& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
kq4ym
kq4ym
12/28/2017 | 9:26:40 AM
Re: Net Neutrality(AKA The NWO of the Mid 1990's)
Whether Pai is clever or devious, we may never know. The machinations of politicians and their apointees will generally be left to speculation absent written evidence of such maneuvering going on. But the neutrality issue will be interesting to see what ultimately happens after the FCC vote moves it out of the way.
brooks7
brooks7
12/13/2017 | 11:59:42 AM
Re: Alternate Explanation
Duh!,

Would seem to me that they are about the same.  The older rulings were that you can't claim to not regulate something then regulate it.  If the FCC says that all regulation of the Internet disappears, then they would seem to meet that requirement.  My view is that the imposition of Title II seemed to be as capricious as its removal.

seven

 
Duh!
Duh!
12/12/2017 | 9:03:23 PM
Re: Alternate Explanation
Two separate issues: the law tells the court what it MUST do when considering this case, i.e., IF it finds that the Order is any of (A-F), set it aside. It will be up to the public interest groups to convince the court that the Order is (A-F), and the FCC's attorneys to convince the court that the Order is NOT (A-F). The FCC would appear to have the harder task. 

[Again, IANAL, and don't play one on the Internet, but I developed an unhealthy facination with Adminstrative Law in my IDCMA days.]
brooks7
brooks7
12/12/2017 | 7:53:37 PM
Re: Alternate Explanation
You answered my first question...you are trying to say that your list applies if a court wants to back them.  My view is this is more like the play "stands" in the NFL.  The 2015 ruling told them what they have to do IF they want to regulate.  IF they don't want to regulate, that would relate to the courts previous rulings about reversing the light orders.

awcwn

 
Duh!
Duh!
12/12/2017 | 6:03:37 PM
Re: Alternate Explanation
Not sure what you mean by your first question. If it means what it seems to mean,  the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will handle the inevitiable lawsuit against the Order.

The answer to your second question: The DC Circuit Court upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order on its merits. Which isn't too surprising, since the court pretty much told Wheeler what he had to do in order to make the rules stick: reclassify. As to this order... I'm not going to try to do the lawyers' jobs for them. Suffice to say, they have plenty of ammunition.
brooks7
brooks7
12/12/2017 | 4:38:39 PM
Re: Alternate Explanation
Duh!,

 

Do you mean if the Court Rules against the FCC?

 

Its not clear to me that any of those clauses actually apply to either applying or repealing the implementation of Title II.  For exampke, what evidence exists that Title II SHOULD be implemented?

seven

 
Duh!
Duh!
12/12/2017 | 2:59:12 PM
Re: Alternate Explanation
No sooner will the ink dry then a coalition of public interest groups will be on the doorstep of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, bearing a Petition for Review.

Here's what the Law directs the court to do:

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

I am not a lawyer. But within the common meaning of the words, it's hard to see that the Order they're going to vote on is anything other than abitrary, capricous, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by the evidence and unwarrented by the facts. Whether they observed the procedures required by law is questionable.
Austin Idol
Austin Idol
12/12/2017 | 1:32:48 PM
Re: Broadband market is an oxymoron
NWO!!! HALL, NASH, AND HOGAN ARE COMING TO DESTROY!!! BE LEARY OF THE OUTSIDERS!!!
brooks7
brooks7
12/12/2017 | 10:15:09 AM
Re: Broadband market is an oxymoron
@James,

Except that Cable has over a 60% share of broadband in the US.  So replace Verizon and AT&T with Comcast and Charter.

@Austin,

Well that made no sense at all.  Net Neutrality - Common Carriage - has been part of Telephony for a very long time.  There are tradeoffs with societal needs and corporate needs that require a balance.

seven

 
Austin Idol
Austin Idol
12/11/2017 | 9:49:22 PM
Net Neutrality(AKA The NWO of the Mid 1990's)
Net Neutrality AKA The NWO of the Mid 1990's Hall/Facebook, Nash/Netflix, Hogan/ Google, Bagwell/Amazon etc...They aim to take over the Internet just like WCW. We simply can't let this happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSoMw4dz7mE

 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
How China's 5G Launch Will Gear Up the Global 5G Industry
By Daisy Zhu, Head of Marketing Operations, Huawei Wireless Network
5G Business Case Revisited
By Hayim Porat, CTO, ECI
All Partner Perspectives