Patterico's Pontifications

This is awful.

Patterico (958cf0) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:17 pm

Let the government handle the Internet! They’ve done such a bang up job of handling other things, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

*facepalm*

Toastrider (4c0340) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:19 pm

I don’t think it will hold up in court. Hell, if we’re lucky, it might even blow up Chevron.

JWB (6cba10) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:19 pm

Get ready for “lawful traffic” only, whatever that might be. Also, I hate to tell the government, but they don’t own those networks.

mojo (a3d457) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:24 pm

Absurd to think that a telecom bill from the 1920s was meant to cover the Internet.

DejectedHead (75dfa4) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:34 pm

Didn’t the Courts already tell them to go to hell on this issue?

JD (380607) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:39 pm

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:43 pm

This is the only thing I’ve seen about this so far today.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-to-classify-broadband-as-utility-2015-2

elissa (dcf2ac) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:52 pm

The biggest problem I have with all of this is the left is once again claiming to be virtuous by using a term that means one thing, while advocating for something entirely different. The true meaning of Net Neutrality is an end-to-end structure allowing content to travel from server to client without being interrogated. It is not the abdication of a content owner’s rights on how they can serve content in the first place.

Sean (f56cb8) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:55 pm

This appears to be a proposal. Proposals need a period of formal public comment do they not?

elissa (dcf2ac) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:59 pm

what does this have to do with Chevron?

I’ve suspected for some time now that i’m not getting all the memos

happyfeet (a037ad) — 2/2/2015 @ 1:59 pm

JD, yes and no.

Last year, the DC Circuit said that the FCC’s attempt to apply net neutrality to the internet was not valid because the FCC had classified cable internet providers as an information service and not a telecommunications service, and given that classification, the FCC didn’t have the authority to impose the rules.

So the FCC is looking at reclassifying cable internet providers as a telecommunications service instead.

In 2005, the Supreme Court approved the FCC’s classification of cable internet as an information service, saying that it was required to defer to the FCC’s determination.

So the question at hand, if the FCC does this, is: does the Supreme Court still consider itself bound to defer to the FCC’s determination.

It’s not clear to me from the opinion in the case (National Cable & Telecommunications Association v Brand X Internet Services, 545 US 967) what the outcome would be. JWB thinks it could lead to the overruling of the precedent which calls for courts to defer to administrative agency interpretation in such cases, but I think that’s *extraordinarily* unlikely.

[Note: National Cable was a 6-3 decision in which Justice Thomas wrote for a majority which also included Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer; Justices Scalia, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented.]

aphrael (34edde) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:03 pm

Happyfeet – Chevron is the key Supreme Court decision undergirding almost all of modern administrative law, and it calls on courts to exercise deference to administrative agency interpretation of ambiguous law. It was a unanimous 6-0 decision written by Justice Stevens in 1984.

aphrael (34edde) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:06 pm

Thanks, aphrael. So, this is their attempt to get around that scolding?

JD (86a5eb) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:07 pm

JD, yes, absolutely.

aphrael (34edde) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:07 pm

blowing this up might be a nice step towards an at least partial castration of the deep state then

that would be worth breaking out the spinach artichoke dip

happyfeet (a037ad) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:08 pm

Nah. the “deep state” is protected by the president’s plenary authority over foreign policy and national security and is untouchable by the legal system.

aphrael (34edde) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:09 pm

A vote on the proposal by the full commission is scheduled for Feb. 26.

