|
|
|
|
|
|
by davidp
3073 days ago
|
|
|
This is the problem that a lot of people have with the FCC regulatory approach, specifically abusing Article 2 of the 1996 communications act. Net neutrality is essential for the internet to continue to thrive and flourish as it has done since 1996. But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. But it is not the job of any federal agency to dictate what its own job is to Congress, i.e. in this case the FCC deciding it wants different public policy from what its charter statutes support. Congress sets public policy and determines how much leeway it will delegate to the agencies and the President. Federal agencies (of any stripe) arrogating power unto themselves is undemocratic, even if well-intentioned. So the problem is that Congress has failed to act to block the new abusive behaviors of the ISPs, and we need Congress to write new laws. Personally I think that if sufficient leeway were granted to encourage local competition, all of this and a bunch of other abuses (exhibit A: Comcast customer support) would vanish in a puff of smoke. Side note, I happily donate every month to the EFF, but I believe they are misguided in their support for lawsuits like those announced today. |
|
|
Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition.
> Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world.
And here we are with new telecom behemoths!
Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulations so that Congress is not writing hundreds to thousands of laws at a level of detail that they cannot handle. You might correct that Congress can act in this matter I'm not sure it's inappropriate for the FCC to do so.