5 ms·

It took this long because the fcc is run by people who simply do not believe in using government to enforce oversight.

by nimish 7y ago

dantheman 7y ago
This has been going on for a long long time - while the FCC was trying to expand it's mandate to net neutrality instead of actually doing it's job.
- chrisfinazzo 7y ago
  Well, actually... That kinda/sorta was the mandate, until we put a telecom shill in charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dantheman 7y ago
    Where did congress grant the FCC the authorities for that order?
    - chrisfinazzo 7y ago
      Ahem. "An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation." Source: https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do You can have arguments until forever about what they should or shouldn't do, but their raison d'être is to set policy according to these overarching objectives. Oh, and just to be clear, the lack of an Oxford comma in that quote is inexcusable :)
      - dantheman 7y ago
        Ahem, the authority comes from Title 2 passed in 1934. In 2005, the FCC decided that ISPs should be regulated by them. From 2005 - 2012, Congress failed to pass new bills granting the FCC this authority. It was denied by congress. In 2015, the FCC decided that they didn't congress to grant that authority. So yeah, the FCC website claiming they have an authority is not an impartial source. Two years later, the FCC reverted back to the Title I classification. So for 2 years, the FCC claimed a power that they were not authorized to claim. If Congress wants the FCC to have this power they can easily pass a bill granting them that authority, they have repeatedly failed to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
        TomMckenny 7y ago
        The very first sentence of the communications act of 1934 says the FCC exists to regulate communication by wire, congress need not pass a law granting it[1]. And what wording could the new law possibly use that is more explicit than the existing "for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire" It's inexplicable that the same party that claims the act establishing the FCC is more limited than the wording states while the federal arbitration act is continuously expanded to cover cases that neither the authors nor previous courts ever tolerated. [1]https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
        chrisfinazzo 7y ago
        Seriously, read this - you'll learn something. https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/why-title-ii-is-not-the-answer-for-internet-freedom https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/why-title-ii-is-not... The GOP lays out an obviously slanted view about why they are opposed to the "utility-style" regulation that Title II entails. However, this assumes that the market is functional when it's been clear since the '96 Telecom Act that it has been anything but. The idea that the FCC can't claim this authority without Congress acting first is FUBAR. From pricing (generally higher for lower speed) to barriers to entry (the upfront cost for infrastructure is enormous), time has shown that carriers and ISPs will refuse to behave unless they are forced to. Legislation is needed, but Republican arguments that a light touch will "preserve innovation" or some other nonsense doesn't work. 1993 was a long time ago and almost anyone who cares about this issue will tell you that Internet access is a utility (essential service, widely available, for reasonable cost) but the incumbent providers don't act like one. (Save for maybe Google/WebPass, Sonic, and any number of municipal broadband initiatives)
    - vel0city 7y ago
      It was granted in the Telecommunications Act of 1934. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
readme 7y ago
We shouldn't interfere in the free market. Those robocalls are just good old American ingenuity.
- swsieber 7y ago
  People like to razz on it for being a free market, but it's really a gov. backed oligopy.
  - syshum 7y ago
    There is alot of people that do not have a proper understanding of what free market is, and misdirect the failing of the current markets from their proper blame point (government) to what they have associated with "free markets", failing to understand the influence that existing regulations have had on those markets including elimination of competition in the market. Telco has not been a free market, ever.
- will4274 7y ago
  ? Telecom is one of most regulated industries in the United States. Not sure why this pattern ("look how bad the free market is" @ highly regulated market) is so common here and on reddit.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure they were being sarcastic.
    - rat9988 7y ago
      He is criticizing the sarcasm.
  - unishark 7y ago
    Because apparently every discussion on every message board needs to be hijacked to talk about one of the internet's four favorite political narratives, if there is any marginal relationship whatsoever. Someday we'll have A.I. to screen calls for us, and hopefully it can also screen this highly-upvoted-but-worthless tripe from message boards for us.
75dvtwin 7y ago
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, every hyperbole will have to be considered as irrefutable truth. Or, is the 'who comes up with wittiest hyperbole' is the type of 'thought exchange' framework you would like to engage in?
WillPostForFood 7y ago
Good thing we replaced career lobbyist Tom Wheeler with someone who would actually do something, right? Are we so looking at the FCC through our worldview that we can't even acknowledge positive action? Wheeler was born on April 5, 1946 in Redlands, California. He attended Ohio State University.[7] From 1969 to 1976, Wheeler led the trade group Grocery Manufacturers of America.[8] He then went on to work at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association from 1976 to 1984, becoming president of the trade group in 1979. For a year until its closure, Wheeler was president of NABU Network, before spending a number of years creating or running several different technology startups. In 1992, he became the CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, a post he held until 2004.
- kelnos 7y ago
  Nobody claimed Wheeler was any better.
- PetitPrince 7y ago
  Not US citizen so I only looked at it through the spectrum of some Ars Technica article, but I had the impression that this Wheeler guy had a pretty great record while leading FCC: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyist-became-the-broadband-industrys-worst-nightmare/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/how-a...