The maneuvering in Washington over the proposal has already started. Congressional Republicans have proposed net neutrality legislation that bans content blocking and fast and slow lanes, but also prevents the F.C.C. from issuing regulations to achieve those goals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html?_r=0

elissa (dcf2ac) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:16 pm

ok so no dip

reading about Chevron over some ceylon cinnamon tea

happyfeet (a037ad) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:16 pm

The FCC has 5 commissioners, all of whom were appointed by Obama. It only takes 3 of the 5 to approve this proposal so I don’t think there’s any question about how the vote will go. In addition, the proposal tracks Obama’s SOTU remarks about net neutrality, so I’m betting this is a White House proposal.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:24 pm

==so I’m betting this is a White House proposal.==

That’s pretty much what the NYT link says, DRJ.

elissa (dcf2ac) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:29 pm

It sounded that way. I’m having a hard time knowing how I feel about this because I’m so ignorant of the industry and how it’s regulated. However, I know I don’t trust the government to make good decisions so my reflex is always to say No.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:35 pm

Be interesting to see how a court case would go if the GOP grew a pair and passed legislation that was not ambiguous in regards to ‘Net Neutrality’ regulations.

seeRpea (181740) — 2/2/2015 @ 2:46 pm

Their intent is to CONTROL the internet. With the Democrat Socialists in power, at a minimum Americans can expect the FCC to use tactics similar to those used by the IRS in its abuse of Americans based on their political ideology. And, if that doesn’t work, they will soon resort to using the tactics used by China to control the internet.

JoyO (70fff0) — 2/2/2015 @ 3:44 pm

All attack watch, all the time.

SarahW (267b14) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:01 pm

of course this is Obola’s idea…

or, more correctly, that if his masters.

this is what fascism looks like.

redc1c4 (a6e73d) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:27 pm

“that OF his masters”

stupid fingers

redc1c4 (a6e73d) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:28 pm

Daddy Soros is getting every penny’s worth and then some Mr. red

he’s a savvy investor

happyfeet (831175) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:38 pm

Got your blogging license handy, citizen? Are you using only the government-approved encryption algorithms, the ones that have a nice big back door for in case we want to read your mail? Don’t worry, the bad guys will never figure it out, trust us. We know all about this stuff.

mojo (a3d457) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:43 pm

aphael, why wouldn’t the Supreme Court still consider itself bound to defer to the FCC’s determination? What would change that stance?

Dana (8e74ce) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:43 pm

There is so much that this nation will regret when this administration is over. I’m scheduling one hell of a party in January of 2017.

SPQR (4764ea) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:51 pm

Luckily, gubmint is excellent at internetting, as they showed us with Obamacare. No, wait, what…?

Gazzer (e441dc) — 2/2/2015 @ 5:52 pm

Net neutrality is not “government takeover” of the Internet. Its about preventing large monopoly ISP’s (telecoms) from arbitrarily throttling access to “non preferred” networks. TheOatmeal has a decent explanation of what it REALLY means. Have a read:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

NA (8f4a5c) — 2/2/2015 @ 6:07 pm

Did that snarky juvenile insulting Oatmeal piece seem convincing and persuasive and really likely to influence “bi-partisan” opinion to you when you posted it? It may contain some good points but how can anyone over 15 get through it and take it seriously with the all the crazy optics and cutsiness? Good lord, in comparison your “decent explanation” makes most of the silly VOX offerings look like they were written by Rhodes Scholars.

elissa (dcf2ac) — 2/2/2015 @ 6:35 pm

It was like watching Sesame Street. Without the benefit of being entertaining.

Gazzer (e441dc) — 2/2/2015 @ 6:43 pm

That Oatmeal piece doesn’t even get the definition of Net Neutrality correct. Yes the point of Net Neutrality is to treat all information equally, but–and this is where that holier-than-thou cartoonist deliberately goes off the track–equally only in transport from the server to the client (your browser). Simply put, if I request a video from YouTube showing me grumpy cat’s greatest hits that video data should flow from YouTube’s servers through each node along its path to my computer without being stopped or interrogated. That’s it. It has nothing to do with service and content providers making deals for faster delivery to their customers, or more content if you pay a premium subscription (hello newspaper paywalls).

Sean (f56cb8) — 2/2/2015 @ 6:45 pm

Dana, I think they are likely to consider themselves bound, but at the same time the process involved here may be sufficiently unreasonable as to allow them to make an exception.

