Actually, the FCC basically wrote the lawsuit with all it's work on the internet being an information service or an enhanced service prior to 96. I doubt the FCC will have to wait until republicans get in power before having to toss the title 2 regulation over the internet.

It is important to note, the FCC has never until recently held any position that the internet was anything other than a title 1 enhanced or information service. Even the brief period of time in the 90's when it became a title 2 classification due to court action that was overturned on appeal, they wrote legal briefs and filed them with the courts proclaiming the mistake in title 2 classification.

Here are a few notable quotes from one of the reports I have have been looking at.

i]t
certainly was not Congress's intent in enacting the supposedly pro-competitive, deregulatory 1996 Act to extend the burdens of current Title II regulation to Internet services, which historically have been excluded from regulation."

and

Senators Ashcroft, Ford, John F. Kerry, Abraham and Wyden emphasize that "[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter
the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services." 75 Like Senator McCain, they state: "Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew."

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

As much as something needed to be done about the state of internet, I don't think the FCC's move was the right thing and I'm pretty sure it will not pass the court's especially seeing how they are bragging about doing it to get around a failed court challenge to something previously. I can't see the courts siding with the FCC if there is any ambiguity at all.

This is so funny. You are so invested in your worldview that you must create a fiction in order to blame the failings on your enemy. Of course the no true scottsman is a valid fallacy even being a fallacy, but you take it to the point of absurdity making you the king of la la land.

He did say he got caught being involved with tax fraud. The IRS is investigating him. We know that doesn't happen to democrats. Well, we know nobody pays attention and little is ever done about it because excuses like the tax software was confusing works good enough for them to keep their offices. It's just the republicans who seem to implode and lose their seats when caught despite studies say the democrat tax cheats outweigh the republicans 72% to 28%.

Thr FCC has never reclassified the internet until now. When i say never, i absolutely mean never and you will not find any comment period or rule making process or even press release stating they previously reclassified the internet to or from anything other than an information service or the unregulated enhanced services that the information services was defined from.

I do not know who started this lie that the FCC had previously reclassified the internet or what reasoning other than recruiting usefuil idiots this lie spread but that is all it is. There was a brief period where a court case ruled it was a regulated telecon but the FCC not only maintained it was not a title 2 service, they filed briefs with the courts stating so. The court decision was reversed in the appeals process and the FCC never changed any stance on the subject.

You think that will stop him? You should have seen what he did to the mail box last Easter. The neighbors still cross the street to get past it.

Nah, he's just not looking at the right set of rules. Those rules are the ones that allow exclusive access to a larger area in which a portion may be profitable on the condition of them serving the unprofitable areas equally as well. It also includes rules concerning municipal provided broadband competing with those monopolies in particular 2 states, Tennessee and North Carolina.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

in combination with page 4 of this

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...

makes it clear that exclusive access is no longer allowed. This means that I can run in and saturate the profitable areas with my offerings making comcast or whoever else either lose money in general or raise their rates to avoid doing so

Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the deployment of new broadband networks

HEH... I'm laughing with you on this.

I typed that from my phone. It was march of 1998 not 88. This is my fault as I used 98 in the first reference but later lapsed with the incorrect 1988.

  It's a PDF

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

Here are a few highlights

Senators Ashcroft, Ford, John F. Kerry, Abraham and Wyden emphasize that
"[n]othing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter
the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional
telephone regulation to new and advanced services."
75
Like
Senator McCain, they state:
"Rather than expand regulation to new service providers, a critical goal of the 1996 Act was
to diminish regulatory burdens as competition grew

And I'm not sure if this is separating the two quotes because preview sucks it all into one.

We
find, however, that in defining
"telecommunications" and "information services," Congress built upon the MFJ and the
Commission's prior deregulatory actions in
Computer II
. After
careful consideration of the
statutory language and its legislative history, we affirm our prior findings that the categories
of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in the 1996 Act are mutually
exclusive.
77
Under
this interpretation, an entity offering a simple, transparent transmission
path, without the capability of providing enhanced functionality, offers
âoetelecommunications.â By
contrast, when an entity offers transmission incorporating the
âoecapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information,â it does not offer telecommunications.
Rather,
it offers an
"information service" even though it uses telecommunications to do so.
We
believe that
this reading of the statute is most consistent with the 1996 Act's text, its legislative history,
and its procompetitive, deregulatory goals

The law needs changed if you think the internet has now grown to the point of needing regulated. FFS, Can the cop make the ticket for the red cars twice as expensive simply because things change? Until the law changes, the law remains the same. The only way to change a law is for congress to act or the courts to strike down as unconstitutional.

No, that is not the FCC's job. The FCC's job is to make regulation and achieve the goals set by congress according to laws constitutionally passed.

Post mail is communication, you posting in this forum is communication. Do you see how silly that premise is? Please think before posting.

But the court did not say they had the mean, standing, or legal authority to reclassify it. There is no difference in reality.

The PROBLEM is that the FCC has already declared the law does not grant them this ability and the law has not changed since then.

The courts will look at that, see that the move is to get around a previous rulling snd bam, its struck down.

Then i guess the law needs changed. If congress never gave the power to do something, it would take an act of congress to grant that power no matter how much it changed.

Their problem is the FCC has already demonstrated that it does not have the authority and congress never intended for it to have the authority to reclassify the internet. It is a self made case already put together by the FCC.

The courts did not say the FCC had the authority to reclassify the internet either. They said in order to regulate the internet in the ways the FCC attempted to do they would have to reclassify it under title 2. Bow that is important because the court saying you need a license to drive a car is not the same as saying you have the right to get a valid license when you are otherwise barred from getting one (under aged, epilectic, blind, already revoked for infraction or whatever).

But don't get me wrong, something needed done. This just isn't it and the FCC acting indepentent from legislation is unconstitutional as well as frightening. This is sloppy and will be undone easily barring action from congress.

Where exactly would he plug this newfangled usb flash thing in at?

The laptop will not have any USB ports.

Do yourself a favor and pay attention. Look the report i mentioned up too.

They go into explicit detail with statements from congress on the passage of the 1996 telecom act as well as previous FCC interptetations and state it is clear congress never intended the internet to be regulated other than an information service. They even mention VoIP in it.

In other words, the lawsuit to reverse this has already been laid out. Congress never intended the internet to be regulated under title 2 and congress has not changed any laws since then. You have a modern FCC who overstepped its abilities and was shot down by the courts, now all the sudden they ignore over 2 decades of interpretation of law and without any legislative action at all, moved around the courts. Of course they will lose the lawsuit.