tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post7215149372960678329..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Roe is a distraction. The real problem is much, much worse.Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-80813358035237877872018-07-17T08:58:52.831-07:002018-07-17T08:58:52.831-07:00@Publius:
Kavanaugh's dissent and the concurr...@Publius:<br /><br />Kavanaugh's dissent and the concurring opinion both state arguments against each other, yes. You apparently find Kavanaugh's arguments more convincing; I don't. At the crucial points, I see Kavanaugh quoting out of context and distorting what he quotes, and failing to address crucial criticisms. I don't see the concurring opinion doing that.<br />Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-23953437190069090702018-07-16T23:24:23.162-07:002018-07-16T23:24:23.162-07:00> Well, that simply argues that "net neutr...<br />> Well, that simply argues that "net neutrality legislation" is not needed, as the internet has stayed neutral for 30 years without it.<br /><br />No. Times have changed. The net was neutral before because that was more profitable. But now that has changed. Just as aviation regulations were not needed when the airplane was first invented (because there just weren't Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-61446202506649174022018-07-16T22:46:18.396-07:002018-07-16T22:46:18.396-07:00Bonus: He's Got That Covered, Too Part 4
@Pet...<b>Bonus: He's Got That Covered, Too</b> Part 4<br /><br />@Peter:<br /><i>>I read the actual dissenting opinion pointed to: basically he appears to think that making ISPs common carriers is unconstitutional. If this were true, I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to the phone companies.. . .</i><br /><br />Kavanaugh counters the "phone companies" argument in footnote Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-47161586884145307752018-07-16T22:33:52.136-07:002018-07-16T22:33:52.136-07:00The Regulation Of A Wholey Different Character Par...<b>The Regulation Of A Wholey Different Character</b> Part 3<br /><br />To the argument that ISPs that advertise they do not carry all content would not be subject to the 'net neutrality' regulations:<br /><br />Kavanaugh also addresses the concurrenece in the denial (footnote 8, p. 97):<br /><i>"The concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc seems to<br />suggest that the net Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-75457949976154983322018-07-16T22:31:14.042-07:002018-07-16T22:31:14.042-07:00The Mysifying Circle Part 2
@Peter:
>Regarding...<b>The Mysifying Circle</b> Part 2<br /><br />@Peter:<br /><i>>Regarding the second argument (that ISPs have a First Amendment right to control content):</i><br /><br />>"[T]he net neutrality rule applies only to “those broadband providers that hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits” to any internet content of a subscriber’s own choosing."<br /><br /><i>In other Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-65252355567527407352018-07-16T22:27:31.637-07:002018-07-16T22:27:31.637-07:00The FCC Torpedos Itself Part 1
@Peter:
>Regard...<b>The FCC Torpedos Itself</b> Part 1<br /><br />@Peter:<br /><i>>Regarding the first argument (that Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule):</i><br /><br />>"[T]he Supreme Court, far from precluding the FCC’s Order due to any supposed failure of<br />congressional authorization, has pointedly recognized the agency’s authority under the governing Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-17448624231778254522018-07-16T21:41:15.601-07:002018-07-16T21:41:15.601-07:00Reversal of Fortune Part 2
@Ron:
>> Really?...<b>Reversal of Fortune</b> Part 2<br /><br />@Ron:<br />>> Really? I've read your blog for years without net netrality.<br /><br /><i>No, you haven't. The internet has always been open and neutral since its inception, even if it was not legally required to be until recently.</i><br /><br />Well, that simply argues that "net neutrality legislation" is not needed, as the Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-37560057401203403132018-07-16T21:40:42.896-07:002018-07-16T21:40:42.896-07:00Reversal of Fortune Part 1
@Ron:
>> The FCC...<b>Reversal of Fortune</b> Part 1<br /><br />@Ron:<br />>> The FCC did not make an argument about ISPs possessing market power in a relevant geographic market as justification for net neutrality.<br /><br /><i>If that's true (I don't know) it was an oversight. </i><br /><br />You don't know? I just told you. It's on page 106 of <a href="https://goo.gl/KoOJTX" rel="nofollow">Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-82533254525361211392018-07-15T22:26:33.405-07:002018-07-15T22:26:33.405-07:00@Publius:
Now go read the concurring opinion in t...@Publius:<br /><br />Now go read the concurring opinion in the case from which you're quoting Kavanaugh's dissent, which refutes each of his arguments:<br /><br />https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf<br /><br />Regarding the first argument (that Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-63006227920185602812018-07-15T10:11:27.413-07:002018-07-15T10:11:27.413-07:00@Publius:
> Bans on abortion are social progre...@Publius:<br /><br />> Bans on abortion are social progress. You know, respecting the sanctity of human life, life instead of death, all that good stuff.<br /><br />That might be true if the idea that life begins at conception were scientifically defensible or a long-standing tradition among evangelicals, but it is neither. It is a long-standing tradition among *Catholics* (and even there &Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-85827528030957682852018-07-15T01:52:59.140-07:002018-07-15T01:52:59.140-07:00The Real Problem? Part 4
