Net Neutrality
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
Here are some interesting quotes from the founder of the liberal lobby (and ironically named) Free Press, Prof. Robert McChesney:
"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies, but the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: "Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism."
The FCC's national broadband plan cited research from Free Press and related groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times. The FCC staff includes several former Free Press staffers.
"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies, but the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: "Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism."
The FCC's national broadband plan cited research from Free Press and related groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times. The FCC staff includes several former Free Press staffers.
Hmm. This thread is unfolding.
Briefly, did anybody make a brief list of all stakeholders impacted (customers, companies, potential new entrants, political parties, etc) and expand on the new costs or benefits, monetary or otherwise, for each?
And what foundational principles does this action/or inaction bolster or violate?
Briefly, did anybody make a brief list of all stakeholders impacted (customers, companies, potential new entrants, political parties, etc) and expand on the new costs or benefits, monetary or otherwise, for each?
And what foundational principles does this action/or inaction bolster or violate?
I want to talk about loud for a second, so that anybody can correct my thinking:
Net neutrality regulations are set up to force bandwidth providers to not slow download speeds for high data users. IMPACT: Customers don't experience slow downs. Bandwidth providers presumably experience a cost from being forced to increase supply of product at no additional revenues.This changes the metrics in barrier to entry cost, lowering the cost, new market entrants follow. This overrides any contracts established at the municipal/county/state level.Net is more market supply, generally lower overall cost, better quality of product.
If the above is correct, I don't know where the government plans on generating additional revenue, unless it's on the expanded tax base of taxes made on new entrants revenue. But, again presumably, this would dilute revenue from other providers and decrease "unit" cost, thereby lowering taxes received.
You'll have to forgive that on this particular issue, I'm slow on the uptake.
Net neutrality regulations are set up to force bandwidth providers to not slow download speeds for high data users. IMPACT: Customers don't experience slow downs. Bandwidth providers presumably experience a cost from being forced to increase supply of product at no additional revenues.This changes the metrics in barrier to entry cost, lowering the cost, new market entrants follow. This overrides any contracts established at the municipal/county/state level.Net is more market supply, generally lower overall cost, better quality of product.
If the above is correct, I don't know where the government plans on generating additional revenue, unless it's on the expanded tax base of taxes made on new entrants revenue. But, again presumably, this would dilute revenue from other providers and decrease "unit" cost, thereby lowering taxes received.
You'll have to forgive that on this particular issue, I'm slow on the uptake.
CBradSmith: Haven't seen the entire 300 pages so my response is based on what has been discussed and probable.
First bullet: I don't think regulations cover this. In fact, I think you will see usage-based pricing occur faster. I am not aware of any provision in the proposed regulations that "bandwidth providers ... forced to increase supply of product at no additional revenues".
Second bullet: Not aware of anything that will lower entry cost.
Third bullet: What contracts are you referring to? Franchise agreements?
Fourth bullet: Supply does lower cost, but I dont see how the proposed regulations do this.
I don't see any positives for government intervention. This seems to be anti-business and not good for consumers either.
I'm glad you corrected any errors in my perception of what is going down. I honestly just have yet to see any quantification demonstrating the "winners" and "losers" in this.
Once the entire 332 pages of rules and regulations gets exposed to the light of day you'll see lots of gnashing of teeth from many who supported this boondoggle. Knowing how this administration works, there's likely to be all sorts of taxes being raised, restrictions on content allowed on the internet and probably some form of Fairness Doctrine hidden inside. Again, Cuban was right.
imprimis,
Got a deal to make with you (Bet)
If the new regs (8 pages, not 322) do any of the following:
1. Directly Raises taxes,
2. Place restrictions on content of websites
3. Contain any regulations relating to the Fairness Doctrine
I will accept a one year ban from posting on the Politics Board and will donate $50 to the charity of your choosing.
If they do not contain 1-3 above, you will do the same (ban yourself from posting here for one year and donate $50 to the charity of my choice)
This post was edited on 3/5 9:56 AM by hollywood
Got a deal to make with you (Bet)
If the new regs (8 pages, not 322) do any of the following:
1. Directly Raises taxes,
2. Place restrictions on content of websites
3. Contain any regulations relating to the Fairness Doctrine
I will accept a one year ban from posting on the Politics Board and will donate $50 to the charity of your choosing.
