General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

93. Good find. Thank you.

Thu Apr 24, 2014, 09:51 PM

Apr 2014

That was exactly my impression when I read the 2014 case when it was originally discussed here, soon after the decision. Well, read selectively, to be 100% accurate.

Also, shortly after the 2014 decision came down, the FCC reportedly said that it was considering reclassification. Not a word then about how the FCC had no power to reclassify.

Funny how Obama can firmly promise net neutrality (surely he did not do that without first having his team look into it to see what was involved?). Then, the court can talk about classification without mentioning that the FCC has no power to reclassify, even if it would like so to do. Then, the FCC can claim to be considering reclassification. Then the FCC can claim it's leaving reclassification on the table for future reconsideration. And, all the while, the law allegedly prohibits reclassification. Sounds implausible.

Future reconsideration, after Comcast and others have it their way? Yeah, that'll happen. Another lie from the USG.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

248 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise" [View all] villager Apr 2014 OP

Really curious to see how this will be defended ... 1000words Apr 2014 #1

The sad thing is.. that of course, it will be. villager Apr 2014 #2

Well... perhaps he evolved. Situation different from 2007. Etc.. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #5

According to one of the reliable defenders in this thread, "his hands were tied!" villager Apr 2014 #9

He's not a dictator, you know! cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #11

He doesn't have a magic wand! n/t QC Apr 2014 #34

...except when it comes to deciding which enemies of the State are to be killed without due process, Maedhros Apr 2014 #46

It's amazing isn't it How little power the POTUS has on the one hand, and the power of a Monarch sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #105

You make an excellent point Dragonfli Apr 2014 #110

Yes, you were right so why change? And we sure have had the proof of how right you were. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #112

AND.... some enterprising individuals STILL got rich. bvar22 Apr 2014 #145

Of course, rising demand is good for business as well as Dragonfli Apr 2014 #156

+ 10,000 n/t truedelphi Apr 2014 #167

Some people have to cling on to their first choice because they can't admit a mistake Obnoxious_One Apr 2014 #222

Good post sabrina 1. nt. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #246

The Republicans MADE him do this!!! bvar22 Apr 2014 #144

Hint : see the DC appeal court ruling from January jberryhill Apr 2014 #37

No, his hands were not "tied" Super Iridium Apr 2014 #75

Hint: actually read the opinion. merrily Apr 2014 #199

K & R theaocp Apr 2014 #3

Good bye to the old, hello brave new world RobertEarl Apr 2014 #4

Presumably, other, freer countries will have more unfettered internet villager Apr 2014 #6

Was this written by the same reported as the one you reference in that JoePhilly Apr 2014 #7

Your desperate defenses of the indefensible are at once pathetic, and appreciated! villager Apr 2014 #8

I didn't defend anything ... and I have no problem kicking this nonsense. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #12

So you think all the different tech writers are like rightwing radio hosts? villager Apr 2014 #13

Many of them, yes. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #16

The only single "narrative" is yours, attempting to corral a range of writers, and a Senator, villager Apr 2014 #24

Relevant facts, as I know them, are in Reply 199. What is your version of merrily Apr 2014 #200

The important part of history is a court decision that merrily Apr 2014 #33

Yes but then they would not have had the excuse of zeemike Apr 2014 #47

The court did not tie the hands of the FCC. merrily Apr 2014 #49

Legislation could be enacted and pushed forward Obnoxious_One Apr 2014 #43

since you asked: pscot Apr 2014 #161

Please. Spare me. How could a law professor and FCC advisor possibly know better than merrily Apr 2014 #219

"Was this written...." "I get the sense...." "You should probably...." rhett o rick Apr 2014 #183

Politicans + lies = water + wet. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #10

The article doesn't seem to address the reality of the ruling of Verizon vs. FCC stevenleser Apr 2014 #14

That is, of course, the official talking point that sprung up today. The ol' "no choice!" defense. villager Apr 2014 #15

When the article doesnt address the ruling at all and suggest how it could be worked around... stevenleser Apr 2014 #18

Again, the "deceptive" line is another of today's talking points. In fact, the FCC had choices villager Apr 2014 #20

If it's that simple, why don't the articles contain suggestions? Thats a point you cant get around. stevenleser Apr 2014 #21

