|
Changing the subject back to things that are possible. Would title 2 classification require that sender party pays system, similar to telephone calls, be implemented?
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Kalman posted:So why are you talking about something that is unconstitutional (unless we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing) and has a near-zero chance of passing? The takings clause is extremely unclear on non-physical goods. The "value" that Comcast says they "deserve" would not be handed over with a ribbon. They would more likely be assessed for the physical value of the physical network (hardly anything compared to what they currently pocket from all of us). They would definitely not get the bullshit "we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing" that you invented. quote:The Court has repeatedly held that just compensation normally is to be measured by "the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money. If they wanted to really push it, they could prosecute the $200,000,000,000 fraud case, and stack fees on that. In teh fantasy scenario where the government was pushing this full-force the CEOs would put on a show and then take their
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
karthun posted:Changing the subject back to things that are possible. Would title 2 classification require that sender party pays system, similar to telephone calls, be implemented? I'd like to see it work like water or electricity billing. Pay a tiny per KB amount + what ever silly equipment rental fees are currently paid.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Wait FRINGE, are you saying the government control judges and licenses not corporations?! I believe they've reached a point in Stockholm Syndrome where a different way can't even be imagined. Amarkov posted:What you have to understand is that the model of a "flat" internet, where you can download any information at the speed you pay for, is completely nonsensical. Computer networks, especially large ones built on old infrastructure, simply don't behave that way. ISPs try their hardest to hang little motivational posters over all the technicalities, presenting the abstraction of a single flat internet, but they do not and cannot do a perfect job of it. Level 3 put the cables to the world, they get nothing in your world? I assume Comcast will eventually own them. Did those level 3 dude make a huge mistake? Should they have done the monopoly to users thing like smart business Comcast? Everyone but comcast wasted their time really. Femur fucked around with this message at 07:58 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
karthun posted:Changing the subject back to things that are possible. Would title 2 classification require that sender party pays system, similar to telephone calls, be implemented? Arguably yes, though possibly no, since the sender pays system is an LEC requirement, not a general telecommunications service requirement. Of course, the LEC definition is pretty broad and probably broad enough to cover telcos, especially telcos that offer VOIP services. Even if it did, the FCC would have the authority to forebear applying the requirement if they chose to - of course, the default would still be that the common carrier sender pays system applies if it's foreborn. FRINGE posted:Why are you so desperate to create distracting bullshit fights? Says the person advocating for nationalization of the telcos. (Psst. Look into the WW1 railway nationalization and how they were promised their existing profits for the duration of nationalization. That's the closest comparable example to what you propose. Takings for non-physical assets aren't at all ill-defined in the way you suggest, especially when what's being taken is quite literally their economic use of their profits, one of the per se examples of a regulatory taking for which recompense is required. And the fair market value of a dollar of profit is a dollar. So...)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So why are you talking about something that is unconstitutional (unless we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing) and has a near-zero chance of passing? You can't seriously believe that the Fifth Amendment would stand in the way of a telco nationalization effort. That's ridiculous. There's like a hundred ways around that issue other than defining "Just Compensation for Private Property" as exorbitantly as possible. Most notably, the government could simply cancel all private licenses to the public airways, which it never relinquished its rights to in the first place. Interpreting the Fifth Amendment as being some constitutional pillar of corporate America is a conservative trope and intellectually lazy. Nationalization (of anything) in America is unlikely because no one wants it who is in any position of power. But pretending that there's some fundamental constitutional impediment is as delusional as thinking that George Washington could have had any particular insight into the public policy of 21st century telecommunications. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:the fair market value of a dollar of profit is a dollar. So... An pro-corporate activist court could decide to try and make that stick (our history is full of activist courts doing terrible things), but there is no fundamental reason that anyone should think that is something to worry about at this particular point. (For that matter the successes of the USRA is a strong argument for the nationalization of all major US internet infrastructure.)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Obama ... as usual. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/17/what-to-make-of-obamas-tepid-response-on-net-neutrality/ quote:May 17 Oh noes! Politics and nightmares! quote:The president knows he can't force the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as utilities for the same reasons that Wheeler hasn't already done so himself: It would be a political nightmare, filled with lawsuits and angry lawmakers who hold the FCC's purse strings. Thank god Obama keeps an even keel and has left such a massive legacy of One of the only accidentally decent moments in Scalias life, from about a decade ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/net-neutralitys-little-known-hero-antonin-scalia/361315/ quote:May 16 2014 quote:The problem that the FCC is now facing—the reason it’s talking about “commercial reasonableness”—is all a result of that 2002 regulatory decision to treat broadband Internet like an information product, rather than as electronic infrastructure. The FCC could cling to its decision, attempting (for the third time!) to enforce net neutrality among broadband providers it chooses to regulate as information services.