If they do not contain 1-3 above, you will do the same (ban yourself from posting here for one year and donate $50 to the charity of my choice)
This post was edited on 3/5 9:56 AM by hollywood
First, I am not a gambler nor have I ever made a bet with anyone wherein I castrate my right to express myself. Therefore, I decline your offer.
Second, I'm sorry I don't share the same belief as you about the Obama Administration doing something on the up and up. We've seen all too often how they lie, obfuscate and otherwise bait and switch from their public statements to what actually happens. Certainly it's possible I could be wrong but the track record of the Obama Administration over the past 6 years doesn't lend itself to believing this is some squeaky clean no nonsense minor rules change.
Second, I'm sorry I don't share the same belief as you about the Obama Administration doing something on the up and up. We've seen all too often how they lie, obfuscate and otherwise bait and switch from their public statements to what actually happens. Certainly it's possible I could be wrong but the track record of the Obama Administration over the past 6 years doesn't lend itself to believing this is some squeaky clean no nonsense minor rules change.
imprimis,
It's important that you understand, the Obama Administration has no more sway or authority over the FCC than John Boehner has. The FCC is an "Independent" govt agency and operates independently of both the executive branch and Congress.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/101/a-note-on-administrative-agencies
Outside of the appointment of commissioners (which has to be done with Congressional approval) Obama really has no authority over an independent agency except for the power of appointment. Even then, the appointment process is handled quite differently than in an executive agency, such as Dept of Commerce. It is actually up to the Congress to proffer up their choice for Commission positions, the last two Republican Commissioners were nominated by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R). The President can't fire a commissioner, as any removal would have to be done by congress. He has no control over their purse, as Congress holds that power.
In fact, it is far more fair to say that Independent Agencies are more closely bound and regulated by Congress than by the executive branch. Now, clearly one party as an advantage at any given time as it is required that of the five commissioners on staff, 3 of them get to be appointed by the President's party. But at any time, if Congress believes that the FCC is overstepping their authority, they could simply revisit the statute which created the FCC in the first place and withdraw the ability of the FCC to regulate the internet.
It's important that you understand, the Obama Administration has no more sway or authority over the FCC than John Boehner has. The FCC is an "Independent" govt agency and operates independently of both the executive branch and Congress.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/101/a-note-on-administrative-agencies
Outside of the appointment of commissioners (which has to be done with Congressional approval) Obama really has no authority over an independent agency except for the power of appointment. Even then, the appointment process is handled quite differently than in an executive agency, such as Dept of Commerce. It is actually up to the Congress to proffer up their choice for Commission positions, the last two Republican Commissioners were nominated by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R). The President can't fire a commissioner, as any removal would have to be done by congress. He has no control over their purse, as Congress holds that power.
In fact, it is far more fair to say that Independent Agencies are more closely bound and regulated by Congress than by the executive branch. Now, clearly one party as an advantage at any given time as it is required that of the five commissioners on staff, 3 of them get to be appointed by the President's party. But at any time, if Congress believes that the FCC is overstepping their authority, they could simply revisit the statute which created the FCC in the first place and withdraw the ability of the FCC to regulate the internet.
wood -
What you state about formation of FCC is correct. But ... and this is a big BUT --
- Obama appointed FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
- Obama has publicly stated several times he want Title II designation on internet. And wants strong "net neutrality" rules.
- Wheeler, along with 2 other Democratic FCC members, voted for the new proposed regulations.
- The two Republican FCC members voted against it
- It passed 3-2 (it would not have seen the light of day without Obama)
What you state about formation of FCC is correct. But ... and this is a big BUT --
- Obama appointed FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
- Obama has publicly stated several times he want Title II designation on internet. And wants strong "net neutrality" rules.
- Wheeler, along with 2 other Democratic FCC members, voted for the new proposed regulations.
