4 ms·

> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies. And that is why a functioning congr

> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies. And that is why a functioning congress would be nice.

greggyb 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the FCC would need congressional approval to do anything proposed in the parent article or what I've mentioned. They are a regulatory commission that designs and implements regulation. I may be wrong on that, and if I am a good primer (from anyone or just link) would be nice.
- ianlevesque 12y ago
  The FCC is only authorized to regulate within the bounds of the laws that granted it powers. "Title II" is not something the FCC made up, it's a law passed by congress.
  - greggyb 12y ago
    'Kay, cool. I guess I am a bit misled by the amount of power they have to just arbitrarily redefine what the statute refers to.
- vproman 12y ago
  See the 1996 Telecom Act. It explicitly laid out the classifications the FCC can use: telecom, broadcast, cable and information service. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_199... Per the courts, the FCC does not have the authority to create a new classification, only Congress can do that. The FCC must apply one of the classifications to ISPs and regulate them according to that classification per the 1996 act. The FCC currently classifies ISPs as information services, and information services can discriminate because they offer a service that requires a greater level of control in order to function. Also see the court case where the FCC attempted to apply special regulations to the ISPs, and the courts shot the FCC's special regulations down: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_%282014%29 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v...
  - greggyb 12y ago
    Thanks much. This is helpful for me.

> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies. And that is why a functioning congress would be nice.

greggyb 12y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the FCC would need congressional approval to do anything proposed in the parent article or what I've mentioned. They are a regulatory commission that designs and implements regulation. I may be wrong on that, and if I am a good primer (from anyone or just link) would be nice.

ianlevesque 12y ago
The FCC is only authorized to regulate within the bounds of the laws that granted it powers. "Title II" is not something the FCC made up, it's a law passed by congress.
- greggyb 12y ago
  'Kay, cool. I guess I am a bit misled by the amount of power they have to just arbitrarily redefine what the statute refers to.
vproman 12y ago
See the 1996 Telecom Act. It explicitly laid out the classifications the FCC can use: telecom, broadcast, cable and information service. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_199... Per the courts, the FCC does not have the authority to create a new classification, only Congress can do that. The FCC must apply one of the classifications to ISPs and regulate them according to that classification per the 1996 act. The FCC currently classifies ISPs as information services, and information services can discriminate because they offer a service that requires a greater level of control in order to function. Also see the court case where the FCC attempted to apply special regulations to the ISPs, and the courts shot the FCC's special regulations down: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_%282014%29 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v...
- greggyb 12y ago
  Thanks much. This is helpful for me.