quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, that fuckin asswipe is as worthless and useless as any of your untutored opinions to date.

Since you are incapable of comprehension, cogitation, and even simple working knowledge in this matter, lets go ahead and look at the case:

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

There it is, and we await your vermiformous antics in interpreting page 4 in some way that it does not state what it states.

<snip>
it is popularly known, “net neutrality.” In Comcast Corp. v.
FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010), we held that the
Commission had failed to cite any statutory authority that
would justify its order compelling a broadband provider to
adhere to open network management practices. AfterComcast,
the Commission issued the order challenged here—In re
Preserving the Open Internet, 25 F.C.C.R. 17905 (2010) (“the
Open Internet Order”)—which imposes disclosure,
anti-blocking, and anti-discrimination requirements on
broadband providers. As we explain in this opinion, the
Commission has established that section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative
authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of
broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold,
has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to
promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of
Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at
issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous
circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of
the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial
evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general
authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose
requirements that contravene express statutory mandates.
Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband
providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as
common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits
the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.
Because the Commission has failed to establish that the
anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per
se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the
Open Internet Order.
</snip>

We await massive spouting geysers of stupidity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But, in the opinion the good news is, that if they treat the fuckers as common carriers (which they are authorized to do) then they are inherently authorized to impose net neutrality!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I will repeat what I said, when you shit your pants.   The FCC has the power to reclassify and regulate them as a common carrier.  

That aint just dicta, hell, it aint even ratio decidendi,  that is a holding right there I quoted.  HELD, over and done with.

And it is in response to this bit of asswipe, proving you wrong as per usual:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But, in the opinion the good news is, that if they treat the fuckers as common carriers (which they are authorized to do) then they are inherently authorized to impose net neutrality!!!!!!

..............................
Quote it. Quote the statute that gives them the authority.

In the meantime, heres a link http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40234.pdf

Surely you are not suggesting that its a good thing that government agencies can give themselves sweeping authority that has not been passed into law by the congress & the president?

There is a sweeping authority that has been passed into the law.

There is a statute that says they can do it at their leisure, it is held in a court opinion, that court opinion must be held as precedent by every other lower court, the only one now who can say that is not correct that there is no such law, is SCOTUS, and it is real unlikely that the DC circuit has read a statute that does not exist when holding out law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As you correctly quoted in the bolded section from the Comcast case, the FCC tried to impose net neutrality by classifying Comcasts services as common carrier.