He presented a sound argument with information to reinforce his position, and yet this is all you can respond with? It doesn't look too good for your position, especially if this is the only response you can provide when your position is challenged.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Net Neutrality?
- Thread starter jaywigz311
- Start date
He presented a sound argument with information to reinforce his position, and yet this is all you can respond with? It doesn't look too good for your position, especially if this is the only response you can provide when your position is challenged.
FCC rules are opinion?
Executive orders are opinion?
Established Law is opinion?
His statements are quite thoroughly supported by the links he provided.
In fact, his statements are better supported by his links, than yours statements are by the links you provided. He actually quoted his sources to show you how they support his position.
Maybe you should re-read his statement to better understand what he wrote.
However, I have a feeling that you didn't really read it the first time.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
Negative.
1. He said he's familiar with the court rulings all of a sudden.. but before he had no clue what they were. The rulings were considered the biggest blow to net neutrality because it stated the FCC had no authority over the way ISP's route traffic on their networks. Then suddenly the FCC changes the law and now has control over the entire internet.
2. The executive order is just a set of terms for the establishment of the emergency system. Go within what they actually did, here's the PDF from their own website: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ipaws/ipaws_tri_fold_final_sept2010.pdf They have complete control and can cutoff the flow of information at any time. There is no disputing this fact.
3. The NSA now collects information without warrants on American citizens, George W. Bush went on television and admitted that. Barack H. Obama has continued this same practice, renewing all previous executive orders and the Patriot Act. Deep packet inspection is part of this technique. Then again, the NSA's supercomputing power has probably just been increasing exponentially because they need to play their video games smoother.
1. He said he's familiar with the court rulings all of a sudden.. but before he had no clue what they were. The rulings were considered the biggest blow to net neutrality because it stated the FCC had no authority over the way ISP's route traffic on their networks. Then suddenly the FCC changes the law and now has control over the entire internet.
2. The executive order is just a set of terms for the establishment of the emergency system. Go within what they actually did, here's the PDF from their own website: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ipaws/ipaws_tri_fold_final_sept2010.pdf They have complete control and can cutoff the flow of information at any time. There is no disputing this fact.
3. The NSA now collects information without warrants on American citizens, George W. Bush went on television and admitted that. Barack H. Obama has continued this same practice, renewing all previous executive orders and the Patriot Act. Deep packet inspection is part of this technique. Then again, the NSA's supercomputing power has probably just been increasing exponentially because they need to play their video games smoother.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
This is what I dont like about this
If we want to have private ISPs (as opposed to state run) they CANNOT be allowed do this
I havent followed this tho, but sth like this could have serious implications in the UK
He never said he wasn't familiar with them. He asked you to cite your sources.
Actually, it did a couple of things that "SHOULD" give it the authority that it needs to do this.
1) It established that Broadband internet access has become a necessity just like phone access.
2) It established that Broadband internet access isn't being adequately provided to all Americans, and that there isn't sufficient competition.
These two things give the FCC the authority that it needs (under existing law) to regulate ISP's.
These are two things that the FCC has the authority to decide, and that should withstand any legal challenge that may arise.
There is no disputing this fact? Really? Have you ever seen the Warning system activated? I have (on TV and radio), and it never EVER cut off the flow of information. I haven't seen it activated on the internet, but there is no reason to assume that the same isn't true. That it simply adds to the information displayed and not cuts it off.
Unless you have some proof that it actually cuts off information, then I would be glad to see that.
And nothing in your link indicates that it does cut off the information. So, if you want me to believe what you are saying, you will need to provide a reliable link that actually says that.
You should pay attention here:
The Patriot Act did not give the government the ability to perform warrantless wiretaps on American Citizens.
The program that this was done under was the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". This program began approximately 6 months prior to 9/11, and that means the program was created 7 months prior to the Patriot Act being passed.
It was discovered and revealed to the general public.
President Bush let the programs authorization lapse in 2007.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf
All surveillance since then has been conducted under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Remember:
The Truth: It matters
Wow, that is some rant. Apparently disagreeing with you and your views represents high crimes and misdemeanors. As for your assertion that you've presented facts, I have one word: bollocks. You're taking facts and slathering them with a thick varnish of your opinion.