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You can't seriously believe that the Fifth Amendment would stand in the way of a telco nationalization effort. That's ridiculous. There's like a hundred ways around that issue other than defining "Just Compensation for Private Property" as exorbitantly as possible. Most notably, the government could simply cancel all private licenses to the public airways, which it never relinquished its rights to in the first place. Interpreting the Fifth Amendment as being some constitutional pillar of corporate America is a conservative trope and intellectually lazy. Given that the telcos paid for their spectrum licenses in the first place in many cases, canceling the licenses absolutely would present a takings issue (absent, of course, compensation.) And for wired broadband, canceling spectrum licenses would be irrelevant. Nationalization of an industry absolutely presents a Fifth Amendment issue. That's not a conservative trope - it's part of the core of the Fifth Amendment takings prohibition. It's not exorbitant to say that completely removing any economic use for profit above some margin is a taking - there's solid case law that economic interests can be taken (check out 449 US 155), so the proposed "force the telcos into being unable to take profits from their investment" (which is a core case of violating DIBE, which is a key indicator for regulatory takings issues) is targeting a recognized interest in a way that has indicators of takings. Is it guaranteed? No, but I'd bet on the telcos winning that case long before I'd bet on them losing, and it wouldn't be a 5-4 win.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Why are you so desperate to create distracting bullshit fights? He's copying you. BromanderData posted:I'd like to see it work like water or electricity billing. No, it's a good thing we left that poo poo behind. The marginal costs per usage are so minimal that there's no truly fair means of doing this, merely price gouging at hand. The thing to remember is that costs only really arise from simultaneous load overloading distribution from moment to moment - one guy using 500 gigabytes per month constantly over the month (which would be 1.6 megabits per second) causes far less issues and costs than another guy who uses 500 gigabytes a month by just using for 48 minutes a day at a rate of 47.4 megabits per second during peak hours. Definitely unlike water, and mostly unlike electricity, internet capacity isn't a limited resource nor is it a resource where demand needs to closely match consumption in order to ensure stability. There's no inherent need to limit people's use of it in general whereas there's plenty of reasons to incentivize people to use less water and electricity.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Given that the telcos paid for their spectrum licenses in the first place in many cases, canceling the licenses absolutely would present a takings issue (absent, of course, compensation.) And for wired broadband, canceling spectrum licenses would be irrelevant. 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. quote:Nationalization of an industry absolutely presents a Fifth Amendment issue. That's not a conservative trope - it's part of the core of the Fifth Amendment takings prohibition. It's not exorbitant to say that completely removing any economic use for profit above some margin is a taking - there's solid case law that economic interests can be taken (check out 449 US 155), so the proposed "force the telcos into being unable to take profits from their investment" (which is a core case of violating DIBE, which is a key indicator for regulatory takings issues) is targeting a recognized interest in a way that has indicators of takings. 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. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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. Cable works over cables
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Cable works over cables Cable works using radio frequency modulation, not magic.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Cable works using radio frequency modulation, not magic. The public owns the airwaves, not every dielectric
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Yeh, the wireless spectrum and signals through a wire are subject to completely different regulations. Wow.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
The thing is that the vast majority of broadband infrastructure is wireline, including backhaul to all the wireless towers. In order to nationalize, you would thus engage in massive takings of private property.Kaal posted:Cable works using radio frequency modulation, not magic. And what does that have to do with anything you mentioned previously?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
ITT We learn that the FCC can't make businesses apply for broadcast licenses or regulate anything because the internet is magic.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Applying for broadcast licenses wouldn't apply to the majority of internet providers.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Kaal posted:ITT We learn that the FCC can't make businesses apply for broadcast licenses or regulate anything because the internet is magic. The FCC cannot make wireline providers apply for broadcast licenses.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:ITT We learn that the FCC can't make businesses apply for broadcast licenses or regulate anything because the internet is magic. Yes, it magically not broadcast
