Net Neutrality

[Mountain Man]

It's Obamacare all over again. If it's so wonderful then why won't they tell us what's in it?

Like the great President Ronald Reagan once said, among the most frightening phrases you could ever hear is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

[Catholicity]

On the one hand it can prevent small companies from farming out internet services and scamming people out of money. Which is good, I know a friend who lives in an area that has that type of difficulty. On the other hand it prevents competition in service providers. I kinda like my service.....

[Darth Executor]

It's Obamacare all over again. If it's so wonderful then why won't they tell us what's in it?

Like the great President Ronald Reagan once said, among the most frightening phrases you could ever hear is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Reagan would know seeing how he opened the amnesty floodgates.

[Irate Canadian]

On the other hand it prevents competition in service providers. I kinda like my service.....

Cath, where did you read this? I'm pretty sure this isn't true..

[Mountain Man]

Reagan would know seeing how he opened the amnesty floodgates.

And here I figured you were smart enough not to trot out an old canard like that.

No, President Reagan did not open "the amnesty floodgates". Rather, he addressed a small oversight in a law that had been passed by Congress, unlike Obama who has openly defied Congress and thumbed his nose at immigration law. Specifically:

Source: The Federalist

Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/...ecutive-order/

© Copyright Original Source

[Darth Executor]

And here I figured you were smart enough not to trot out an old canard like that.

I find conservative amnesia really staggering sometimes.

No, President Reagan did not open "the amnesty floodgates". Rather, he addressed a small oversight in a law that had been passed by Congress, unlike Obama who has openly defied Congress and thumbed his nose at immigration law. Specifically:

Source: The Federalist

Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/...ecutive-order/

© Copyright Original Source

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ol_Act_of_1986

The law in which he fixed the "oversight" was an amnesty law he signed and what I was talking about. He sold out his country, plain and simple, in exchange for... nothing, because The Rich in both parties wanted it. At best he's a sucker and at worse a willing traitor.

[Mountain Man]

I find conservative amnesia really staggering sometimes.

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...ol_Act_of_1986

The law in which he fixed the "oversight" was an amnesty law he signed and what I was talking about. He sold out his country, plain and simple, in exchange for... nothing, because The Rich in both parties wanted it. At best he's a sucker and at worse a willing traitor.

It was a law that had the support of Congress, so nothing like Obama's executive action end-run around the legislature. Furthermore, it carried the following stipulations (from your Wiki link):

* required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
* made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
* legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
* legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

So the idea was that people here illegally were held accountable and not simply given a free pass. This is a far cry from Obama standing at the border and saying, "Come on in, folks! We won't stop ya!"

[Darth Executor]

It was a law that had the support of Congress, so nothing like Obama's executive action end-run around the legislature. Furthermore, it carried the following stipulations (from your Wiki link):

* required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
* made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
* legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
* legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

So the idea was that people here illegally were held accountable and not simply given a free pass. This is a far cry from Obama standing at the border and saying, "Come on in, folks! We won't stop ya!"

This is what Obama Derangement Syndrome looks like. What does it matter what Obama did or whether he's worse than Reagan? Obama's completely irrelevant to my comment. I said one thing, which is the absolute truth: Reagan opened the floodgates of illegal immigrants, which he did. What Obama did 30 years later has no bearing on that.

[Mountain Man]

I said one thing, which is the absolute truth: Reagan opened the floodgates of illegal immigrants, which he did.

Except it's not true. Reagan along with Congress offered amnesty to a limited number of people who met certain, restrictive criteria and who were held accountable for their crimes. That's hardly "opening the floodgates of illegal immigrants".

[Darth Executor]

Except it's not true. Reagan along with Congress offered amnesty to a limited number of people who met certain, restrictive criteria and who were held accountable for their crimes.

A "limited number" = millions.

That's hardly "opening the floodgates of illegal immigrants".

It legalized millions and encouraged the practice. But it's ok because it wasn't Obama who did it and he got the approval of a traitorous congress.

[Mountain Man]

A "limited number" = millions.

It legalized millions and encouraged the practice. But it's ok because it wasn't Obama who did it and he got the approval of a traitorous congress.

