|
hobbesmaster posted:This is a pretty dramatic reading of a ruling that was in effect "You used x authority to issue this rule. You cannot use x authority to issue that rule. If you were hypothetically to use authority y or z or to reclassify ISPs then those rules could be issued." Reading the article, it seems to state that ISPs are controlled as "information services" and not "common carriers." This semantic is controlled by the FCC and is thus unlikely to be changed since they have been completely overrun by regulatory capture. They'll likely state simply that they can't change the classification of ISPs because of tradition. It is actually probably a more important ruling that your dismissal warrants.
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You missed the part where that is one of several options they have to issue the same rules. By "several options" you mean that they have two options: To reclassify ISPs as common carriers, or to argue that an "information service" company still falls under their regulatory oversight for common carriers since the two aren't mutually exclusive. If you are seeing more avenues that are not listed in the WaPo article you should link to it because I'm interested in reading about this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 03:03
|
|