- The two Republican FCC members voted against it
- It passed 3-2 (it would not have seen the light of day without Obama)
So then this, from pages 61-64, for example, is unnecessary to understand what the FCC intends?:
a. Factors to Guide Application of the Rule
138. We adopt our tentative conclusion to follow a case-by-case approach, considering the
totality of the circumstances, when analyzing whether conduct satisfies the no-unreasonable
interference/disadvantage standard to protect the open Internet.329 Below we discuss a non-exhaustive list
of factors we will use to assess such practices. In adopting this standard, we enable flexibility in business
arrangements and ensure that innovation in broadband and edge provider business models is not unduly
curtailed.330 We are mindful that vague or unclear regulatory requirements could stymie rather than
encourage innovation,331 and find that this approach combined with the factors set out below will provide
sufficient certainty and guidance to consumers, broadband providers, and edge providers-particularly
smaller entities that might lack experience dealing with broadband providers-while also allowing parties
flexibility in developing new services.332 We note that in addition to the following list, there may be
other considerations relevant to determining whether a particular practice violates the no-unreasonable
interference/disadvantage standard. This approach of adopting a rule of general conduct, followed by
guidance as to how to apply it on a case-by-case basis, is not novel. The Commission took a similar
approach in 2010 when it adopted the "no unreasonable discrimination" rule, which was followed by a
discussion of four factors (end-user control, use-agnostic discrimination, standard practices, and
transparency).333 Indeed, for this new rule, we are providing at least as much guidance, if not more, as we
did in 2010 for the application of the no unreasonable discrimination rule.
139. End-User Control. A practice that allows end-user control and is consistent with
promoting consumer choice is less likely to unreasonably interfere with or cause an unreasonable
disadvantage affecting the end user's ability to use the Internet as he or she sees fit.334 The Commission
has long recognized that enabling consumer choice is the best path toward ensuring competitive markets,
economic growth, and technical innovation.335 It is therefore critical that consumers' decisions, rather
329 2014 Open Internet NPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at 5608, para. 136; CDT and ALA Reply at 2.
330 This is in contrast to the inflexibility that the Verizon court found was a flaw in the 2010 unreasonable
discrimination standard. See supra note 96. We also note that this approach addresses concerns in the record that
"[a] 'general conduct rule,' applied on a case-by-case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice
'harms' consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of 'harm'
(for those who can afford to engage in it)." Letter from Corynne McSherry, Intellectual Property Director, EFF, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-28, at 1 (filed Feb. 19, 2015) (EFF Feb. 19, 2015 Ex Parte
Letter). Understanding that such an unfocused approach could harm the results of our rule, we "spell out, in
advance, the contours and limits of [the] rule," as was suggested in the record. See, e.g., id.
331 See, e.g., Akamai Comments at 10; CALinnovates Reply at 19 (stating that "regulatory clarity may significantly
affect the calculus of current and potential investors"); Higher Education and Libraries Reply at 11-14 (asserting that
a clearly articulated standard focused on preserving the existing Internet would set expectations and provide
guidance to the market, but would avoid hard and fast rules that might be too rigid for a rapidly changing broadband
ecosystem); CDT and ALA Reply at 2.
332 CDT and ALA Reply at 2. We also note that this Order permits parties to seek advisory opinions regarding
application of the Commission's open Internet rules. We view these processes as complementary methods by which
parties can seek guidance as to how the open Internet rules apply to particular conduct. See infra Section III.E.
333 2010 Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17944-46, paras. 68-74.
334 Id. at 17944, para. 71; see also EFF Feb. 19, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (suggesting that the Commission should
take into consideration "whether the practice preserves user choice").
335 See supra Section III.A; see also, e.g., Verizon Comments at 16-17; Syntonic Reply at 5-6; van Schewick Feb.
18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 14 ("Letting users, not network providers, choose which applications will be
successful is an important part of the mechanism that produces innovation under uncertainty. At the same time,
letting users choose how they want to use the network enables them to use the Internet in a way that creates more
value for them (and for society) than if network providers made this choice for them.").
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-24
62
than those of service providers, remain the driving force behind the development of the Internet.336 To
this end, practices that favor end-user control and empower meaningful consumer choice are more likely
to satisfy the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard than those that do not. However, as was
true in 2010, we are cognizant that user control and network control are not mutually exclusive, and that
many practices will fall somewhere on a spectrum from more end-user-controlled to more broadband
provider-controlled.337 Further, there may be practices controlled entirely by broadband providers that
nonetheless satisfy the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard. In all events, however, we
emphasize that such practices should be fully transparent to the end user and effectively reflect end users'
choices.
