- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
How can it be a takings issue when it isn't even private property? Particularly when those same corporations have spent such time and effort selling the idea that a license is not the same as property. That's some absurd overreading. And the public airways includes every part of the electromagnetic spectrum used in telecommunications. It's all regulated under the auspices of the federal government. That's why you can't simply start laying down wire and transmitting whatever you'd like on whatever frequency - it would quickly interfere with the existing system. One could argue that the cable itself has inherent value of course, but what that fair market rate would be if it couldn't be used for telecommunications would be fairly debatable. It'd be quite possible to interpret the fair compensation as being the cost of the copper.
It is an eye-rolling proposition to expect people to believe that the only way to interpret "Just Compensation" happens to be in the corporate best interest. There's nothing "just" about an interpretation that goes so clearly against the interest of the public. It's debateable whether the Fifth Amendment should even apply to corporate entities - the entire amendment is talking about the rights and protections of an individual who is accused of a crime. While a certain amount of twisting and stretching is expected when interpreting and applying the Constitution to the modern world, it's admittedly quite ridiculous that we act as though the Takings Clause represents some bulwark against socialism that was appended onto a conceptually unrelated section. "Don't punish people without due process, nor try them over and over, or compel them to testify against themselves, oh and also gently caress commies". It's a fairly obvious case of de-contextual lawyering, and conservatives (whether they be in congress, in the boardroom, or behind the bench) treat it as a cause-celebre for political reasons, not legal ones.
Indeed it's darkly amusing that the clause has been distorted to represent a broad and fundamental protection for the profit schemes of business entities - while the actual criminals and individuals that the Fifth Amendment is nominally about are routinely taken advantage of, their assets seized, and their futures ruined without any compensation at all.
Cable works over cables
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 16:30
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 20:54
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Cable works using radio frequency modulation, not magic.
The public owns the airwaves, not every dielectric
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 17:00
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
This is from a few pages back, but the 'land line' that comes with a three-service package is invariably a VOIP box that you plug into your modem. VOIP using the bandwidth you're already paying for that mysteriously carries a steep monthly fee, sometimes comparable to the cost of actual POTS from a pole to your house.
The reason for this, of course, is to bilk boomers.
How I send fax?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 21:07
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
How do you know any of this? The FCC refuses to release any of the new rules for review. Obama and the FCC have you just where they want you - all the retards cheering 'victory' without having any actual idea what the new rules are. Don't any of you cheerleaders have a problem with this notion of passing rules and/or laws without allowing any public review? I live in the tariff world, we can't do ANYTHING without significant advanced notice, and significant time for public comment. How on earth should the Federal government, the grantor of all your rights, have such a lower standard?
literally, they can't pass rules without public review (5 USC 553), so no, I'm not worried.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 23:24
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
given the impossibility of any substantive legislation in any area passing for at least the next two years if not longer, and given statutory authority to take some, if not perfect, action, I'll take the executive action.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 23:27
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Psssst they could have passed a net neutrality specific bill - admittedly spurred by the FCC's actions, but there were some coming out recently. And quite a few Republicans are interested in a new comms act and have been for quite a while - Upton is the big name in that group.
Also, I will generally agree with you except when the action is to protect against hypothetical harms that haven't actually occurred yet and incurs actual and immediate harms. Which is what this is.
then Congress can still pass a bill
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 23:33
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 20:54
|
|
- WhiskeyJuvenile
- Feb 15, 2002
-
by Nyc_Tattoo
|
Good morning, ISPs. Here are your new rules.
Pardon the hit and run, but 400 pages is a little bit much to take in when I'm already running late.
the rules themselves are pages 283-290 as far as I can tell, and the entirety of the relevant text to net neutrality is as follows:
quote:§ 8.5 No blocking.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.
(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.
§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 13, 2015
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 03:41
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 16:30