The writers of the articles are not responsible for this. The FCC is. merrily Apr 2014 #52

If you are going to complain, you should explain what your desired end state is and how to get there stevenleser Apr 2014 #88

They are complaining about a broken campaign promise. That does not saddle them merrily Apr 2014 #101

Any three year old can whine about something. You don't need a journalist for that. stevenleser Apr 2014 #130

Folks like me? LOL. merrily Apr 2014 #139

That's despicable pscot Apr 2014 #162

When defending the indefensible AgingAmerican Apr 2014 #166

""Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy." merrily Apr 2014 #198

Excellent post, thank you. Broken campaign promises must definitely should be noted. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #224

Thank you. merrily Apr 2014 #228

The FCC needs to reclassify internet services as common carriers rather than information JDPriestly Apr 2014 #149

As several others have responded under this OP, that comes with its own set of issues. stevenleser Apr 2014 #158

I would make reclassifying the internet as a common carrier the top priority. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #187

I'd start by NOT appointing Cable Lobbyists to the FCC. Wheeler eg. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #236

He seemed fine to everyone else on your side in this argument in his initial assessment of stevenleser Apr 2014 #237

That isn't an answer to the question I asked No Corporate lobbyists are fine sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #238

It seems that the admin defenders are not expressing how they feel about this rhett o rick Apr 2014 #177

And Genachowski sure didn't. merrily Apr 2014 #220

If the Goddamn Administration and Congress really wanted it, they can do it Armstead Apr 2014 #104

Saying it doesn't make it so. You have yet to explain how and you dont have the legal knowledge to stevenleser Apr 2014 #111

over the course of history we have regulated.... Armstead Apr 2014 #114

Then take the word of the FCC. merrily Apr 2014 #116

Ah, so you accept Tom Wheeler as a truthteller then? Excellent. Here is more recent stuff from him stevenleser Apr 2014 #131

I accept him as someone who said one thing in February about changing rules and an entirely merrily Apr 2014 #147

What a huge surprise. You blindly accept those words that support you and blindly reject those that stevenleser Apr 2014 #160

First, huh? Second, are you implying that is NOT what you have done all over this board? merrily Apr 2014 #165

What surreal horseshit, day after day. An Orwellian carnival of propaganda. woo me with science Apr 2014 #178

Thanks 1000words Apr 2014 #182

Thank you. It's crazy. It's the textbook definition of crazy, woo me with science Apr 2014 #185

Crazy, or first stage of grief (denial), or knowing which side your bread is merrily Apr 2014 #211

Excellent post. westerebus Apr 2014 #209

The FCC can do it. In February, Wheeler promised to do it. In April, he merrily Apr 2014 #221

The people came up with the solution, or so they thought. They elected Democrats sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #226

We're not talking about "the people" we're talking about the journalists who are complaining. stevenleser Apr 2014 #235

YOU are talking about turning Journalists into politicians, not WE. Journalists should not be sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #239

Well that proves one thing.. bobduca Apr 2014 #127

Good One bahrbearian Apr 2014 #135

Indeed. nt woo me with science Apr 2014 #184

My money is on another candidate. merrily Apr 2014 #207

Endorphins caused by active contortions bobduca Apr 2014 #214

What set of open internet rules could have satisfied that court? n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #233

None of the articles being referenced do. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #17

It makes it hard to take them seriously. stevenleser Apr 2014 #23

It's hard to take the damn politicians seriously Armstead Apr 2014 #108

The ruling simpy advised the FCC that it had to reclassify the internet as a common carrier JDPriestly Apr 2014 #150

If only this was the only double cross... n/t truedelphi Apr 2014 #170

The FCC had to reclassify before it could regulate. merrily Apr 2014 #41

The FCC directive from 2002 would have to be changed...tell us your legal argument msanthrope Apr 2014 #53

According to the material that Leser quoted in his post, the court gave the FCC suggestions. merrily Apr 2014 #56

I think you've read that incorrectly. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #80

Nope. I nailed it. merrily Apr 2014 #212

Just for kicks, do you happen to mean the 2002 directive that WAS changed in 2009? merrily Apr 2014 #63

It wasn't. Perhaps we think of different directives? nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #79