.wiretap said:
You had so twisted the FCC decision that no, I didn't recognize what you were talking about. Go read the decision, it is very narrowly worded and it is being used by spinmeisters to declare the FCC has no jursidiction.
wiretap said:
That is the most paranoid interpretation of the EMS I've ever seen.
To be honest, I'm done with you. It is very clear you despise and detest any opinion besides your own so any further "conversation" is a waste of perfectly good electrons.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
uhh, no. If you can put a lower third on the screen and cut off audio, you have the ability to completely interrupt the broadcast, and that's exactly what the system is designed to do. It IS a gateway for interrupting broadcast media. Again, visit your local broadcast station and ask them.
The "terrorist" is any American citizen 'suspected' of being involved in terrorist activity. You are a potential terrorist. Own a firearm? Believe in the Constitution? Read the MIAC report and Fusion Center pamphlets.
The FCC has now claimed executive power over the internet when previously they were struck down as having no authority. End of story.
The truth shall set you free. It isn't hard at all to understand.
The "terrorist" is any American citizen 'suspected' of being involved in terrorist activity. You are a potential terrorist. Own a firearm? Believe in the Constitution? Read the MIAC report and Fusion Center pamphlets.
The FCC has now claimed executive power over the internet when previously they were struck down as having no authority. End of story.
The truth shall set you free. It isn't hard at all to understand.
So, apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Either that, or you know that you can't refute it so you are just going to ignore it.
The FCC HAS authority over broadband internet now because of the two determinations it made. It has the power to make those determinations, and once made it now has authority over broadband internet.
The truth shall set you free. I suggest you look for it.
Actually, they magically followed the process laid out by the law, and that gave them the authority.
Which IS constitutional.
According to law, they have the authority to determine what communication services become necessities.
According to law, they have the authority to determine when necessary communication services are not being provided reasonably to all Americans.
Because they made those determinations, as they are legally empowered to do.
They now have authority.
So, I guess yes, you could say that they magically followed the law, and therefore magically gave themselves authority.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
No, Congress must pass the law first and have it signed by the president because the courts struck down the FCC having that authority. I guess by your standard the ATF can just come take all my firearms because they can make a different determination of the laws. You have no comprehension of how the system works. Learn it.
Let me be clear.
The comcast decision is found here: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf
The basics that you need to understand are this...
The court decided that since the FCC had classified the internet as an "information service", instead of a "telecommunications service", that they didn't have the authority to regulate it.
It was the FCC's classification that made the determination in the ruling.
The only thing the FCC had to do in order to HAVE that authority was to change the classification of the internet as a "telecommunications service".
Since VOIP and video conferencing are common on the internet, this would be a valid reclassification that would stand legal challenge.
Before you argue with me... have you read the decision that was linked? I just did.
No, the classification was put in place by the FCC. I can't be any clearer than that.
Read the quote from the Comcast decision one more time.
Here is the 2002 Cable Modem Order by the FCC.
FCC Classifies Cable Modem Service as "Information Service": Initiates Proceeding to Promote Broadband Deployment and Examine Regulatory Implications of Classification
The FCC classified Internet service as an "Information Service".
Not Congress.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
H.O.L.Y. S.H.I.T. You really don't get it. The FCC can't just change laws put in place by Congress.
I'm done. You can't even comprehend the simple democratic process that this republic uses to pass laws in this country. Executive authority has to be passed by congress. A commission can't just be made up and then they can change the laws however they see fit.
I'm done. You can't even comprehend the simple democratic process that this republic uses to pass laws in this country. Executive authority has to be passed by congress. A commission can't just be made up and then they can change the laws however they see fit.
I've quoted the court decision where they state that the FCC classified the internet as "information service".
You didn't read my quote.
You didn't read the court decision. I did.
I've linked the 2002 Cable Modem order by the FCC (The one referenced by the Court Decision) that classified the Internet as an "Information service".
And you are still going to argue that Congress classified the internet as an "information service" in a law?
Really?
