• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Live feed to the FCC vote on Net Neutrality.

H
If it's so innocuous, why the need or desire for secrecy? Why not lay it out and say, "Here's what we're going to vote on."?



none of these rules are enacted... .they voted on a set of proposed rules that now will undergo 120 days of further debate and tweaking at various stages of the federal bureaucracy.... after it receives it's rubber straps, it then goes into effect.

I'm not too concerned over this right now... as there is a lot of processes these rules have to go through and it will be years before any final rules are decided upon.

the courts , sometime in the next 120 days, will become a major player in the debate...there is going to be a ton of litigating over a ton of specific issues.

in the end, I'd wager the FCC will lose in court, and this issue will eventually find it's way back to it's rightful home...Congress.
if it does not, and the court rules that these regulations may stand on FCC authority.... further litigation is most assuredly coming down the pipeline.... every time a specific aspect of title II is applied ( or not applied, for that matter), it'll go back to court.

no matter your stance on NN, it benefits everyone to go through a proper process..... a proper process in this case is to pass legislation that is specifically geared to internet oversight, not having 3 unelected people applying a set of regulations to an industry in which most of the Regs do not and can not apply.
such an endeavor might take some time... but not nearly as much time as the litigation that is coming and will surely continue to come.
 
Why can't liberals just admit they lost and stop looking for loopholes to keep up their clearly unconstitutional agenda? If I was a judge I would see right off the bat they were trying to get around me and strike it down.
 
I stated in an earlier post that I am unsure if it is good or bad, as well, but your response doesn't really address why secrecy is necessary. Even if everything is above board and good, openness in government should be the default, with secrecy specifically needing to be justified, shouldn't it?

I do not believe that long standing policies of secrecy... i.e.: "Well, that's how we've done it for so long."... excuses the practice.

My mistake I thought you were pegging the secrecy as an automatic bad thing. I am agnostic on that issue and none of my research gives good reasons for or against that secrecy, not giving much in the way of data to make a further determination.

The FCC is one of the most benign agencies out there and I cannot think of a single thing it does that I would consider alarming (even though I wish it would open up more frequency for things like wifi). I am far more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in terms of having legitimate reasons to do what it does than say the NSA or the department of energy.
 
No.

.....

How is it not? For that matter, how is this little game here not just a way around the court? How is the government not just using a loophole to do something they know they don't have the power to do?
 
My mistake I thought you were pegging the secrecy as an automatic bad thing. I am agnostic on that issue and none of my research gives good reasons for or against that secrecy, not giving much in the way of data to make a further determination.

The FCC is one of the most benign agencies out there and I cannot think of a single thing it does that I would consider alarming (even though I wish it would open up more frequency for things like wifi). I am far more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in terms of having legitimate reasons to do what it does than say the NSA or the department of energy.

Declaring a service a utility is pretty alarming, imho.
 
How is it not? For that matter, how is this little game here not just a way around the court? How is the government not just using a loophole to do something they know they don't have the power to do?

I'm sorry you don't understand the topic, but you've around twenty threads, each consisting of about a thousand pages, in which the facts and history (and not the hysteria) of net neutrality have been laid out repeatedly, and you still don't get it. When you get right down to it, why should this be my problem?
 
I'm sorry you don't understand the topic, but you've around twenty threads, each consisting of about a thousand pages, in which the facts and history (and not the hysteria) of net neutrality have been laid out repeatedly, and you still don't get it. When you get right down to it, why should this be my problem?

Do you know what the governments relationship with a utility is? Do you know how much more authority that gives them?
 
Do you know what the governments relationship with a utility is? Do you know how much more authority that gives them?

Why don't you explain in detail what that authority is. No vague bumper sticker quotes, no buzz words. Details.
 
I'm sorry you don't understand the topic, but you've around twenty threads, each consisting of about a thousand pages, in which the facts and history (and not the hysteria) of net neutrality have been laid out repeatedly, and you still don't get it. When you get right down to it, why should this be my problem?

Oh, and I know what the topic is exactly. The courts struck down your baby, so you guys came up with an idea to put it back in place that you think will pass constitutional muster. We call that being a poor loser and a scumbag that uses loopholes to do things that were ruled unconstitutional.

The funny thing is you guys want us to trust you when you are clearly breaking the law on purpose.
 
Declaring a service a utility is pretty alarming, imho.

Why? Especially given how much economic infrastructure is being built on these communications?

These wires and other equipment are quickly becoming as fundamental to our way of life as roads and electricity (which also have a ton of infrastructure built on top of them)


10char
 
Oh, and I know what the topic is exactly. The courts struck down your baby, so you guys came up with an idea to put it back in place that you think will pass constitutional muster. We call that being a poor loser and a scumbag that uses loopholes to do things that were ruled unconstitutional.

The funny thing is you guys want us to trust you when you are clearly breaking the law on purpose.

Uh huh.
 
Why? Especially given how much economic infrastructure is being built on these communications?

These wires and other equipment are quickly becoming as fundamental to our way of life as roads and electricity (which also have a ton of infrastructure built on top of them)


10char

So if my business becomes a fundamental part of our life the government can just declare it a government utility and push me aside? That isn't at all alarming to you? How nice. Thanks for telling me to keep my success below a certain bar.
 
So if my business becomes a fundamental part of our life the government can just declare it a government utility and push me aside? That isn't at all alarming to you? How nice. Thanks for telling me to keep my success below a certain bar.

Lol, so you would rather to a small success and make a little money than be a huge success to the point where your business becomes a piece of our culture and make that much more money?

ok ...

several billion is still worth more than several million last i checked :)
 

That's why you guys want it to be a utility. Otherwise, the same rules couldn't get past the courts due to them being unconstitutional without that distinction. Why do liberals think they are smarter than everyone else when they really only smarter than a preschooler? Maybe you guys can be a bit less transparent in your corrupt behavior, eh?
 
Lol, so you would rather to a small success and make a little money than be a huge success to the point where your business becomes a piece of our culture and make that much more money?

ok ...

several billion is still worth more than several million last i checked :)

No, I would rather not be declared a government utility and have even more government control up my ass. It would appear the only way to do that is to stay below the bar liberals have set.
 
It's true and it's hardly cute.

Nah its a lie, you would take the billions and go find yourself an island away from the world.
 
Nah its a lie, you would take the billions and go find yourself an island away from the world.

There is no such thing as an island away from the world.
 
That's why you guys want it to be a utility. Otherwise, the same rules couldn't get past the courts due to them being unconstitutional without that distinction. Why do liberals think they are smarter than everyone else when they really only smarter than a preschooler? Maybe you guys can be a bit less transparent in your corrupt behavior, eh?

Why don't you explain in detail what that authority is. No vague bumper sticker quotes, no buzz words. Details.

:coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom