(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.)
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).
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.
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.
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 100GB
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.
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 for
(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).
"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."
I WANT MONEY! GIVE IT TO ME!
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.
These are constitutionally-protected activities. So is freedom of association. Right there in the First Amendment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
« Older "In the 1990s, Taichi Yoshida, the owner of a smal... | Pixar's Studio Stories:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt