The FCC's net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know
The FCC's net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know | PCWorld
This one will be a doozy in court action, which will come fast and furious--if ever there was a case of government overreach, this is surely it. First, the FCC is going to have to explain why it had already classified the Internet as an "Information Service" but now has reached the brilliant conclusion that the Internet is not really an "Information Service" after all (the FCC lied the first time?), but a telephone carrier company of the kind that the original Title II rules were created for--Ma Bell, etc. (Title II supported the government's right to make AT&T the legal long-distance monopoly in the country for decades, until a Federal judge declared the whole thing unconstitutional and dissolved the government's monopoly. Long distance phone service did not advance in the US until the government's monopoly was broken up and long-distance was deregulated in the '80's.) It should be very entertaining to watch the FCC--well, the three Democrat members of the FCC, anyway--explain all of the contradictions and misapplications of Title II to "the Internet." The FCC seems so stupid that it doesn't understand that no one company controls the Internet--the servers that people visit while on the Internet do not belong to the ISPs, but are all independently owned, etc. Grab your popcorn and prepare for a show...
It's a common fantasy that anti-monopoly heroes brought down the big phone company monopoly, when in fact it's the exact opposite. The monopoly itself wanted less regulation, so they demanded to be broken up (which they couldn't legally do themselves).
Regardless, Title II was extensively modified over the years since 1934. In fact, the largest such modification occurred in 1996, and one of the key things that legislation did was repeal the 1982 consent decree with AT&T that allowed the breakup. It treated video content over phone wires to be considered common carrier equivalent as well.
Thanks to all for a very interesting read. . .
I wondered what was coming
This topic was taken down at Seven forums to which I had commented and I don't know what comments brought the thread down so I'll just make one point here. Both the intended and unintended consequences of any government act are usually not known by the people at the time of the act being passed. Case in point would be the federal income tax legislation of 1913. Proponents of that legislation did not believe the tax would raise significant revenues, nor that it would become the dominant source of revenue and government growth that it's become. At least those were the things said at the time by proponents of the income tax. Of course Congressman Cordell Hull did want to make certain that the tax would be accessible in time of war, which would prove pretty useful four years later, and ever since. The three Commissioners that voted for these rules were holding hands, invoking James Madison, and calling it an "historic day." I think they know what they are about, even if most of the public does not.
Bear in mind that my comment is not anti-government, but rather pro-transparent government and that is something the people simply have rarely gotten because of the hidden agendas of those in government. Nor should my comments be taken as to absolve certain corporations as I readily agree with Adam Smith who said of monopolists, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."