140. Competitive Effects. As the Commission has found previously, broadband providers have
incentives to interfere with and disadvantage the operation of third-party Internet-based services that
compete with the providers' own services.338 Practices that have anti-competitive effects in the market for
applications, services, content, or devices would likely unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably
disadvantage edge providers' ability to reach consumers in ways that would have a dampening effect on
innovation, interrupting the virtuous cycle. As such, these anticompetitive practices are likely to harm
consumers' and edge providers' ability to use broadband Internet access service to reach one another.
Conversely, enhanced competition leads to greater options for consumers in services, applications,
content, and devices, and as such, practices that would enhance competition would weigh in favor of
promoting consumers' and edge providers' ability to use broadband Internet access service to reach one
another.339 In examining the effect on competition of a given practice, we will also review the extent of
an entity's vertical integration as well as its relationships with affiliated entities.
141. Consumer Protection. The no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard is
intended to serve as a strong consumer protection standard. It prohibits broadband providers from
employing any deceptive or unfair practice that will unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage end-user
consumers' ability to select, access, or use broadband services, applications, or content, so long as the
services are lawful, subject to the exception for reasonable network management. For example, unfair or
deceptive billing practices, as well as practices that fail to protect the confidentiality of end users'
proprietary information, will be unlawful if they unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage end-user
consumers' ability to select, access, or use broadband services, applications, or content, so long as the
services are lawful, subject to the exception for reasonable network management. While each individual
case will be evaluated on its own merits, this rule is intended to include protection against fraudulent
practices such as "cramming" and "slamming" that have long been viewed as unfair and disadvantageous
to consumers.
336 See Netflix Comments at 5 ("Through an open Internet, the consumer, not the ISP or the edge provider, picks the
winners and the losers."); Vonage Comments at 13 ("Allowing ISPs to select winners and losers will certainly chill
investment and innovation in startups because they will lack the ability to develop a following among users without
getting past the ISP gatekeeper."); AT&T Comments at 27-30 (distinguishing beneficial user-directed prioritization
agreements from harmful paid-prioritization agreements initiated by service providers); Ad Hoc Comments at 22-23.
Notably, under section 230(b) of the Communications Act, increased user control is an express objective of modern
telecommunications policy. 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(3) (directing policymakers "to encourage the development of
technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals . . . who use the Internet
and other interactive computer services").
337 2010 Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17944-45, para 71.
338 See supra Section III.B.2.a; 2010 Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17916, para. 22. The Commission
adopted a similar restriction to address harms raised by the Comcast-NBCU transaction. See Comcast/NBCU
Merger Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 4275, para. 94 ("[N]either Comcast nor Comcast-NBCU shall prioritize affiliated
Internet content over unaffiliated Internet content.").
339 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 35; Free State Reply at 3 ("The welfare of consumers should be the focus and
deciding criterion for Commission broadband policy."); Free State Reply at 12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-24
63
142. Effect on Innovation, Investment, or Broadband Deployment. As the Verizon court
recognized, Internet openness drives a "virtuous cycle" in which innovations at the edges of the network
enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in broadband infrastructure that, in turn,
spark new innovations at the edge.340 As such, practices that stifle innovation, investment, or broadband
deployment would likely unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage end users' or edge
providers' use of the Internet under the legal standard we set forth today.341
143. Free Expression. As Congress has recognized, the Internet "offer
diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for
intellectual activity."342 Practices that threaten the use of the Internet as a platform for free expression
would likely unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage consumers' and edge providers'
ability to use BIAS to communicate with each other, thereby causing harm to that ability. Further, such
practices would dampen consumer demand for broadband services, disrupting the virtuous cycle, and
harming end user and edge provider use of the Internet under the legal standard we set forth today.343
144. Application Agnostic. Application-agnostic (sometimes referred to as use-agnostic)
practices likely do not cause an unreasonable interference or an unreasonable disadvantage to end users'
or edge providers' ability to use BIAS to communicate with each other.344 Application-agnostic practices
do not interfere with end users' choices about which content, applications, services, or devices to use, nor