It took this long because the fcc is run by people who simply do not believe in using government to enforce oversight.

by nimish 7y ago

It took this long because the fcc is run by people who simply do not believe in using government to enforce oversight.

This has been going on for a long long time - while the FCC was trying to expand it's mandate to net neutrality instead of actually doing it's job.

chrisfinazzo 7y ago
Well, actually... That kinda/sorta was the mandate, until we put a telecom shill in charge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dantheman 7y ago
  Where did congress grant the FCC the authorities for that order?
  - chrisfinazzo 7y ago
    Ahem. "An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation." Source: https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do You can have arguments until forever about what they should or shouldn't do, but their raison d'être is to set policy according to these overarching objectives. Oh, and just to be clear, the lack of an Oxford comma in that quote is inexcusable :)
    - dantheman 7y ago
      Ahem, the authority comes from Title 2 passed in 1934. In 2005, the FCC decided that ISPs should be regulated by them. From 2005 - 2012, Congress failed to pass new bills granting the FCC this authority. It was denied by congress. In 2015, the FCC decided that they didn't congress to grant that authority. So yeah, the FCC website claiming they have an authority is not an impartial source. Two years later, the FCC reverted back to the Title I classification. So for 2 years, the FCC claimed a power that they were not authorized to claim. If Congress wants the FCC to have this power they can easily pass a bill granting them that authority, they have repeatedly failed to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
      - TomMckenny 7y ago
        The very first sentence of the communications act of 1934 says the FCC exists to regulate communication by wire, congress need not pass a law granting it[1]. And what wording could the new law possibly use that is more explicit than the existing "for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire" It's inexplicable that the same party that claims the act establishing the FCC is more limited than the wording states while the federal arbitration act is continuously expanded to cover cases that neither the authors nor previous courts ever tolerated. [1]https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
      - chrisfinazzo 7y ago
        Seriously, read this - you'll learn something. https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/why-title-ii-is-not-the-answer-for-internet-freedom https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/why-title-ii-is-not... The GOP lays out an obviously slanted view about why they are opposed to the "utility-style" regulation that Title II entails. However, this assumes that the market is functional when it's been clear since the '96 Telecom Act that it has been anything but. The idea that the FCC can't claim this authority without Congress acting first is FUBAR. From pricing (generally higher for lower speed) to barriers to entry (the upfront cost for infrastructure is enormous), time has shown that carriers and ISPs will refuse to behave unless they are forced to. Legislation is needed, but Republican arguments that a light touch will "preserve innovation" or some other nonsense doesn't work. 1993 was a long time ago and almost anyone who cares about this issue will tell you that Internet access is a utility (essential service, widely available, for reasonable cost) but the incumbent providers don't act like one. (Save for maybe Google/WebPass, Sonic, and any number of municipal broadband initiatives)
  - vel0city 7y ago
    It was granted in the Telecommunications Act of 1934. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

readme 7y ago

We shouldn't interfere in the free market. Those robocalls are just good old American ingenuity.

swsieber 7y ago
People like to razz on it for being a free market, but it's really a gov. backed oligopy.
- syshum 7y ago
  There is alot of people that do not have a proper understanding of what free market is, and misdirect the failing of the current markets from their proper blame point (government) to what they have associated with "free markets", failing to understand the influence that existing regulations have had on those markets including elimination of competition in the market. Telco has not been a free market, ever.
will4274 7y ago
? Telecom is one of most regulated industries in the United States. Not sure why this pattern ("look how bad the free market is" @ highly regulated market) is so common here and on reddit.
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure they were being sarcastic.
  - rat9988 7y ago
    He is criticizing the sarcasm.
- unishark 7y ago
  Because apparently every discussion on every message board needs to be hijacked to talk about one of the internet's four favorite political narratives, if there is any marginal relationship whatsoever. Someday we'll have A.I. to screen calls for us, and hopefully it can also screen this highly-upvoted-but-worthless tripe from message boards for us.

75dvtwin 7y ago

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, every hyperbole will have to be considered as irrefutable truth. Or, is the 'who comes up with wittiest hyperbole' is the type of 'thought exchange' framework you would like to engage in?

WillPostForFood 7y ago

Good thing we replaced career lobbyist Tom Wheeler with someone who would actually do something, right? Are we so looking at the FCC through our worldview that we can't even acknowledge positive action? Wheeler was born on April 5, 1946 in Redlands, California. He attended Ohio State University.[7] From 1969 to 1976, Wheeler led the trade group Grocery Manufacturers of America.[8] He then went on to work at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association from 1976 to 1984, becoming president of the trade group in 1979. For a year until its closure, Wheeler was president of NABU Network, before spending a number of years creating or running several different technology startups. In 1992, he became the CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, a post he held until 2004.

kelnos 7y ago
Nobody claimed Wheeler was any better.
PetitPrince 7y ago
Not US citizen so I only looked at it through the spectrum of some Ars Technica article, but I had the impression that this Wheeler guy had a pretty great record while leading FCC: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/how-a-former-lobbyist-became-the-broadband-industrys-worst-nightmare/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/how-a...