Inserting the FCC into our states' economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates state sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The FCC should obviously not propose bad rules that will be struck down; it should propose good rules that will be upheld.
For those broadcasters who are less than responsible, the FCC needs to have sharper teeth to enforce the law.
Almost everything the FCC does is challenged in court. There is no clean solution because we have a Communications Act that wasn't written for broadband.
At its core, the FCC's plan to regulate the Internet will force businesses and people to check first with the government and get permission to innovate.
The FCC can't enforce press-statement principles without adopting official rules, and those rules must be based on the legal theory of reclassification.
The FCC has made it clear it would punish a cable or phone company for deviating from providing 'neutral' access.
Although the FCC has tried to introduce net neutrality rules to avoid abusive practices like favoring your own services over others, they have struggled because there has been more than one court case in which it was asserted the FCC didn't have the authority to punish ISPs for abusing their control over the broadband channel.
The FCC can and indeed should do more to protect the Internet as the free and open environment people have come to expect and depend on - which is why we need to stand up to attacks on the FCC's authority.
Do we really want the FCC to conduct investigations and issue warnings to radio talk show hosts nationwide who simply discuss the important issues of our time? The Constitution says 'freedom of speech,' not 'freedom of government-approved fair speech in rationed amounts.'
Accepting federal funding undermines state sovereignty as states become beholden to federal requirements in order to keep the money flowing.
No opposing quotes found.