340 Verizon, 740 F.3d at 659.
341 See, e.g., EFF Feb. 19, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (suggesting that the Commission should take into consideration
"whether and how the practice impacts the cost of innovation"); Letter from Vimeo, LLC, et al. to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-28 (filed Feb. 19, 2014) (asking that the general conduct rule take into
consideration whether a challenged practice "keeps application development and innovation costs low"); see also
Akamai Reply at 2 ("Innovative traffic platforms and networks have thus been key in facilitating the virtuous circle
through which increased broadband Internet usage drives increased investment by service and content providers,
which in turn drives further usage."); Nokia Reply at 5 ("It is important that the Commission recognize that
operators and infrastructure providers are a critical element of this virtuous cycle of innovation."); Nokia Reply at 8
("Value creation in all segments of the broadband marketplace is a critical component of maintaining the level of
innovation seen in the last decade.").
342 47 U.S.C.§ 230(a)(3); see also Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 853 (1997) ("No single organization controls any
membership in the Web, nor is there any single centralized point from which individual Web sites or services can be
blocked from the Web.") (internal citation omitted).
343 See, e.g., AAJC Comments at 2; ACLU Comments at 2 ("As information technology advances apace, the
meaningful exercise of our constitutional rights-ncluding the freedoms of speech, assembly, press and the right to
petition government-as become literally dependent on broadband Internet access."); American Public Media
Group Comments at 3; CDT Comments at 5; OTI Comments at 3; see also EFF Feb. 19, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2
(suggesting that the Commission should take into consideration "whether and how the practice impacts the cost of
free speech"). We also note that the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard does not unconstitutionally
burden any of the First Amendment rights held by broadband providers because broadband providers are conduits,
not speakers, with respect to broadband Internet access services. See infra Section VI.A.
344 A network practice is application-agnostic if it does not differentiate in treatment of traffic, or if it differentiates
in treatment of traffic without reference to the content, application, or device. A practice is application-specific if it
is not application-agnostic. Application-specific network practices include, for example, those applied to traffic that
has a particular source or destination, that is generated by a particular application or by an application that belongs
to a particular class of applications, that uses a particular application- or transport- layer protocol, or that has
particular characteristics (e.g., the size, sequencing, and/or timing of packets). See 2010 Open Internet Order, 25
FCC Rcd at 17938, para. 56 (application-specific); id. at 17945, para. 73 (application-agnostic); BITAG Congestion
Report at 19 (discussing which traffic is subject to congestion management); see also, e.g., van Schewick Sept. 19,
2014 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. at 24; Mozilla Reply at 22; i2 Coalition Comments at 43; OTI Comments at iv. We
note, however, that there do exist circumstances where application-agnostic practices raise competitive concerns,
and as such may violate our standard to protect the open Internet. See infra para. 153.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-24
64
do they distort competition and unreasonably disadvantage certain edge providers.345 As such, they likely
would not cause harm by unreasonably interfering with or disadvantaging end users or edge providers'
ability to communicate using BIAS.
145. Standard Practices. In evaluating whether a practice violates our no-unreasonable
interference/disadvantage standard to protect Internet openness, we will consider whether a practice
conforms to best practices and technical standards adopted by open, broadly representative, and
independent Internet engineering, governance initiatives, or standards-setting organization.346
Consideration of input from technical advisory groups accounts for the important role these organizations
have to play in developing communications policy.347 We make clear, however, that we are not
delegating authority to interpret or implement our rules to outside bodies.
Do you add the Federalist Papers to the page count of the Constitution?
Preemptively answering questions regarding rules is not the same as making rules. Even if we were to adopt such a broad definition of "rules" How many pages of rules are there in this document? 30 if you count footnotes?
"Calling names"? Wow you're pretty sensitive aren't you? It appears the Donger has the password to live inside your head.
I'm sorry, you're not "the smartest guy in the room". I should've never called you that.
The pdf posted is the FCC's justification of assuming regulatory control over the Internet under Title II. There aren't any rules posted in it. It's the background document that the FCC board considered when they voted.
The "rules" will probably be thousands of pages and are still unpublished.
The "rules" will probably be thousands of pages and are still unpublished.
