SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to pnh102
Re: Net Neutrality Already the Law
said by pnh102  :said by digitalfreak :You mean the same FCC with the butt-boy chairman who's controlled by the telcos? I guarantee you that if Congress gets involved, the end result will be a blessing of such activities. Take a look at how CAN-SPAM if you don't believe me. So what is your alternative...to allow the fun & games to continue with providers arbitrarily blocking/throttling certain kinds of traffic and when they get caught to cite half assed reasons such as "traffic shaping" or just pleading stupidity as in Verizon's many Oopsies we didn't mean to censor/block politically active bands like Pearl Jam?
Secondly, where is this mysterious "law" which you allude to above that already stops providers from doing what they're doing? If it's a law, how is it that providers are getting around it? And if it's a law, then where is your citation?
|
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | it appears as if you silenced a pro-corporate member with the truth |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by rit56 :it appears as if you silenced a pro-corporate member with the truth That's the way it usually works. Until the next day after said corporate dittohead has gotten his approved talking points from Fox News et al.
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :So what is your alternative...to allow the fun & games to continue with providers arbitrarily blocking/throttling certain kinds of traffic and when they get caught to cite half assed reasons such as "traffic shaping" ... The alternative is to enforce existing laws. One ISP was fined for blocking access to Vonage. Similar action can be taken against ISPs which block Bit Torrent. Last time I checked, Congress is not in the business of law enforcement, and if existing law isn't being enforced, what makes you think a new law will be enforced?
said by SilverSurfer :... or just pleading stupidity as in Verizon's many Oopsies we didn't mean to censor/block politically active bands like Pearl Jam? You're comparison of the actions of one website (and it was AT&T, not Verizon) to the actions of Comcast, which was impacting all users, is invalid. Comparing the management decision of one website to an across-the-board action by an entire ISP is the same as comparing apples to oranges. At least in the case of the ISP is billing itself as providing a pipe for Internet access, not a pipe for selected content transfer mechanisms.
said by SilverSurfer :Secondly, where is this mysterious "law" which you allude to above that already stops providers from doing what they're doing? »www.news.com/2102-7352_3-5598633···il.print
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by pnh102 :The alternative is to enforce existing laws. One ISP was fined for blocking access to Vonage. Similar action can be taken against ISPs which block Bit Torrent. A pissant, backwoods, little ISP from NC is nowhere even in the same universe as a multi billion dollar player like Verizon and Comcast. A $15k fine is a lunch tab to Verizon et al.
said by pnh102 :Last time I checked, Congress is not in the business of law enforcement, and if existing law isn't being enforced, what makes you think a new law will be enforced?
1. How is the passing of NN by Congress considered law enforcement? Congresses passes laws, that is its entire reason for being.
2. This alleged "law" you keep referring to is not a law at all. It was a one-time action taken by the FCC to compel a tiny ISP in North Carolina to pay a fine.
said by pnh102 :You're comparison of the actions of one website (and it was AT&T, not Verizon) to the actions of Comcast, which was impacting all users, is invalid. It's essentially the same song different verse.
said by pnh102 :Comparing the management decision of one website to an across-the-board action by an entire ISP is the same as comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about blocking/censoring/throttling certain kinds of traffic for whatever half assed reason said provider cites. This is not peculiar to a single mgt board or a single website.
That is a not a law. It was a one time action taken by the FCC against a single provider. If it were a law, then where is it codified? In which section of the United States Code would I find that particular action that you are calling a law? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by SilverSurfer :A pissant, backwoods, little ISP from NC is nowhere even in the same universe as a multi billion dollar player like Verizon and Comcast. A $15k fine is a lunch tab to Verizon et al. When did I claim that it was? The point is that this sort of blocking is already illegal.
said by SilverSurfer :1. How is the passing of NN by Congress considered law enforcement? Congresses passes laws, that is its entire reason for being. Congress passes laws. Congress does not enforce laws. At the federal level, enforcing the laws is done by the executive branch and its associated agencies.
said by SilverSurfer :2. This alleged "law" you keep referring to is not a law at all. It was a one-time action taken by the FCC to compel a tiny ISP in North Carolina to pay a fine. You do know that the FCC would not have been able to impose such a fine if no law, as passed by Congress, had not already existed, right? Do you really think the FCC can just go and make up things as it goes along, without a mandate from Congress?
said by SilverSurfer :That is a not a law. It was a one time action taken by the FCC against a single provider. If it were a law, then where is it codified? In which section of the United States Code would I find that particular action that you are calling a law? The FCC action was taken under its interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934, a law currently on the books that is the FCC's basis for mandating that ISPs cannot block certain types of traffic. If it wanted to, it could take the same action against other ISPs which block other types of traffic.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by pnh102 :When did I claim that it was? By citing the NC case and otherwise stating that blocking is "illegal."
said by SilverSurfer :
said by pnh102 :Congress passes laws. Congress does not enforce laws. Didn't I just tell you that when you stated that -and I quote- the last time you checked, Congress did not enforce laws. Are you going to tell you didn't say that when all you have to do is scroll above to what you previously wrote?
said by pnh102 :You do know that the FCC would not have been able to impose such a fine if no law, as passed by Congress, had not already existed, right? Are you seriously that obtuse or are you just being argumentative to make it seem like you actually know what you're talking about.
said by pnh102 :The FCC action was taken under its interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934, a law currently on the books that is the FCC's basis for mandating that ISPs cannot block certain types of traffic. If it wanted to, it could take the same action against other ISPs which block other types of traffic. That's nice, but where is that law codified in the U.S.C.? Where does it actually state that it is a NN law as you have claimed since the beginning of this discussion? You have consistently maintained that blocking is "against the law," and I have consistently asked you to cite the portion of the United States Code and you come back with a Communications Act of 1934 that has zero to do with Net Neutrality. |
|
