(Title VI, which gives the Commission jurisdiction over “cable services,” was not added to the statute until 1984. See Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779.)If Congress wants the FCC to have authority over internet services, it can give the FCC that power. The opinion, in my opinion (sorry, bad pun( is correct.
In this case, the Commission does not claim that Congress has given it express authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet service. Indeed, in its still-binding 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission ruled that cable Internet service is neither a “telecommunications service” covered by Title II of the Communications Act nor a “cable service” covered by Title VI. In re High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 F.C.C.R. 4798, 4802, ¶ 7 6 (2002), aff’d Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).So basically, the FCC is trying to do something that it already decided that it cannot do. This decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Brand X case (opinion, discussion) currently the foundation of internet regulatory jurisprudence. Almost a decade a go, to avoid having to regulate the burgeoning internet under a telecom act written to regulate analog hard-wired telephony, the FCC ruled that internet services don't fall under its pervue. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation as being within the FCC's authority. In short, the FCC decided that it has no clear, statutory grant to regulate the Internet, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling as within its authority.
For a lot of very good reasons, many people thought it best to keep the FCC away from the Internet, and were successful in doing this by labeling (and getting friendly courts to periodically reinforce) the Internet an "information service," distinct from the "telecommunication services" which were subject to its jurisdiction. (If you look at the text of things like the Communications Decency Act, which explicitly tried to regulate the Internet, it uses the phrase "interactive computer service" in order to avoid this problem.) It is precisely this lack of regulation that has allowed services like Skype and Google Voice to flourish, by avoiding the taxes that traditional wireline and wireless telcos are subject to.Well, you're missing the fact that there is a difference between "The Interenet" and "Your Internet connection". Something like Skype could not have been stopped without re-engineering the whole internet, and it wasn't even based in the U.S. On the other hand, what cable providers want to do is change the way people connect to the internet, in order to extract some extra revenue.
So it's not entirely clear that the FCC does have the ability to regulate the Internet,
I cannot understand this way of seeing this. Had the FCC been correct in this ruling, the power would just be concentrated in the hands of one government agency, not the people at all.Except that the government's power derives from the people, (whereas corporation's power derive from their stockholders)
So what's so awful about regulated tiered service? For example, a mandated minimum level of consistent service that can be purchased (say a $25 2 mbps tier with a 250GB cap). Then layered on that, one could pay $5 for 5 mbps unlimited access to warcraft, or $10 for 10 mbps access to youtube up to 100GBTwo problems. First, you're talking about wireless, which, as far as I know has no network neutrality provisions. Network providers already have services that don't use up your data.
I just don't see why people want a government entity to determine what price corporations can charge for internet access, especially as it will have a negative impact on the poor.Well, perhaps you're just not thinking hard enough? Perhaps rather then saying "I just don't understand" you could make the effort to understand people's concerns?
This is what I would argue will hurt everyone in the long run - caps will get smaller and smaller, and users of the internet will all be treated (and charged) the same way, regardless of what they're using their connection forYes, that's what people want. Or cable companies could move towards putting in global bandwidth caps or congestion pricing. Why would the caps ever get smaller? That makes no sense. At the worst they would never grow.
(which I include because I don't see the difference from a net neutrality principal - WiMax and LTE will bring wireless broadband connections to rural areas far sooner than any wired solution).And they'll have far fewer users.
"We have pathetic speeds compared to the rest of the world," CWA President Larry Cohen says. "People don't pay attention to the fact that the country that started the commercial Internet is falling woefully behind."Well, the solution isn't scrap the Internet entirely and replace it with something more profitable for phone and cable companies.
I WANT MONEY! GIVE IT TO ME!posted by delmoi at 1:31 AM on April 7, 2010
INTERNET IS NOT GIVING ME MONEY, MAKE IT GO AWAY!
I don't think you really get what corporations are and how they work. If anything, you're taking the fiction too seriously. Corporations are ultimately simply recognized groups of individuals acting in concert, namely the shareholders. Restricting corporate rights the way you think you want to would really be radically limiting individuals' property interests.So? There are a huge number of limitations on property rights. All different types of zoning regulation, building codes, eminent domain and so on.
These are constitutionally-protected activities. So is freedom of association. Right there in the First Amendment.That's insane. First of all, corporations in their current form didn't really come together later. And secondly nothing in the first amendment protects property rights (other then to protect them from search). You sound like the guy in this onion article. The fifth amendment says that property cannot be taken without just compensation. But presumably that would only apply to book value assets. There's no reason to guarantee future profits.
Why? Because the consequence of your position is that the government should be able to seize any and all corporate property without due process simply by virtue of it being corporate rather than individual property.Again the government can seize individual property, provided they pay "fair market value" for it.
No, I'm afraid that as unpleasant as it may seem to you, there's no way to treat corporations as non-persons which doesn't violate the rights of natural persons too.Again, there's no reason why we shouldn't worry about this when we're just talking about money. Who cares? If you invest in a company that's financially bankrupt, you lose all your money. Why shouldn't the case be the same for companies that are morally bankrupt?
Breaches against copyright are attacks on the fundamentals of a functioning capitalist society in which we work to earn a living to work more. If it takes heavy regulation by Comcast or the FCC to reign it in, I am 150% for it.Oh whatever. Lax attitudes towards copyright are a feature of developing countries (including the early United States, where piracy of British work was rampant). Lax Chinese attitudes towards copyright infringement didn't prevent China's rapid shift towards capitalism. Because it doesn't matter. Without copyright, people who would work in creative endeavors would just have to work somewhere else. Perhaps in advertising, or maybe they would work in a factory.
I actually have no problem with the EPA ruling. The difference is that the EPA did its homework and laid the administrative framework for its new regulations. The FCC didn't, and it got smacked for it.This totally is backwards. The EPA didn't want to regulate greenhouse gasses at all, and the state governments sued the EPA in order force the EPA to have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. This was all during the bush administration. That's why it's Massachusetts vs. EPA and not "Coal Company X v. EPA" or whatever. It wasn't until the Obama administration, years later, that they actually did anything about it.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]So the government can take your property "given due process of law" or "with just compensation". As long as the corporations were given trials, seizing their assets would not be unconstitutional. Indeed, this happens all the time. Toyota is looking at a $16 million fine for their break pedals. No constitutional reason why the government couldn't make the fine larger if it wanted too, large enough to shut down the company even.
In addition, state courts addressing the issue of corporate charter revocation in cases from 1900-1950 uniformly have held that a legislative repeal of the quo warranto statute would not have the effect of extinguishing the charter revocation remedy. Courts have stated that the common-law theory of quo warranto exists independently of the state statute.So, even in states that don't explicitly provide for corporate charter revocation, it's understood under common law that corporate charters can be revoked at any time at the discretion of the state, because it is solely from the state's legal authority that a corporation derives its right to exist.
« Older "In the 1990s, Taichi Yoshida, the owner of a... | Pixar's Studio Stories:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pwally at 9:06 AM on April 6, 2010 [7 favorites]