I know there were significant changes in FCC regs about not long before the lawsuit. merrily Apr 2014 #81

Again...I reference the 2002 designation and the subsequent Verizon case. Start there. nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #82

Cute. The Verizon case is what we've been discussing. merrily Apr 2014 #83

No....I'm referencing the 2002 Verizon case and the 2002 directive. This ain't msanthrope Apr 2014 #84

This game is tiresome. See you on another issue. merrily Apr 2014 #86

Not surprising that you can't outargue that person, they are an attorney and know better. nt stevenleser Apr 2014 #89

Thing is, she didn't really present any argument, legal or otherwise. merrily Apr 2014 #107

Msanthrope's fallacious argument from authority does nothing to justify the FCC's betrayal. Lasher Apr 2014 #115

The FCC thought it had the authority. Says a court said so. merrily Apr 2014 #118

Two words: Orly Taitz Lasher Apr 2014 #126

Well, trying to get any information useful to a lay person WAS like pulling teeth. merrily Apr 2014 #202

Regulatory agencies such as the FCC are there to write and change rules. That is their job. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #151

I called the "The FCC is as weak as kittens" meme they would resort to before they started Dragonfli Apr 2014 #154

Thanks. Yes. Another Obama twist and turn as he does the campaign-money-dance JDPriestly Apr 2014 #159

Presidential libraries cost a lot, too merrily Apr 2014 #203

What was your point about 2002? merrily Apr 2014 #195

And did you think that putting a Corporate Cable Lobbyist at the head of the FCC was going sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #240

I am sure the failure to reclassify before merrily Apr 2014 #245

Except there's other effects of declaring them common carriers. jeff47 Apr 2014 #55

Yes, I heard you the first time. merrily Apr 2014 #59

Well, when you reply in 3 different places, you're gonna get 3 different replies. jeff47 Apr 2014 #60

Excuse me for assuming that something you posted to me was intended to apply to me. merrily Apr 2014 #62

Well, if you'd actually read it jeff47 Apr 2014 #64

I ask again, please stop lying about me. merrily Apr 2014 #66

PS, the "whatever is, is good" and "there's nothing to see here" approaches are not great for merrily Apr 2014 #61

You continue to do an excellent job of reading that which is not present in the posts jeff47 Apr 2014 #68

There is a lot of that going on, i.e. the "his hands are tied" meme which none of us said. stevenleser Apr 2014 #90

"When those against us have to use straw man arguments, that is as good as an admission of defeat." villager Apr 2014 #98

So, no one claimed that the court ruling was a roadblock for the FCC? merrily Apr 2014 #121

Creating a strawman to get you out of a strawman? How about using people's actual arguments? stevenleser Apr 2014 #128

So, you didn't claim the court ruling was an obstacle to reclassification? merrily Apr 2014 #148

Why do you find it so hard to use people's actual words? Is that really so hard for you? nt stevenleser Apr 2014 #157

I might well ask you the identical question. merrily Apr 2014 #164

What I find most amusing in this jberryhill Apr 2014 #152

It is amusing. There are a group of Obama critics here who don't care about facts they just want stevenleser Apr 2014 #155

After the fifth or sixth time Obama gutted social security... jberryhill Apr 2014 #181

The only bad facts and bad interpretations on this thread did not come from critics of the FCC move. merrily Apr 2014 #213

What I find interesting is that you claim to follow this merrily Apr 2014 #216

What underlies the resistance to all reality is the concept treestar Apr 2014 #206

What laws? What resistance to reality? merrily Apr 2014 #217

Introduce net neutrality and the internet service providers will have to compete based on net JDPriestly Apr 2014 #153

Correct. Maven Apr 2014 #72

Yep. Day 4 of denial of reality and counting. merrily Apr 2014 #223

The FCC can at any time choose to reclassify broadband as a public utility Dragonfli Apr 2014 #87

And as many under this OP have pointed out, that comes with its own set of problems. stevenleser Apr 2014 #91

The main problems are money is to be made by this move Dragonfli Apr 2014 #92

I think only Jeff47 said there were problems and the ones he cited were makeweight. merrily Apr 2014 #124

Good find. Thank you. merrily Apr 2014 #93

Everyone except those who's job it is to polish turds for the 1% pretty much knew Dragonfli Apr 2014 #99

