttling? If your ISP throttles you, you call them up, cancel your service and go to a new company and you tell both old and new company why you're doing that. If something "important" gets throttled, you throw a post on Reddit, Twitter, wherever and suddenly you get thousands of people canceling their service -- and quickly the ISP will change course in response to the public demand. In Cupertino right now, there are 9 residential ISPs from which to choose and 23 business ISPs. https://broadbandnow.com/California/Cupertino# https://broadbandnow.com/California/Cupertino# What the government SHOULD be doing is promoting ISP competition. Why not provide tax incentives for new ISP startups or innovative programs? Why not reduce regulation, make it easier for ISPs to start? Why not incentivize competition? Why not provide tax credits for entering underserved markets? There is a free market way to ensure a fast and free internet -- using the government for such things has a tendency to lead us down roads we might not want to go down.
      - 24gttghh 9y ago
        >There is a free market way to ensure a fast and free internet -- using the government for such things has a tendency to lead us down roads we might not want to go down. Because one crappy DSL provider and one Cable provider per town is a free market... Natural monopolies have a need to be regulated to prevent consumer abuse.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Technically Congress can empower Executive agencies to perform responsibilities granted to it under the Constitution. Yes, but NN opponents on the right continuously argue against FCC pro-NN regulations based on the premise that Congress has not done so with regard to the FCC and the regulation of internet service, so it's odd to see right-wing NN proponents arguing that the states cannot regulate net neutrality because not only is the FCC empowered to do so, but its power is exclusive.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Ah, I do not mean to imply that the FCC alone can regulate NN, just that constitutionally, federal agencies are allowed to do so, as you say. GP was implying that Congress alone has this power, when history and precedent shows Congress can delegate, and often it must delegate in order to get anything done.

Technically Congress can empower Executive agencies to perform responsibilities granted to it under the Constitution. e.g. Congress empowers the FDA to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Congress created the FCC to enforce the Communications Act of 1934. Congress created the CIA in 1947 in the National Security Act, etc, etc. AFAIK none of those 3-letter agencies, nor the countless others would exist without the Congress approving it first (and then of course being approved by the Executive, to quiet the pedantic's...)

apendleton 9y ago
Right, the only question here is whether or not the FCC can preempt state regulation under existing statutory authority, and existing precedent suggests that maybe it can't. Pretty much everyone agrees that, given additional statutory authority, this kind of regulation would be constitutionally kosher.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Indeed. However, I am wary to rely on SCOTUS to do the right thing, if/when it gets to that point. I'd much prefer Congress specifically mandate a free and open internet, with no regard given to the type or originator of data being moved about. I feel as though such an idea really deserves it's own Constitutional amendment as well, it it is truly so critical to the free flow of information in today's society. Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law with respect to preventing the free flow of data on the public internet; Congress shall take necessary steps to prevent data from being throttled based on: identity of the publisher, content, size, or frequency of transfer; except in cases where such volumes of data can be shown to be a deliberate, malicious attempt to prevent access to a given publisher(s) content.
  - briandear 9y ago
    To play Devil's advocate here -- what's stopping you from starting an ISP and treating traffic however you want? I personally don't want the government "taking necessary steps to prevent data from being throttled.." because that means we've just given the government permission to be actively monitoring and controlling the internet -- including direct monitoring of the ISPs, and by extension full access to the content of your traffic -- ostensibly to "protect" you from throttling. The government would have to be able to inspect your traffic in order to ensure it isn't being discriminated against. You want to know how you stop throttling? If your ISP throttles you, you call them up, cancel your service and go to a new company and you tell both old and new company why you're doing that. If something "important" gets throttled, you throw a post on Reddit, Twitter, wherever and suddenly you get thousands of people canceling their service -- and quickly the ISP will change course in response to the public demand. In Cupertino right now, there are 9 residential ISPs from which to choose and 23 business ISPs. https://broadbandnow.com/California/Cupertino# https://broadbandnow.com/California/Cupertino# What the government SHOULD be doing is promoting ISP competition. Why not provide tax incentives for new ISP startups or innovative programs? Why not reduce regulation, make it easier for ISPs to start? Why not incentivize competition? Why not provide tax credits for entering underserved markets? There is a free market way to ensure a fast and free internet -- using the government for such things has a tendency to lead us down roads we might not want to go down.
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      >There is a free market way to ensure a fast and free internet -- using the government for such things has a tendency to lead us down roads we might not want to go down. Because one crappy DSL provider and one Cable provider per town is a free market... Natural monopolies have a need to be regulated to prevent consumer abuse.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Technically Congress can empower Executive agencies to perform responsibilities granted to it under the Constitution. Yes, but NN opponents on the right continuously argue against FCC pro-NN regulations based on the premise that Congress has not done so with regard to the FCC and the regulation of internet service, so it's odd to see right-wing NN proponents arguing that the states cannot regulate net neutrality because not only is the FCC empowered to do so, but its power is exclusive.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Ah, I do not mean to imply that the FCC alone can regulate NN, just that constitutionally, federal agencies are allowed to do so, as you say. GP was implying that Congress alone has this power, when history and precedent shows Congress can delegate, and often it must delegate in order to get anything done.