No.
I meant what I said.

"Salient" was in reference to your claim that "the FCC has regulated the Internet since its inception." If by "has regulated" you meant "has attempted to regulate" then perhaps I'd agree. Otherwise, no.

quote:
The proposed rules are only shifting the regulation from one statutory authority to another

which was a decision about ancillary jurisdiction that didn't even touch on statutory jurisdiction

Not entirely clear. Could you expand and clarify here?

==============

Disagreements surrounding "Net Neutrality" remind me of an exchange in the 1980 New Hampshire GOP primary:

quote:
With the other candidates in single digits, the Nashua Telegraph offered to host a debate between Reagan and Bush. Worried that a newspaper-sponsored debate might violate electoral regulations, Reagan subsequently arranged to fund the event with his own campaign money, inviting the other candidates to participate at short notice. The Bush camp did not learn of Reagan's decision to include the other candidates until the debate was due to commence. Bush refused to participate, which led to an impasse on the stage. As Reagan attempted to explain his decision, the editor of the Nashua Telegraph ordered the sound man to mute Reagan's microphone. A visibly angry Reagan responded, "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!"

In general, it seems net neutrality boils down to a who is "paying for this microphone" equation.

Broadband providers such as Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, etc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to manage their systems to offer premium services. If their business structure is founded in high-def TV, and that was the premise of their network, then they should be able to provide that service first and foremost.

They argue that to do so, it may be necessary to prevent high-bandwidth applications from freely hogging capacity. If high-bandwidth applications require extra capacity, owners of these broadband networks insist there should be an associated charge. On the service, is that an unreasonable request?

Goggle, itself a capacity-hog via youtube, and which has designs on building its own ultra-high capacity network, has sided with the government, and against its broadband competitors. Obviously the various other high-bandwidth capacity hogs, Netflix, Skype, etc. have done the same. They each side with the concept they are entitled to a "free lunch" on the broadband system's tab. Why not?

Ultimately, the issue boils down to design and control of broadband access at municipality level though. Cable companies have, for the most part, been granted local monopolies. That is a problem. In fact, that is the problem. Their capacity, quality, and service are reflective.

Should broadband companies be required to service bandwidth hogs at all costs? No! Nor though should they be granted shields from competition. When a true competitor eventually enters those markets, i.e., fiber carriers, improved satellite services, etc, the game will change. Capacity will be improved. Costs will go down. Competition is the solution.

Now then, how do we best arrive at such a solution? Do we get there by telling new entrants they can spend billions in infrastructure, but the government reserves right to interfere with their service once they've done so? Is that really the best way to encourage new market entrants? I'd argue that it isn't.

Conversely, if it really wants control, the government itself could lay in ultrahigh capacity networks as a national infrastructure project. It could maintain net neutrality over its own network to its heart's content in that case. Of course, for the "you-didn't-build-that, someone-else-did-that-for-you" Obama crowd, actually building something is probably anathema. Given such creative impotence, it is no doubt better to let someone else "build that", then criticize and regulate the results. Hence the desire to "shift the regulation from one statutory authority to another".