The FCC advanced two argu...<b>The Real Problem? Part 4</b><br />The FCC advanced two arguments as to why the <i>Turner</i> decisions do not apply:<br /><br />1. Many ISPs do not actually exercise editorial discretion to favor some content over others. For that reason, the FCC contends it can prevent them from exercising editorial discretion.<br /><br /><i>I find that argument mystifying. The FCC’s “use it or<br />lose it” Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-11049591058675875772018-07-15T01:52:18.989-07:002018-07-15T01:52:18.989-07:00The Real Problem? Part 3
Kavanaugh comments on the...<b>The Real Problem? Part 3</b><br />Kavanaugh comments on the effect of the <i>Turner</i> decisions:<br /><i>The Court’s ultimate conclusion on that threshold First<br />Amendment point was not obvious beforehand. One could<br />have imagined the Court saying that cable operators merely<br />operate the transmission pipes and are not traditional editors.<br />One could have imagined the Court Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-44674196860218992432018-07-15T01:51:30.570-07:002018-07-15T01:51:30.570-07:00The Real Problem? Part 2
Kavanaugh's dissent
...<b>The Real Problem? Part 2</b><br /><b><a href="https://goo.gl/KoOJTX" rel="nofollow">Kavanaugh's dissent</a></b> <br />Kavanaugh gives two arguments on why the FCC cannot impose net neutrality<br />1) Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. [p. 73, 75-91]<br /><br />2) The net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment [p. 74,91-106]<br /><br /><i>The Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-35264886088848012262018-07-15T01:48:56.867-07:002018-07-15T01:48:56.867-07:00The Real Problem? Part 1
>Kavanaugh has expres...<b>The Real Problem? Part 1</b><br /><br /><i>>Kavanaugh has expressed the view that internet service providers have a first-amendment right to exercise editorial control over the content they deliver, and so it is not only wrong as a matter of policy for the government to impose net-neutrality rules, it is unconstitutional.<br /><br />The utter absurdity (to say nothing of the extreme danger)Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-12705310441816175822018-07-15T01:47:19.618-07:002018-07-15T01:47:19.618-07:00Distraction?
@Ron:
>Liberals should not delude...<b>Distraction?</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>Liberals should not delude themselves: Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, whereupon 242 years of social progress will begin to be methodically and deliberately unmade.. . . </i><br /><i>>Roe v. Wade will probably be next to go; even if the court doesn't reverse it outright, they will twist the meaning of "undue Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-67364190482355544162018-07-12T12:41:23.977-07:002018-07-12T12:41:23.977-07:00Don't tell us. Tell your senators. (Seriously,...Don't tell us. Tell your senators. (Seriously, call your senators. We might actually be able to move the needle on this.)Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-89004993779581234782018-07-12T12:39:28.299-07:002018-07-12T12:39:28.299-07:00Btw, when the FCC asked for filings regarding its ...Btw, when the FCC asked for filings regarding its intention to rescind the net neutrality rules, I posted a filing, it's here:<br /><br />https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10427019504580<br /><br />The basic argument I made was that, to anyone who knows how the Internet actually works, the basic service provided by an ISP is obviously a telecommunications service, not an information service. Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-53991300040684987412018-07-12T12:16:02.994-07:002018-07-12T12:16:02.994-07:00here it is
I read the actual dissenting opinion p...<i>here it is</i><br /><br />I read the actual dissenting opinion pointed to: basically he appears to think that making ISPs common carriers is unconstitutional. If this were true, I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to the phone companies. Sheesh. This is worse even than the stuff Ajit Pai has been saying.<br />Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33807031745656044622018-07-11T23:41:17.306-07:002018-07-11T23:41:17.306-07:00@Peter:
OMG, I can't believe I left out that ...@Peter:<br /><br />OMG, I can't believe I left out that link. It was the most important one in the whole piece! I've added it now, but here it is:<br /><br />https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-85491320654041082992018-07-11T20:32:21.376-07:002018-07-11T20:32:21.376-07:00This is not a primary source, but I heard about th...This is not a primary source, but I heard about that <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/10/who_is_brett_kavanaugh_inside_the#transcript" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><br />"And they did that under the theory that when unions bargain, that is a First Amendment matter, and so, therefore, there can be strict restrictions on the union. The same or very similar logic is what Judge cobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04042136876169040477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-81522404984194256102018-07-11T18:54:50.907-07:002018-07-11T18:54:50.907-07:00@Ron:
Brett Kavanaugh has expressed the view the i...@Ron:<br /><i>Brett Kavanaugh has expressed the view the internet service providers have a first-amendment right to exercise editorial control over the content they deliver</i><br /><br />I hadn't seen this one. Can you give a link?Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.com