Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality, Says FCC Lacks Authority.
An anonymous reader writes "According to a report from Gizmodo, a U.S. Appeals Court has invalidated the FCC's Net Neutrality rules. From the decision: '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.' Could this be the final nail in the coffin for Net Neutrality? Or will the FCC fight back? This submitter really, really hopes they fight back..."
See what happens when leftists are left with their hands in the cookie jar? Fraud, abuse of power, general asshatedness.
It's past time to just classify them as common carriers and stop trying to make an end-run around the rules.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
There's a comment in the article stating that the court found the FCC regulations are not needed because consumers have a choice in broadband providers. That argument always make me shake my head. I have one broadband option - Comcast. Verizon FIOS isn't here. I suspect most people are actually in the same boat as me. There really is no viable broadband option to my local cable provider. Who/where are these people that have these so-called choices?
It's dead, it died years ago.
smallwebsite.ext cannot be found. Please verify you have bribed your ISP to allow access, and that you have typed the domain correctly.
If you are still having trouble, try being a larger corporation again later.
Nuff said.
The free market, especially in the broadband sector, has shown time and again, across all state lines, through cities, and in local neighborhoods, to be a fair, equal-service provider to all customers.
When I had Cox Cable, and they were the only provider available other than Dial Up, i was treated with respect, my calls were answered promptly, and my network node was NOT overloaded for months.
As soon as Verizon FIOS moved in, however, it was hell. Prices doubled, speeds were cut to 1/5th what they used to be, and service calls took 2 weeks longer to get answers on...
I, for one, wish they'd bring back the monopoly carrier. At least then I was treated fairly. I mean, just look at what Google is doing -- they moved in, and prices went up 3-4x ! and the speeds are 10x slower!
Hello AOL days again.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The FCC won't fight back, in fact this result was probably the intention along.
Prior to joining the FCC, Chairman Wheeler was Managing Director at Core Capital Partners, a venture capital firm investing in early stage Internet Protocol (IP)-based companies. He served as President and CEO of Shiloh Group, LLC, a strategy development and private investment company specializing in telecommunications services and co-founded SmartBrief, the internet’s largest electronic information service for vertical markets. From 1976 to 1984, Chairman Wheeler was associated with the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), where he was President and CEO from 1979 to 1984. Following NCTA, Chairman Wheeler was CEO of several high tech companies, including the first company to offer high speed delivery of data to home computers and the first digital video satellite service. From 1992 to 2004, Chairman Wheeler served as President and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
They want this so badly since its a game changer for the ones who have $$$ lets hope FCC have the power to go against this ruling.
we hardly knew you!
It sounds like this is a technicality because the FCC's rules are inconsistent with law. They need to fix them.
I am reposting this comment by "CakeStapler" from GizModo because it explains it well:
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.
(Emphasis mine)
So, the FCC will remove their exemption from treatment as common carriers, reenact the regulations, and there's nothing to see here. 20 minutes ago
Everyone gets unlimited data provided they go to an approved closed garden.
Other sites will be accessible at insane rates. Torrenting will be destroyed.
The Internet was fun while it lasted....
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
And solve this problem for good?
can the ISP now block access to commercial VPN providers in the USA?
Oh well, with NSA, GCHQ, and the Chinese stealing whatever they can from the 'net plus the Facebook/Google+ integration throughout all websites, it was only a matter of time.
The name "Net Neutrality" was always a sales tool to lure suckers into supporting it.
It was ALWAYS a tool to impose government control over the internet. It started out with a few harmless things, some seemingly beneficial, but with the end goal of more government say into how ISP's managed networks.
After the Snowden revelations, who among you wants ANY government say as to how ISP's should manage or route traffic? Anyone??
And all that to solve a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. There has NEVER been a single issue with ISP's that Net Nutrality regulations would have prevented away! So why have a useless regulation that increases costs for ISP's and gives the government a toehold into network management? It's nuts to support this in any way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I was reading an article that says Google is going to move into the travel price search bussiness (thus destroying SABRE, and Expedia, and Orbitz). The airlines are excited since the fewer fees they pay the more differences in efficiency contribute to the price. IN both cases google is able to compete with professional bussinesses in this area because they are getting paid from advertising and selling customer data, while the travel companies earn money from fees. so google can do it for "free", and thus wins.