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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. It was debateable. But it is absolutely settled law that the takings clause applies to corporate entities. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the state of Takings Clause law in the interest of trying to twist it to fit what you want.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The FCC cannot make wireline providers apply for broadcast licenses. It doesn't have to because cable companies were deregulated 30 years ago by Reagan, not because of anything else. It's a huuuuugeee stretch to take that law and imply that it constitutes some fundamental block to FCC oversight of telecommunications. Kalman posted:It was debateable. But it is absolutely settled law that the takings clause applies to corporate entities. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the state of Takings Clause law in the interest of trying to twist it to fit what you want. Ah I see the Constitution was settled in 1789 and then nothing was debateable about it ever again. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It doesn't because cable companies were deregulated 30 years ago, not because of anything else. They were not under broadcast licenses then either, they were under a completely different set of regulations that also almost certainly wouldn't apply outside TV (although at the time, only limited experimentation with transmitting just data was going on)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nationalization of an industry absolutely presents a Fifth Amendment issue. That's not a conservative trope - it's part of the core of the Fifth Amendment takings prohibition. It's not exorbitant to say that completely removing any economic use for profit above some margin is a taking - there's solid case law that economic interests can be taken (check out 449 US 155), so the proposed "force the telcos into being unable to take profits from their investment" (which is a core case of violating DIBE, which is a key indicator for regulatory takings issues) is targeting a recognized interest in a way that has indicators of takings. The public is still half enraged over the trillions in stealth banker handouts. Any text that went above and beyond the law to ensure profits and hand back an improved and rebuilt (public) structure to a bunch of greedy shitbags would be met with extremely vocal opposition. (Probably including Amazon, Google, etc...) Plus, they could also legally consider in a formal Temporary Usage, and wrangle that into a perpetual cycle. The companies could still profit from theri business as they see fit while the physical structure of the internet was being used to provide service to the nation. This would eventually starve the corporations out and legal witchcraft could be concocted to then seize the infrastructure for the public good. (Granted this is even less likley than the original discussion.) (This is not even addressing the fact that a lot of the infrastructure is passing through/over/under land that is not owned by the companies. Your defense of their "property" rights based on the 5th is on shaky ground several layers deep.) For the general discussion: quote:The general rule is that “just compensation” means that the government must pay fair market value for the property that was taken. Fair market value is not the same thing as the value that the owner places on the property or the amount that the property is actually worth to the owner. You view on the takings clause is so over-reaching I have no idea what you are trying to do other than mis-inform the audience who wont look it up. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Cable works over cables Kalman posted:You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the state of Takings Clause law in the interest of trying to twist it to fit what you want. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Sure. And that physical good(s) has a value. The takings clause addresses that value. (It would be relatively little.) It does not address "the potential profits on services and future services in perpetuity as an eternal free handout" that Kalman is inventing. The value of the required right of way and an actual physical connection to every home in a metropolitan area is "relatively little?" So why exactly is it so hard to start a competitor up? (It isn't franchise agreements. Digging up everything is expensive and hard.) It's not an eternal free handout. You're only obligated to recompense the profits for so long as you control the use of the profits but don't operate the company yourself. You only get a full payout of FMV if they actually take your property; in your hypothetical, where the profits are taken by regulation but the company still operates itself, the taken property is the profits. So long as the regulation persists, then the appropriate FMV would be lost profit, or alternately, the diminution in value due to a profit cap (which, uh, kinda severe). To be very, very clear: I cited SCOTUS precedent saying non-physical assets are within the scope of the Takings Clause. Put up countervailing law or shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
This is the kind of idiotic mentality about the nature of government that leads to brokedick idiots like Cliven Bundy thinking that they are somehow immune to the law because regulations cut into their profit-margin. Guess what, pot farmers have their business regulated too but you don't see the government handing out buckets of cash for impinging on their potential profits. It's almost like the whole idea is complete baloney that isn't taken seriously unless it applies to a certain class ...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is the kind of idiotic mentality about the nature of government that leads to brokedick idiots like Cliven Bundy thinking that they are somehow immune to the law because regulations cut into their profit-margin. Guess what, pot farmers have their business regulated too but you don't see the government handing out buckets of cash for impinging on their potential profits. It's almost like the whole idea is complete baloney that isn't taken seriously unless it applies to a certain class ... The proposal wasn't "impinging on potential profits", it was literally "here are the only things you're allowed to do with your actual profits." Do I need to go through the Penn Central factors, as modified over the years, to explain to you how that is a regulatory taking of a non-physical asset? Edit: For example, if the hypothetical had been "mandate a maximum wage:minimum wage ratio" there isn't a takings issue. If it had been a corporate income tax of 100% on profits above a specific value, no takings problem. The takings problem is specific to "you may not make more than X profits; any profits over X must be applied to infrastructure or wages."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
