You can tell this article is going to say it like it is, just by the title. The
duplicitous statements made by the current Chairman. So, this article too,
dispels some of the lies this Chairman feels free to spread:
"Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service can be either a
'telecommunications service,' like telephone service, that lets the subscriber
choose the content they receive and send without interference from the service
provider, or it can be an 'information service,' like cable television or the
old Prodigy service, that curates and selects what content channels will be
available to subscribers. The 1996 law provided that 'telecommunications
services' are governed by 'Title II' of the Communications Act of 1934, which
includes nondiscrimination requirements. 'Information services' are not subject
to Title II's requirements."
Precisely. If broadband service is not in fact "telecom," what in the world is
it? So, the FCC is perfectly within its legal jurisdiction here. And this is
the key point:
"For years, the FCC incorrectly classified broadband access as an 'information
service,' and when it tried to impose even a weak version of net neutrality
protections the courts struck them down."
"Incorrectly" being the key word. Also, the idea that the FCC did keep trying
to impose some sort of neutrality mandates all along, until now, that is. Where
non-neutrality is considered to be an attribute, by some crooks with too much
power. And again, this disingenuous crap from the current Chairman, about how
the Internet flourished with no Title II restrictions, is factually false. It
flourished thanks only to Title II, thanks only to a neutrality MANDATE, or we
would all be using services like AOL these days, partially or totally walled
gardens, depending on one's broadband provider. Then there's this:
"While we are on the subject of the legal basis for net neutrality, let's talk
about the rest of Title II. Net neutrality opponents complain that Title II
involves a host of regulations that don't make sense for the Internet. This is
a red herring. The FCC has used a process called 'forbearance' - binding limits
on its power to use parts of Title II - to ensure that Title II is applied
narrowly and as needed to address harms to net neutrality and privacy."
And for all the paranoid lunatics that put on a big show of skepticism about
trusting a government agency, it is even more ludicrous to "trust" those who
benefit from non-neutral service, especially when these parties are already
waffling about their intentions. A corrupt government agency, possibly on the
take, is the only possible explanation for such egregious naiveté.
"Even without this precedent, the FTC's enforcement authority here targets
deceptive trade practices. The agency will only take action if a company
promises one thing and delivers another. If the legalese in a company's
privacy policy explains how it is free to use and sell your private
information, and it follows that policy, the FTC can't help you."
DUH! Once again, what kind of government agency would ever propose such a
"solution," unless that agency were hopelessly corrupt?
And then there's this bit of irony:
"Tell the FCC to Keep Title II and Not Undermine Net Neutrality."
Yeah right. Not with these crooks, you can't. They simply ignored all the
comments. Boot the scoundrels out.
Bert
----------------------------------------------
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/why-losing-title-ii-means-losing-net-neutrality-and-privacy
The FCC Pretends to Support Net Neutrality and Privacy While Moving to Gut Both
Legal Analysis by Kit Walsh
May 9, 2017
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed a plan to eliminate net neutrality and
privacy for broadband subscribers. Of course, those protections are
tremendously popular, so Chairman Pai and his allies have been forced to pay
lip service to preserving them in "some form." How do we know it's just lip
service? Because the plan Pai is pushing will destroy the legal foundation for
net neutrality. That's right: if Pai succeeds, the FCC won't have the legal
authority to preserve net neutrality in just about any form. And if he's read
the case law, he knows it.
Let's break it down.
The FCC's Proposal Makes It Impossible to Enforce Core Net Neutrality
Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service can be either a
"telecommunications service," like telephone service, that lets the subscriber
choose the content they receive and send without interference from the service
provider, or it can be an "information service," like cable television or the
old Prodigy service, that curates and selects what content channels will be
available to subscribers. The 1996 law provided that "telecommunications
services" are governed by "Title II" of the Communications Act of 1934, which
includes nondiscrimination requirements. "Information services" are not subject
to Title II's requirements.
Under current law, the FCC can put either label on broadband Internet service -
but that choice has consequences. For years, the FCC incorrectly classified
broadband access as an "information service," and when it tried to impose even
a weak version of net neutrality protections the courts struck them down.
Essentially, the D.C. Circuit court explained [PDF] that it would be
inconsistent for the FCC to exempt broadband from Title II's nondiscrimination
requirements by classifying it as an information service, but then impose those
requirements anyway.
The legal mandate was clear: if it wanted meaningful open Internet rules to
pass judicial scrutiny, the FCC had to reclassify broadband service under Title
II. It was also clear to neutral observers that reclassification just made
sense. Broadband looks a lot more like a "telecommunications service" than an
"information service." It entails delivering information of the subscriber's
choosing, not information curated or altered by the provider.
It took an Internet uprising to persuade the FCC that reclassification made
practical and legal sense. But in the end we succeeded: in 2015, at the end of
a lengthy rulemaking process, the FCC reclassified broadband as a Title II
telecommunications service and issued net neutrality rules on that basis.
Resting at last on a proper legal foundation, those rules finally passed
judicial scrutiny [PDF].
But now, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed to reverse that decision and put
broadband back under the regime for "information services" - the same regime
that we already know won't support real net neutrality rules. Abandoning Title
II means the end of meaningful, enforceable net neutrality protections, paving
the way for companies like Comcast or Time Warner Cable to slice up your
Internet experience into favored, disfavored, and "premium" content.
Title II Is Not Overly Burdensome, Thanks to Forbearance
While we are on the subject of the legal basis for net neutrality, let's talk
about the rest of Title II. Net neutrality opponents complain that Title II
involves a host of regulations that don't make sense for the Internet. This is
a red herring. The FCC has used a process called "forbearance" - binding limits
on its power to use parts of Title II - to ensure that Title II is applied
narrowly and as needed to address harms to net neutrality and privacy. So when
critics of the FCC's decision to reclassify tell horror stories about the
potential excesses of Title II, keep in mind that those stories are typically
based on powers that the FCC has expressly disavowed, like the ability to set
prices for service.
What is more, Title II offers more regulatory limits than the alternative of
treating broadband as an information service, at least when it comes to net
neutrality. Where Title II grants specific, clear, and bounded powers that can
protect net neutrality, theories that do not rely on Title II have to infer
powers that aren't clearly granted to the FCC. As proponents of limited
regulation, these theories concern us. The proper way to protect neutrality is
not to expand FCC discretion by stretching the general provisions of the
Telecommunications Act (an approach already rejected in court), but to use a
limited subset of the clear authorities laid out in Title II.
The FTC Cannot Adequately Protect the Privacy of Internet Subscribers
Reclassifying broadband as an information service not subject to Title II also
creates yet another mess for subscriber privacy. The FCC crafted good rules for
Internet privacy, but Congress just rejected them. But it left in place the
FCC's underlying authority to protect privacy under Title II, which leaves
privacy in limbo. Abandoning Title II for broadband altogether would mean that
the FCC no longer has much of a role to play in protecting broadband privacy -
and it's not clear who will fill the gap.
Some have looked to the FTC to take up the mantle, but just last year AT&T
persuaded a federal appeals court that, as a company that also owned a
telephone business, the FTC had no power over any aspect of AT&T. That
precedent covers the entire west coast and leaves millions of Americans without
recourse for privacy violations by their Internet service provider. And there's
no doubt that AT&T and others will try to extend that precedent across the
country.
Even without this precedent, the FTC's enforcement authority here targets
deceptive trade practices. The agency will only take action if a company
promises one thing and delivers another. If the legalese in a company's
privacy policy explains how it is free to use and sell your private
information, and it follows that policy, the FTC can't help you.
Tell the FCC to Keep Title II and Not Undermine Net Neutrality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.