Roughly 3-million, to be exact, specifically those who had an otherwise clean criminal record, who admitted they were in the country illegally, who paid a fine, and who agreed to pay all back taxes (so they were held accountable for their crime of being in the country illegally even if they weren't deported). The legislation applied only to those who were already in the US and did not apply to anybody who entered the country illegally after that point. In other words, your assertion that Reagan "opened the floodgates of illegal immigrants" is false. The only reason I even brought up Obama is because low-information morons use this exact same line of incorrect reasoning to defend Obama's criminal actions, and I naturally assumed that was your intent.

[Darth Executor]

Roughly 3-million, to be exact, specifically those who had an otherwise clean criminal record, who admitted they were in the country illegally, who paid a fine, and who agreed to pay all back taxes (so they were held accountable for their crime of being in the country illegally even if they weren't deported). The legislation applied only to those who were already in the US and did not apply to anybody who entered the country illegally after that point. In other words, your assertion that Reagan "opened the floodgates of illegal immigrants" is false.

None of the things you listed have anything to do with the assertion being wrong. Reagan made it clear that if you break the law and whine enough he and the rest of the Republican party will sell out his countrymen to foreign invaders, just like the Democrats.

In fact, Reagan's stance on immigration is pretty much identical to Obama's. The only reason why Republicans even pretend to oppose it is because they still want to get elected, which is why they opt for just lying to their idiot base while helping Democrats out with their common goal.

The only reason I even brought up Obama is because low-information morons use this exact same line of incorrect reasoning to defend Obama's criminal actions, and I naturally assumed that was your intent.

Sounds plausible. After all I'm Obama's staunchest supporter on these boards and it's entirely reasonable to believe that I said that to defend Obama.

The reality is that unlike you I'm consistent and won't defend Reagan's execrable record just because he's not a Democrat.

[Joel]

Now reports are saying that it may be several weeks before we get to see the laws that the FCC passed.

e.g.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology...internet-rules
http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/2015/0...t-fiduciaries/

[Joel]

While we are waiting to see the new laws, Wheeler (the FCC chairman) makes some clarifications. He says the internet will not be regulated as a utility.

"Wheeler said the new system includes "only four" hard and fast rules: bans on Internet service providers blocking traffic, throttling traffic, and prioritizing traffic in exchange for payment, and a requirement to be transparent about network practices."
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...ty-regulation/

The second and third rules seem bad for customers.
The second (taken literally as stated here) would ban traffic shaping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping).
And the third would be like telling shipping companies that they can no longer offer different priorities (ground, 2nd day, overnight); they have to pick just one option to offer.

If the 4th rule requires a lot of work to be done it could be a barrier to entry.
And the 1st could be opposed on simple property rights grounds.

[edited to add]
And then "Any other actions by Internet providers will be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is "just and reasonable," he said."

which means no rule of law.
[/edited to add]


Elsewhere it is said that the new rules change the ISPs' classification from "information service" to "telecommunications service" as "common carriers".
So I did some searching on my own and found the federal statutes that apply to common carrier telecommunications services. Here they are:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...pter-II/part-I

I think there are two main objections here.
1) Federal law says that all practices (of a telecommunications service) must be "just and reasonable", and
2) Federal law says that all prices must be "just and reasonable".

And the FCC (i.e., those 5 unelected bureaucrats) have the power to decide on a case by case basis what is "reasonable" and what is not--and therefore illegal.

This raises the worry that present and future FCC commissioners could do bad things (e.g. price controls).
There is the worry that this abandons the rule of law (replacing it by the arbitrary rule of 5 commissioners).
There is the worry that ISPs will put less effort into inventing and implementing the next big innovation, and more effort into worrying about whether the FCC will forbid it.
and/or more effort into trying to get their people onto the FCC.


On the other hand I did find one potential silver lining to all of this. Presumably this federal law will now apply to ISPs:
"No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/253
That sounds like a good thing.

[Sparko]

The article says nothing about traffic shaping. Or banning traffic shaping. It is talking about controlling traffic based on payments which is what the main point of net neutrality is about.