5 ms·

It certainly does give me pause, but we also know how the Republicans will come down on net neutrality regardless of whether an overreaching regulatory body is

by trythis 16y ago

It certainly does give me pause, but we also know how the Republicans will come down on net neutrality regardless of whether an overreaching regulatory body is advocating (some version of) it. That, to me, is the bigger story. As you said, the FCC can only do what Congress has authorized it to do, so we're not in any real danger of the FCC having a "broad, unchecked power to control what happens on the internet". What we are in danger of is having a Congress that kills net neutrality, period. Edit: Not that I care about karma, but I'm curious as to why I'm being downvoted. I'm not disagreeing with grellas' point.

cookiecaper 16y ago
I didn't downvote, first of all. I upvoted! I am also disappointed to see it downvoted. There is some contention that downvoting is a valid way to express disagreement; I don't really agree. Downvotes should be reserved only for poor decorum or other disruptive behavior. The point Grellas is making is that if we let the FCC slide on net neutrality by accepting their arguments of ancillary jurisdiction and implied authority over the internet, then it would give the FCC free reign to do whatever they wanted with the internet unless Congress came in and expressly forbade or altered their authority. Right now, we have the opposite situation, where the FCC is not allowed to exercise authority over the internet without an express dispensation from Congress allowing them to do so. The latter is better because it's much easier to hold elected representatives accountable than it is to hold appointed bureaucrats accountable. If Congress gives the FCC authority to regulate the internet that way, they can use the FCC as a proxy for all their unpopular regulatory actions and redirect the flak.
- trythis 16y ago
  Thanks for the explanation, cookiecaper. I guess I should clarify that I agree with grellas' analysis, but that I think the larger issue is how net neutrality plays out in Congress, whether it involves an overreaching FCC or not.
hammock 16y ago
You probably got downvoted because you show a lack of understanding of what grellas was saying. What he was saying was that if the FCC had been allowed by the courts to use 'ancillary jurisdiction' to impose new rules, the FCC would indeed be in the very situation which you say is impossible, a situation of broad, unchecked power.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  Upvoted for noting that simply not paying attention to what's been said good cause for downvoting.
- trythis 16y ago
  You're mistaken on this point. The courts already rejected the ancillary jurisdiction rationale, and rather than wait for Congress to make a decision on net neutrality, the FCC adopted a new rationale (which, as I recall, hinged upon reclassifying broadband traffic) to justify imposing their net neutrality rules. All of this is in grellas' post. The issue grellas is raising is whether it's acceptable to let a regulatory body like the FCC make such broad assertions of authority at all. The matter of ancillary jurisdiction is already done and settled. When I said we're not in any real danger of the FCC having a "broad, unchecked power to control what happens on the internet," my point was that irrespective of whether Congress denies the FCC this authority right now, it always has the power to do so. And though it's irrelevant to my point, if the courts had upheld the ancillary jurisdiction rationale, Congress could always strike that down, too. This situation isn't like the executive branch jockeying with the legislative branch for power: the FCC is not a peer of Congress.
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    In the next few years, it's looking like the vast majority of telecommunications will move over to the Internet. If the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate the Internet, they will have no regulatory authority whatsoever over land-based telecom. I don't see how that is reasonable, and I don't see how the initial decision to classify Internet as something other than a wire communications service was justifiable. It's disingenuous to say the FCC is claiming any authority they don't have under the law.

by trythis 16y ago

cookiecaper 16y ago

I didn't downvote, first of all. I upvoted! I am also disappointed to see it downvoted. There is some contention that downvoting is a valid way to express disagreement; I don't really agree. Downvotes should be reserved only for poor decorum or other disruptive behavior. The point Grellas is making is that if we let the FCC slide on net neutrality by accepting their arguments of ancillary jurisdiction and implied authority over the internet, then it would give the FCC free reign to do whatever they wanted with the internet unless Congress came in and expressly forbade or altered their authority. Right now, we have the opposite situation, where the FCC is not allowed to exercise authority over the internet without an express dispensation from Congress allowing them to do so. The latter is better because it's much easier to hold elected representatives accountable than it is to hold appointed bureaucrats accountable. If Congress gives the FCC authority to regulate the internet that way, they can use the FCC as a proxy for all their unpopular regulatory actions and redirect the flak.

trythis 16y ago
Thanks for the explanation, cookiecaper. I guess I should clarify that I agree with grellas' analysis, but that I think the larger issue is how net neutrality plays out in Congress, whether it involves an overreaching FCC or not.

hammock 16y ago

You probably got downvoted because you show a lack of understanding of what grellas was saying. What he was saying was that if the FCC had been allowed by the courts to use 'ancillary jurisdiction' to impose new rules, the FCC would indeed be in the very situation which you say is impossible, a situation of broad, unchecked power.

alexqgb 16y ago
Upvoted for noting that simply not paying attention to what's been said good cause for downvoting.
trythis 16y ago
You're mistaken on this point. The courts already rejected the ancillary jurisdiction rationale, and rather than wait for Congress to make a decision on net neutrality, the FCC adopted a new rationale (which, as I recall, hinged upon reclassifying broadband traffic) to justify imposing their net neutrality rules. All of this is in grellas' post. The issue grellas is raising is whether it's acceptable to let a regulatory body like the FCC make such broad assertions of authority at all. The matter of ancillary jurisdiction is already done and settled. When I said we're not in any real danger of the FCC having a "broad, unchecked power to control what happens on the internet," my point was that irrespective of whether Congress denies the FCC this authority right now, it always has the power to do so. And though it's irrelevant to my point, if the courts had upheld the ancillary jurisdiction rationale, Congress could always strike that down, too. This situation isn't like the executive branch jockeying with the legislative branch for power: the FCC is not a peer of Congress.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  In the next few years, it's looking like the vast majority of telecommunications will move over to the Internet. If the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate the Internet, they will have no regulatory authority whatsoever over land-based telecom. I don't see how that is reasonable, and I don't see how the initial decision to classify Internet as something other than a wire communications service was justifiable. It's disingenuous to say the FCC is claiming any authority they don't have under the law.