Genachowski was the first. Seemed like a good choice, except for having had a lot to do merrily Apr 2014 #113

If you are interested, here is the FCC's 2014 promise of net neutrality, all of merrily Apr 2014 #125

Yes, common carrier is an option, and that gets us Net Neutrality jeff47 Apr 2014 #140

"So is net neutrality worth losing tiers, and thus upgrades?" Yes. As YOU said, NN is the ideal. merrily Apr 2014 #201

No, those market forces are greatly reduced jeff47 Apr 2014 #243

No new law needed. Despite all the attempts of the merrily Apr 2014 #244

Reading. Try it!! It's fun!! jeff47 Apr 2014 #247

Right back atcha. merrily Apr 2014 #248

Thanks for this explanation. So the FCC situation is one truedelphi Apr 2014 #169

You are more than welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #173

Merrily - I know exactly that sensation of dread truedelphi Apr 2014 #174

Wow. THANKS. merrily Apr 2014 #179

PS. It was not so much a sense of dread as just finding some merrily Apr 2014 #197

People have tried to defend this earlier, saying this isn't a big deal. Xyzse Apr 2014 #19

Maybe the same way Republicans can say the US is first in the world in health care? merrily Apr 2014 #193

It's Obama. He's PT Barnum without the big top. nt Demo_Chris Apr 2014 #22

Bamboozled n/t whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #25

I guess we'll hear all about how powerless the FCC was to sidestep the ruling. pa28 Apr 2014 #26

Are you kidding? It's already being apologized for thusly in this very thread! villager Apr 2014 #27

What would be helpful is suggestions for the FCC that are Constitutional. stevenleser Apr 2014 #28

The decision gave Chairman Wheeler quite a bit of latitude to re-write and re-classify. pa28 Apr 2014 #31

Not really. jeff47 Apr 2014 #38

The FCC is powerless. pa28 Apr 2014 #45

No, but it is a whole lot easier to incinerate that strawman. jeff47 Apr 2014 #50

Which of course, is very different from saying the ruling all but prohibited the FCC from merrily Apr 2014 #67

No, I said they had two options. Common Carrier or no net neutrality. jeff47 Apr 2014 #70

Again, I am not following you from thread to thread, even if you ask me to do so. merrily Apr 2014 #122

The FCC has chosen to exercise its power to enrich broadband merrily Apr 2014 #225

I'm going with deliberate bullshit. pa28 Apr 2014 #227

Who am I to try to change your mind? . merrily Apr 2014 #229

Kindly elaborate with some specifics. merrily Apr 2014 #65

Start by not appointing Republican, Cable Lobbyist to head the FCC. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #241

Yes, it's not like there was a SCOTUS ruling in 2014 or anything. jeff47 Apr 2014 #29

Technically the DC Court of Appeals, but your point stands. Exactly right. nt stevenleser Apr 2014 #30

Is the court ruling even mentioned in the article? jberryhill Apr 2014 #35

Nope. Article doesn't bother. jeff47 Apr 2014 #39

Why do you think it needs to? The goal was net neutrality. There was no goal of maintaining tiers TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #218

It could work out well, or it could work out poorly. jeff47 Apr 2014 #242

Please see Reply 41. merrily Apr 2014 #42

Hmm. I seem to remember your posts after the court ruling. They were nothing like this one. merrily Apr 2014 #44

Sweet! I have a stalker!!! (nt) jeff47 Apr 2014 #51

Non-responsive and utterly untrue. merrily Apr 2014 #54

You do an excellent job of reading things that are not there. jeff47 Apr 2014 #58

Baloney, but you excel at moving goal posts and saying anything. Anything at all. merrily Apr 2014 #73

Again, you excel at reading things that are not there. jeff47 Apr 2014 #138

If that means we keep having extremely slow and extremely expensive Internet service, that's merrily Apr 2014 #142

Exactly. I guess its easier for people to set up strawmen then talk through the challenges. stevenleser Apr 2014 #129

There is no strawman. Strawman is not an acronym for objectives. The objective is net neutrality TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #204

There are several easily demonstrable strawmen being peddled by those attacking the administration. stevenleser Apr 2014 #205