I realize this isn't up to D&D standards of sobriety but I just read the thread title as "Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Juggalos on Jan 14th" from the corner of my eye and I thought you guys should know that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The value of the required right of way and an actual physical connection to every home in a metropolitan area is "relatively little?" So why exactly is it so hard to start a competitor up? (It isn't franchise agreements. Digging up everything is expensive and hard.) Maybe I don't understand his proposal, but can you distinguish how taking the cable companies is any different than taking farmland? When the government takes a productive asset, it owes fair value for the asset, not all future revenues that might have been derived from it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Maybe I don't understand his proposal, but can you distinguish how taking the cable companies is any different than taking farmland? When the government takes a productive asset, it owes fair value for the asset, not all future revenues that might have been derived from it. What if the government, rather than taking the land itself, regulated the use of the land such that the farm still has to operate but it's profits could only be used to (e.g.) run a homeless shelter? In that case, how do you evaluate the appropriate measure of what was taken? You can easily value the profits, since they're dollar-denominated; otherwise the appropriate metric is the change in FMV of the unencumbered business in comparison to the encumbered business, which will generally be far more than one years profit (since no one wants to buy something they can't make a profit from.) If they took the companies entire, a profit return wouldn't be appropriate, but his proposal for "soft socialism" wasn't to take the companies but to impose regulation of a profit cap, wage controls, and mandated directed spending of money above the cap. The closest precursor in history is the Railroad Act from WW1 where profits were paid, in part to overcome lingering Taking Clause concerns.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Oh now that youre cornered you want to go back to my original proposal? The thing that does not actually exist and does not have a precedent? If a new legal definition were created without actually invoking eminent domain then your lovely takings clause diversion is even less relevant. Youre just pissing in every direction hoping no one wants to get close to you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
It really is as simple as; we know what we want the internet to do. We know how we want it to behave, and we have a good idea of how we would like it to be priced. All it would take is some real muscle flexing by the FCC and Congress to ensure that this issue died a happy death. This isn't a business argument, or a practical argument, it is a political and ideological argument.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Pohl posted:It really is as simple as; we know what we want the internet to do. We know how we want it to behave, and we have a good idea of how we would like it to be priced. But that has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But that has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. What, internet public policy has nothing to do with net neutrality? That's ridiculous. Of course we're operating under the precept that the world's single biggest communication engine that reaches into the vast majority of American homes and businesses somehow doesn't count as telecommunications and isn't regulated by the FCC, as well as the belief that the American media industry is not a monopoly even though virtually everything is owned by four companies, so we're already living with some pretty ridiculous ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But that has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Sure it does. We could, as a society; create rules that protected, fostered and guaranteed cheap internet to everyone. If we wanted to. The reasons we should do those things are limitless, the reasons we don't are obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:What, internet public policy has nothing to do with net neutrality? That's ridiculous. Of course we're operating under the precept that the world's single biggest communication engine somehow doesn't count as telecommunications and isn't regulated by the FCC, as well as the belief that the American media industry is not a natural monopoly even though virtually everything is owned by four companies, so we're already living with some pretty ridiculous ideas. Yeah things like improving customer speeds, or reducing profiteering, or even upgrading links between networks don't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is an extremely narrow subject. Pohl posted:Sure it does. We could, as a society; create rules that protected, fostered and guaranteed cheap internet to everyone. If we wanted to. The reasons we should do those things are limitless, the reasons we don't are obvious. None of that is net neutrality. If everyone was stuck on loving 9600 baud that cost $5000 a month it would still be net neutrality. Here's a little refresher: network neutrality is that data coming in from another network should not be artificially slowed in speed, nor should it be censored beyond the bounds of existing law. That's it. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:58 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yeah things like improving customer speeds, or reducing profiteering, or even upgrading links between networks don't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is an extremely narrow subject. Holy mother of god take me now.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Holy mother of god take me now. Glad to see you admit you didn't know what network neutrality is, as is typical.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Holy mother of god take me now. If your heart is dark and greedy it will also make you happy to watch the profiteers win another round.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:If your brain doenst work well then all they have to do is use the words: "speeding up the other traffic" instead of: "slowing down your traffic" and then the world is unicorns and rainbows. It's 100% not against net neutrality to allow people to build extra connections to you, sorry that this gets you angry. Also funny to shriek about profiteering for a system that reduces profits for a bunch more companies.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:16
|
|