A little bit of unsolicited (and surely unwelcome advice): your becoming an a-hole again - put down the keyboard and take a walk or something. Your need to "win" every discussion and in the process denigrate everyone who dares to disagree is what prompted the last little hiatus. Take a break...
PDT816 -
The new RULES adopted by the FCC are enveloped in complete totality in Appendix A of the publication. Pg's 283-290.
That's it, that's what passed - there will be no "thousands" of rules yet to be published.
As I pointed out repeatedly, if it wasn't in the published proposed rules printed in the Federal Register, it could not lawfully form any part of the final rules as per the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. And nothing in the Final Rules exceeded the scope or differed from those proposed last July.
Imprimis,
As I said (and the bet you were too chicken to take me up on)
NOTHING imposing any tax or fees.
NOTHING restricting content (in fact, just the opposite as it requires ISPs to deliver ALL legal content to end users, as some ISP's were actually censoring websites, and blocking them from their customers.)
NOTHING even remotely close to imposing some new form of "fairness doctrine."
I'm not claiming to be the smartest guy in the room, but it's amazing to me how many of you must think I don't know a damned thing, when I have practiced in the area of Administrative law for nearly 30 yrs now and hold an LLM in the Field of Law & Govt from Washington College of Law at American University in DC. You know, I might just know a little bit on the subject and be just a tad better informed than most.
The new RULES adopted by the FCC are enveloped in complete totality in Appendix A of the publication. Pg's 283-290.
That's it, that's what passed - there will be no "thousands" of rules yet to be published.
As I pointed out repeatedly, if it wasn't in the published proposed rules printed in the Federal Register, it could not lawfully form any part of the final rules as per the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. And nothing in the Final Rules exceeded the scope or differed from those proposed last July.
Imprimis,
As I said (and the bet you were too chicken to take me up on)
NOTHING imposing any tax or fees.
NOTHING restricting content (in fact, just the opposite as it requires ISPs to deliver ALL legal content to end users, as some ISP's were actually censoring websites, and blocking them from their customers.)
NOTHING even remotely close to imposing some new form of "fairness doctrine."
I'm not claiming to be the smartest guy in the room, but it's amazing to me how many of you must think I don't know a damned thing, when I have practiced in the area of Administrative law for nearly 30 yrs now and hold an LLM in the Field of Law & Govt from Washington College of Law at American University in DC. You know, I might just know a little bit on the subject and be just a tad better informed than most.
Nothing about being chicken. You made an offer and I declined to accept it. Isn't that basic contract law, counselor? As far as what's written in the booklet, the devil is in the details and how they are applied. We've seen throughout the Obama Administration that what the law actually states mean nothing as long as a phone and pen are nearby.
Marshal Jim Duncan,
You are really confusing different issues here.
I know I'm probably just wasting my time as you seem to have completely ignored virtually everything I have written before trying to explain to you how the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 ("APA") works, and how numerous subsequent court decisions has shaped how Administrative Agencies publish their rules and findings, but one more time.
By both statute and established court decisions, Agencies engaged in rule-making have to include, in conjunction with the release of the rules, additional information. Among this information, is an explanation as to why they think the rule is necessary, alternatives they considered, the statutory authority they have to make the rule (citing back to the originating language from Congress when they established the FCC in this case and any subsequent changes to the statute), the compliance of the new rules with any previous court decisions on the topic, and they must address the most applicable public comments with an explanation of why they either adopted or rejected the suggestions put forward in the public comments.
In other words, the APA (which is a Congressional creation) requires that any Administrative Agency engaged in rule-making engage in an extensive amount of CYA. But, the fact they have given a fair amount of discussion as to the why's they made the rule, does not in any sense affect the rule itself. If you actually read the actual rules promulgated, you will see that 4-5 pages are solely about the procedure for those who believe they are being harmed, who want to challenge the validity of the rules and those who are seeking exemptions from the rules can use a process to appeal to the FCC itself. (Complying with Due Process requirements). The actual rules setting up the "net neutrality" provisions encompass all of about 5 -6 paragraphs.