I say *may*. This kind of tea leaf reading is hard. 🙂

aphrael (34edde) — 2/2/2015 @ 7:29 pm

re #33: I think this would be appropriate if you took that page seriously.

seeRpea (9a7f2e) — 2/2/2015 @ 7:32 pm

I’m having a hard time knowing how I feel about this because I’m so ignorant of the industry and how it’s regulated. However, I know I don’t trust the government to make good decisions so my reflex is always to say No.

My exact same reaction. “Net neutrality” sounds so innocent and, if you will, pleasant that one’s initial reaction might be come-see-come-saw, where it’s tough to get a handle on what we’re really dealing with. But if Obama and his ilk like it, then that automatically makes the proposal not only very likely a worthless piece of government maneuvering, but one that, even worse, will once again illustrate the modus operandi of liberalism. That being where the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mark (c160ec) — 2/2/2015 @ 7:53 pm

They always name bills the exact opposite of what they are hoping to achieve. To fool the rubes. That’s us, by the way. How could you not vote for The Patriot Act? What kind of pinkoscum are you?

Gazzer (e441dc) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:06 pm

Didn’t the Courts already tell them to go to hell on this issue?

At least twice, saying that they did not have the authority. However, they feel that they can get around that little problem by claiming the authority a different way.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:13 pm

I’m scheduling one hell of a party in January of 2017.

Suppose it’s worse?

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:18 pm

There are at least four different things being called “Net Neutrality”.

The only one I want is the EFF’s definition (which is close to The Oatmeal’s.) The others use the word “neutrality” as a synonym for “properly controlled” — by providers, by the FCC, by Congress, by copyright owners, all for the goodness of protecting you from your desires.

As bad as it is, it will get worse, much worse. It doesn’t much matter which of the thugs is put in charge.

htom (4ca1fa) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:19 pm

Does network neutrality mean that ISPs cannot combat DDoS? What is “content”? If my ISP is required to allow all traffic, why can I insist by website remain free from hooligan tactics?

I guess to make it all work the government will have to monitor all content, to prioritize the good stuff.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:26 pm

htom,

Even if they start with the EFF standard, it will take no time at all before Hollywood chimes in, saying that these regulations should protect all parties, especially them. And that copyrighted materials aren’t really data, but contraband. After that, it will be porn. After that it will be bad speech. After that … oh, who cares what happens after that.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:29 pm

The ISP response with be swift: usage caps and bandwidth charges.

Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:31 pm

Kevin, I stopped caring at the porn part…

Gazzer (e441dc) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:35 pm

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

htom (4ca1fa) — 2/2/2015 @ 8:47 pm

The GOP has allowed this. “with the advice and CONSENT of the Senate”. The GOP sucks.

Gus (7cc192) — 2/2/2015 @ 9:46 pm

Net neutrality is a line in the sand for the nanny state: Allow the government to regulate the Internet or allow business to control the Internet. It may seem to be a lesser-of-two-evils choice, but really it is not.

The free flow of information can be compared to the free flow of whatever vice anyone can choose for participation. Except information, unlike vice, is power. Governments can try to control information. China does a decent job. North Korea is the gold medal winner. At at some point, though, people find a way to communicate freely.*

*This comment does not apply to Al-Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL, the Democrat Party of the United States, the FCC, the International Workers Party, most of the governments of South America, most of the governments of Africa, most of the governments of Asia and the Mideast, the Russian Federation, any college or university universally nor the European Union and Australia.

Wait a minute. Uh-oh.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 2/2/2015 @ 10:16 pm

All the troof you can handle:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/02/20150202_recess.jpg

Do not expect a rebound for the remainder of HRH reign.

DNF (fc27ea) — 2/3/2015 @ 6:28 am

49. Opportunists who brook no victory.

DNF (fc27ea) — 2/3/2015 @ 6:31 am

Putting an (R) after this guys name is outright slander.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/02/allen-west-to-congress-censure-obama-for-being-islamist-sympathizer/

DNF (fc27ea) — 2/3/2015 @ 6:44 am

Stupid know-nothing sheeple can’t read beyond MFM head lines.