2 edits | reply to Romney2012
Re: Comcast best watch their step All I can say is thank god you aren't in a position to do anything about it. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by digitalfreak:All I can say is thank god you aren't in a position to do anything about it. Neither is the FCC, apparently.. as it shouldn't be in the first place.
Have you listened to, or thought much about what and who the FCC is and who they THINK they are? The FCC needs to get back to what it was originally intended.. they also need to stop acting like they're some kinda of governing body with powers like that of Congress themselves. The FCC also needs to stop treading on the constitutional fine line they tread on and often cross.
Personally, I'm happy that the FCC was ruled against on this case... is that to say that I'm happy with what Comcast did? No... but I'm not going to throw aside anything important (the FCC's belief that they have powers that they don't actually have in the first place) over a case of Internet use. (which is owned by a non-public company in the first place)
If there is going to be any kind of control over Internet traffic, how it's sold, how it's used, etc. then those rules need to come from the proper place in government. I don't care if it's states that set the rules, the federal government or what-not, I just don't think that the over-reaching FCC is the place for this.
I think this case will ultimately open up more than just the FCC 'trying' to re-classify internet services as Karl posted.. I think this case will ultimately wind up getting the FCC "re-classified" as well as to what their job function, and most important, their powers, really are.
Think about it.. the FCC.. how many, or how few people, sit on that board? .. and of those people, how many people are they "representing" again? A very small group of people ultimately decide and shape the landscape of communications in this country of a few hundred million - and when last I checked, I had elected a representative in my state to handle these matters FOR me... |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by fiberguy:said by digitalfreak:All I can say is thank god you aren't in a position to do anything about it. The FCC needs to get back to what it was originally intended.. they also need to stop acting like they're some kinda of governing body with powers like that of Congress themselves. I blame the congresscritters for the fact that they create these agencies with quasi-law making authority. The FCC, EPA, etc were given powers they should never have had in the 1st place. It was just that the congresscritters were both too lazy and too cowardly to pass unpopular laws and instead created agencies with a mandate to do what the congress was too afraid to do. All these agencies need to be reined in. The courts should rein them in, but too often the SC spends too much of its time being legislators as well.
--
NCAA® March Madness on Demand® |
|
 huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | I disagree. If we had to come to filibuster-proof legislative consensus to pass any sort of regulation, we'd probably have no environmental, labor, transportation, or communications regulation at all worth speaking of. Just look at how easily big corporations manipulate the system even now, with nominally apolitical agencies in place.
Only someone opposed to regulation in principle or ideologically would suggest that we'd be better off under such a regime. I shudder to think how polluted our environment would be and how much worse the corporate/consumer power balance would be were things the way you suggest. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by huntml:I disagree. If we had to come to filibuster-proof legislative consensus to pass any sort of regulation, we'd probably have no environmental, labor, transportation, or communications regulation at all worth speaking of. From your mouth to the Supreme Court's ear. |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
 ·Cox HSI
2 edits | reply to huntml
It's not hard to build filibuster proof consensus when you have compromise. Bipartisan opposition is alive & well. When it happens it speaks to problems in the legislation, not gridlock in general.
Come up with a common sense regulatory bill and it would easily pass. Take the my way or the highway I'll do what I want damn the will of people people approach and you will have to resort to extortion, bribery and parliamentary tricks to ram through a disastrous bill. |
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
2 edits | said by Z80A:It's not hard to build filibuster proof consensus when you have compromise. Bipartisan opposition is alive & well. When it happens it speaks to problems in the legislation, not gridlock in general. This may have been true in the past, say, pre-Gingrich, but I can't think of any really difficult, substantive legislation that has passed in the last 15 years or so that has passed on a truly bipartisan basis.
quote:
Come up with a common sense regulatory bill and it would easily pass.
Maybe, if 'common sense' is defined as 'passing the muster of the major industry lobbies that are affected.' These days, the lobbyists practically right any reform bills that get to the floor, or haven't you noticed?
quote:
Take the my way or the highway I'll do what I want damn the will of people people approach and you will have to resort to extortion, bribery and parliamentary tricks to ram through a disastrous bill.
I can hardly think of any really substantive piece of reform legislation that has passed without some arm-twisting, going back to the trust-busting days of the early part of the 20th century. IIRC Clinton even had to invoke reconciliation to pass his welfare reform bill, which was a *strong* compromise bill by any objective measure (so much so that he came close to losing the left wing of his own party), yet the Republicans still almost blocked it. Similarly with Bush's education reform bill -- I don't think it needed reconciliation to pass but it was still very close for what was very much a compromise bill, it certainly didn't pass easily. |
|
|
|