Let me give you an example that you can probably relate, as here's some rules to which you may be familiar
From Exodus 20 (NIV)
3 "You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lordyour God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he restedon the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the landthe Lord your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Just because the rest of the Bible explains the whys, hows and reasons behind these rules doesn't make these rules any less valid, they are just providing the context to understand why these rules exist, who promulgated them, what the outcomes could be for violating them, etc. The fact that the APA requires that the agency provide the context behind the rules, doesn't make that explanation part of the rules, anymore than the Federalist Papers are part of the Constitution (as noted above.)
You are really confusing different issues here.
I know I'm probably just wasting my time as you seem to have completely ignored virtually everything I have written before trying to explain to you how the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 ("APA") works, and how numerous subsequent court decisions has shaped how Administrative Agencies publish their rules and findings, but one more time.
By both statute and established court decisions, Agencies engaged in rule-making have to include, in conjunction with the release of the rules, additional information. Among this information, is an explanation as to why they think the rule is necessary, alternatives they considered, the statutory authority they have to make the rule (citing back to the originating language from Congress when they established the FCC in this case and any subsequent changes to the statute), the compliance of the new rules with any previous court decisions on the topic, and they must address the most applicable public comments with an explanation of why they either adopted or rejected the suggestions put forward in the public comments.
In other words, the APA (which is a Congressional creation) requires that any Administrative Agency engaged in rule-making engage in an extensive amount of CYA. But, the fact they have given a fair amount of discussion as to the why's they made the rule, does not in any sense affect the rule itself. If you actually read the actual rules promulgated, you will see that 4-5 pages are solely about the procedure for those who believe they are being harmed, who want to challenge the validity of the rules and those who are seeking exemptions from the rules can use a process to appeal to the FCC itself. (Complying with Due Process requirements). The actual rules setting up the "net neutrality" provisions encompass all of about 5 -6 paragraphs.
Let me give you an example that you can probably relate, as here's some rules to which you may be familiar
From Exodus 20 (NIV)
3 "You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lordyour God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he restedon the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the landthe Lord your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Just because the rest of the Bible explains the whys, hows and reasons behind these rules doesn't make these rules any less valid, they are just providing the context to understand why these rules exist, who promulgated them, what the outcomes could be for violating them, etc. The fact that the APA requires that the agency provide the context behind the rules, doesn't make that explanation part of the rules, anymore than the Federalist Papers are part of the Constitution (as noted above.)
hollwood, I worked as a regulator. I work in a highly regulated industry wherein my job requires me to engage with regulations and understand the regulatory process.
I know full well how it works. Thanks.
Apparently you're unaware that The Federalist Papers were essays published anonymously in newspapers advocating for ratification of the Constitution, and were not official government documents.
I know full well how it works. Thanks.
Apparently you're unaware that The Federalist Papers were essays published anonymously in newspapers advocating for ratification of the Constitution, and were not official government documents.
What Federal Agency do you regularly appear before or have been engaged specifically in the rule-making process?
Just because you work in a regulatory environment in no way establishes that have worked under the auspices of the APA.
I've been in court dozens of times in civil matters working under the Rules of Civil Procedure, but that in no way means that I have worked under the Rules of Criminal Procedure which are an entirely different animal.
And yes, I am aware of what the Federalist Papers are and were, but they did in fact shape the Constitution by a significant degree and provide context for why certain things were made part of the Constitution and why others were not. Again, the issue here was about providing context for why the rules came into existence, which is part of the job of any Administrative Agency which is governed by the APA.
Just because you work in a regulatory environment in no way establishes that have worked under the auspices of the APA.
I've been in court dozens of times in civil matters working under the Rules of Civil Procedure, but that in no way means that I have worked under the Rules of Criminal Procedure which are an entirely different animal.
And yes, I am aware of what the Federalist Papers are and were, but they did in fact shape the Constitution by a significant degree and provide context for why certain things were made part of the Constitution and why others were not. Again, the issue here was about providing context for why the rules came into existence, which is part of the job of any Administrative Agency which is governed by the APA.
Interesting. The Federalist Papers "did in fact shape the Constitution by a significant degree". The Consititusion was sent to the states for ratification in late September 1787. Federalist #1 appeared in a NY newspaper in late October, 1787.
You are correct, I should have said that the writers of the Federalist Papers shaped the Constitution by a significant degree. The published papers were to provide some context and explanation for what was in the Constitution. However, these same authors had submitted a host of writings and opinions during the penning of the Constitution.