Okay, here is a challenge for you. It's a challenge that you will fail.
Find, and link, the law where Congress classified the internet as an "information service".
I, and everyone else, will take your failure to do so as an admission that you were wrong, and an apology for being rude.
Owned? That's a little ridiculous.
Ford explorer of 2002. Owned. Have a nice day.
The Act doesn't classify anything as an Information Service.
So, either link where it classifies it... or consider yourself wrong and apologize.
Disclaimer: the bill does define the term information service as used in the bill under definitions, but defining the terms you use, isn't classifying something.
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
Yes, owned.
As held up in the Supreme Court Brand X Internet Servs. v. Federal Comm. Comm'n 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) and National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
Information service: offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing or making available information via telecommunications. --47 U.S.C.
copestag
Android Expert
you 2 can argue all day about who decided what or what act says what, etc....
but ..... if it was reclassified legally as a telecommunications provider then why is there any need at all to do any further regulating? since telecommunications are already heavily regulated far beyond anything being discussed in the net neutrality policies?
if all dogs have fleas...... and by law any dog with fleas must be flea dipped...... do we need a new law to say brown dogs with fleas now must be flea dipped?
if what you say is true and the internet is now legally classified as telecommunications (I havent done any reading so will take your word at face value)...... then any further discussion of net neutrality is a waste of taxpayer time and money since it is already written into law
but ..... if it was reclassified legally as a telecommunications provider then why is there any need at all to do any further regulating? since telecommunications are already heavily regulated far beyond anything being discussed in the net neutrality policies?
if all dogs have fleas...... and by law any dog with fleas must be flea dipped...... do we need a new law to say brown dogs with fleas now must be flea dipped?
if what you say is true and the internet is now legally classified as telecommunications (I havent done any reading so will take your word at face value)...... then any further discussion of net neutrality is a waste of taxpayer time and money since it is already written into law
this write is from that very decision.
brand x sued the fcc because the fcc classified internet providers solely as "information services". Per the judges in the case, it was about the FCC classifying, not the telecommunications act.
You can point to a law, but you can't find anything in it where it actually classifies anything. Then you bring up a lawsuit about the 2002 Cable Modem Order where the FCC classified internet services as "information services".
You don't really read any of the things you use to support your argument do you?
read this synopsis:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050627b.asp
The topics that the FCC is trying to regulate have never been regulated by anybody ever. So yes, telecommunications services are regulated, but there have not been regulations regarding net neutrality, as they weren't classified as a telecommunications service.
copestag
Android Expert
the logic there fails though........ I think we both agree that the internet has not been regulated before...... and Im pretty sure we can both agree that the telecommunication industry has been regulated beyond belief and encompasses everything theyre trying to achieve with net neutrality......youre just failing to connect the dots....... once they reclassify the internet as telecommunications all of those regulations will now apply to the internet (all the regs that currently apply to telcos)...... these regulations already cover EVERYTHING and more that net neutrality is trying to achieve....... theyve simply only been applied to telcos in the past..... once theyre applied to the internet there is no need for new net neutrality regs
let me rephrase my analogy for ya.... maybe help you see my point clearer.....
all animals called dogs must have a collar...... there is no laws regarding cats and collars........ we are now going to reclassify all cats as dogs....... do we need to make a new law that says cats need collars now? NO...... because all cats are now dogs...... they fall under the existing collar laws
once the internet is reclassified as telecommunications...... they fall under the same laws as telcos.... no need for new neutrality regs.... they already exist
let me rephrase my analogy for ya.... maybe help you see my point clearer.....
all animals called dogs must have a collar...... there is no laws regarding cats and collars........ we are now going to reclassify all cats as dogs....... do we need to make a new law that says cats need collars now? NO...... because all cats are now dogs...... they fall under the existing collar laws
once the internet is reclassified as telecommunications...... they fall under the same laws as telcos.... no need for new neutrality regs.... they already exist
wiretap
Android Enthusiast
umm, no. It has been classified that way since the revamp with the telecommunications act and I took the direct legislation and showed you. The various cases reaffirmed that. You're running in circles not proving anything to me.