> On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:29 , Rob McEwen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining it in, >>> and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not just today's >>> "foot in the door" details! >> How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, as >> passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with the >> approval of our elected President. > > For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet, nobody > realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly just now... > we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those years, right? And how > nice that the people who decided that this authority suddenly existed, are > the ones who voted themselves that authority (referring to the vote on > Thursday), and will be wielding that authority.
Actually, many people realized they had the authority, including, but not limited to the FCC, the incumbent Telco/Cablecos, and Congress. To the credit of the commission, they tried very hard to find ways not to use such heavy handed authority to prevent the current abuses by the Telco/Cablecos, but each of their major efforts was thwarted by lawsuits from those same Telcos and Cablecos. Now, you want to cry foul because, faced with essentially no other way to stop the current string of abuses, the FCC has chosen to use the one and only authority it has that will stand up in court? That’s absurd. The commissioners didn’t suddenly realize this authority existed, they have been trying to avoid using it in such a heavy handed manner until the organizations they were trying to regulate essentially left them no other choice. > Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use of this > authority, and their long term application of that authority, could be > frighteningly different. What they say they will do for now... and what they > COULD do in the future if this power grab stands--without anything more than > another one of their little votes amongst themselves--could be very very > different. Sure… Not the least of which is FCC commissioner appointments are not lifetime appointments and even if they were, they wouldn’t live forever, so you’re going to have a different commission at some point in the future. That’s also true of Congress, the supreme court (and don’t get me started on some of their gaffs, such as Plessey V. Ferguson, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc.). This isn’t a power grab. It’s a very judicious exercise of power they’ve had for a long time which they waited as long as possible to exercise. If you don’t like this, then the people to blame are not the commissioners, but the incumbent telcos and cablecos that brought this on themselves by blocking every attempt at more gentle regulation. > FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA was given > a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely true, right)... > decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little vote amongst themselves > and they decide that they now define the air INSIDE your house is also > covered by those same regulations and monitoring directives for outside air. > Therefore, to carry out their task of monitoring the air inside your home, > they conduct random warrent-less raids inside your homes, thus violating your > 4th amendment rights. If the CO2 levels are too high (because someone likes > to smoke), that person then gets fined, or their house gets bulldozed, etc. > When asked about how they get that authority, someone like Lamar Owen points > out that Congress gave them this authority in such-in-such clean air act past > so many decades ago. First of all, congress can’t exceed the authority of the fourth amendment, so that wouldn’t fly and you know it. The constitution overrides congress, not the other way around. Nothing in the FCC ruling that I’ve seen seems to have any fourth amendment (or any other portion of the bill of rights) implications as near as I can tell, even with the (bizarre and absurd) extensions recently granted by the supreme court in Citizens United. What, exactly, is it that you find so objectionable in the actual ruling? (Please cite CFR section or quote the objectionable pieces in your response). What horrible consequences is it that you think can come from further FCC interpretation or application of this ruling? > I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this net > neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH cases, the > power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. using a statute > that was originally intended for public space) Yes… Quite a bit more given that your example is completely preposterous _AND_ unconstitutional, whereas this net neutrality ruling is simply the next step in an ongoing battle between consumers+content providers vs. the broadband oligopolies with the FCC (for once) siding with the consumer. > But the bigger picture isn't what the FCC STATES that they will do now.. it > is what unelected FCC officials could do, with LITTLE accountability, in the > future. Arguing for/against this power grab... only based on what they say > they will do for now, is very naive. Future generations may ask us, "why > didn't you stop this?" When we answer, "well, it wasn't implemented as badly > when it first started". They'll reply, "but you should have checked to see > how far this could go once that power grab was allowed (or ignored!)” FCC officials (as you call them) are political appointees. They do have accountability in that if the executive administration doesn’t like what they do, they’re out. Their regulatory authority is limited to that authority granted to them by congress. If future generations are going to judge us for federal power grabs, I’m betting this won’t be the one they pick. First, I don’t see this as a power grab. Second, even if it were such a thing, it so starkly pales in comparison to the actions of DHS, BATFE, TSA, NSA, FBI, et. al. under the auspices of the USAPATRIOT act and supreme court rulings like Citizens United that I cannot imagine it will even make it onto their radar screen. Owen