Well, it sure isn't that net neutrality had to be abandoned. That is a choice. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #208

Very impressive post. merrily Apr 2014 #210

The ruling did not prevent the FCC from reclassifying and it was not a SCOTUS ruling. merrily Apr 2014 #69

You know, you were just complaining about replies in multiple places jeff47 Apr 2014 #71

No, that was you. You complained about my posting replies in multiple places. merrily Apr 2014 #76

And that number is 1 888 225 5322 sgtbenobo Apr 2014 #32

The FCC KNOWS that most Americans want merrily Apr 2014 #48

This isn't remotely the first "promise".. sendero Apr 2014 #36

Correct. 840high Apr 2014 #74

"Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed." ~I.F. Stone DeSwiss Apr 2014 #40

Then we should end political campaigns. Huge expenditure of merrily Apr 2014 #103

We're not too bright...... :-/ n/t DeSwiss Apr 2014 #109

Seems we're not very authentic sometimes, either. merrily Apr 2014 #120

! DeSwiss Apr 2014 #186

Sold out. OnyxCollie Apr 2014 #57

It's amazing how relatively little we get sold out for. merrily Apr 2014 #232

Craven betrayal Amak8 Apr 2014 #77

Amazing thread. An article says that Obama broke a firm campaign promise. merrily Apr 2014 #78

I'm Not Allowed To Say... WillyT Apr 2014 #94

Over time, it has become clear that there are no depths to which some won't sink DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #96

He isn't alone -- Google pulled a hypocritical 180-turn as well Blue_Tires Apr 2014 #85

When did Google campaign for President by firmly promising America net neutrality? merrily Apr 2014 #100

I think you're grossly underestimating google's political reach... Blue_Tires Apr 2014 #133

I think you're vastly overestimating the similarity between Google and a POTUS. merrily Apr 2014 #146

So show me one politician anywhere who is batting 1.000 on his campaign promises? Blue_Tires Apr 2014 #190

Not the point. merrily Apr 2014 #191

I think this is the first time I've seen the "he cant get everything right" excuse. nm rhett o rick Apr 2014 #234

We didn't vote for Google. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #106

But if you use google, you're indirectly contributing to the problem Blue_Tires Apr 2014 #132

That's why we elected Democrats, so they would ensure that the internet would be sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #136

K & R !!! WillyT Apr 2014 #95

Thats what was said back there, what matters is whats said forward...nt Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #97

Sure. Presidential candidates should be able to make any promise they wish merrily Apr 2014 #102

Call it pragmatism. Lasher Apr 2014 #117

Thanks. I'll add that to my list of things I call it. merrily Apr 2014 #119

No Your funny Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #141

See I told you, you're funny and I was correct. merrily Apr 2014 #143

Breaking campaign promises... 99Forever Apr 2014 #123

K&R This is America under corporate rule. woo me with science Apr 2014 #134

too true, woo. WHile the president can rightfully be blamed for running a campaign of lies, Doctor_J Apr 2014 #189

Damn, woo. I am bookmarking your Reply 134. merrily Apr 2014 #230

Candidate Obama was also committed to a public option for health care, fixing NAFTA, Doctor_J Apr 2014 #137

Obama ticked all the boxes during his big campaign rallies in 2008. pa28 Apr 2014 #163

Know something? I never believed in alien abduction until I truedelphi Apr 2014 #175

To borrow a line from Colbert, "It's funny, 'cause it's true."" merrily Apr 2014 #231

Maybe TPP is his fix for NAFTA? merrily Apr 2014 #192

the New Yorker is a libertarian rag! Fuck Ron Paul and all of his followers!! Douglas Carpenter Apr 2014 #168

Why does the New Yorker love Putin!? villager Apr 2014 #171

Fuck Ron Paul! Dragonfli Apr 2014 #172

And when you're done fucking Ron and Rand Paul, fuck Greenwald! And all his followers!!! Doctor_J Apr 2014 #188

Yes, that's it. I don't know how I missed it. merrily Apr 2014 #194

Punish him by electing more liberal Democrats at every level IronLionZion Apr 2014 #176

We punished him in advance that way in 2008 merrily Apr 2014 #196

Huge K&R woo me with science Apr 2014 #180

Candidate Obama where did you go? bobduca Apr 2014 #215