SO what does this have to do with todays topic. Well this:
Which is better in your opinion, broadcast TV, which pays for itself with Ads. or Cable TV which soaks you heavily each month? It's not just that cable has more or better content. Even in the early days, before there was a lot specialized productions for cable, the draw was a lack of ads.
If net neutrality goes away, then we are going to the cable company model. a few conclomerates will offer suites of services. people like google may even have to pay to offer their wares. (that's a given--- everyone has to pay the gate keeper in some way when there's not competition).
But will this be bad-- would you rather have ad driven content that is "free", or curated content that is paid for by you or the seller.
for cable TV apparently people like the curated paid model. So why not on the internet?
uh isp's were already throttling competing video services while not counting their own service against the throttle allowances.
that is quite simply the whole reason for the whole debate.
imagine if google as an isp would throttle netflix unusable and just allowing google video - or throttling bing search unusable. that's the scenario.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It was ALWAYS a tool to impose government control over the internet.
Yeah, it's not like the government had control over the Internet before. Except for:
- when it was run by the Department of Defense for the early part of its existence
- when it was opened up to the public by then-Senator Al Gore and placed under the jurisdiction of the FCC
- when they paid AT&T to build and improve the network
- when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton tried to stop all Internet pornography
- when the FBI created Echelon under the Clinton administration
- when Admiral Poindexter started the Total Information Awareness project in 2001
- when the NSA cooperated with Google and AT&T and Verizon and a bunch of other major corporations to spy on everybody..
So clearly Net Neutrality was the thin wedge that was going to give government control of the Internet, right?
I am officially gone from
I for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.
The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be plausible.
You haven't seen any cases because there was this thing called "Net Neutrality" that wouldn't let the things "Net Neutrality" protects you from happen.
No, "Net Neutrality" means "Keep the laws going that were in place before".
The laws, unlike many, had a sunset clause, and the sun set, and the law was still definitely needed, so they had to make laws to put the regulations back in.
THIS IS FUCK ALL to do with "a tool to impose government control over the internet.", the only tool here is YOU.
Over the years there have been two competing versions of "net neutrality" -- the one that favors content producers / distributors, and the one that one that favors consumers.
Which one is this story about?
No Net neutrality was a actually good and is kind of the opposite of what you're saying.
The key is here:
'Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers'
The commission was corrupted by the RIAA/MPAA to make ISPs different to common carriers, as that makes them responsible for the actual data they pass. So now the RIAA/MPAA can act as the censors of the whole internet and make all ISPs have to prevent access to any data or site they alone decide is 'undesireable', which amounts to anything from business competitiors like the Pirate Bay etc.
You trolling me? Net Neutrality was preventative to say that it never stopped anything is like saying that stoplight never stopped anyone from T-boning someone. It didn't happen because the FCC didn't allow it to. I believe most if not all the major ISP's were hoping to have a tiered system and have been saying so for years. It's well documented their lobbying on the matter.
As for the Snowden bullshit do you think for a second that just by not having net neutrality corporations are not going to hand over information to the NSA? Government is going to be involved in data traffic regardless of who is the carrier and how they handle it. They could care less in that regard. That will change nothing with privacy at all. So why allow companies to fuck everyone over with their large oligopoly.
So, if they aren't common carriers based on this ruling, does that mean that they are now liable for all the traffic that passes over the network including child porn or other illegal materials?
Reagan was a RINO (Republican In Name Only) by today's standards.....
Corporations are legal fictions that are run in the manner that the government allows them to be run. Is putting them in charge of the Internet better?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
What part of full spectrum corporate domination don't you get? It's oligarchies all the way!
There were NO problems before the FCC introduced the rule. How do you explain that Einstein?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
uh isp's were already throttling competing video services while not counting their own service against the throttle allowances.
WRONG.
ISP's were throttling ALL traffic equally, while sometimes offering local content that didn't get throttled BECAUSE IT WAS LOCAL.
Can you not understand why from a technical sense it is perfectly reasonable to offer local content unthrottled, when all content coming from external pipes has a cap?
That's just how networks work. Or it is until the government says you have to throttle local content to match the remote stuff. That is WORSE for consumers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Net Neutrality was another backdoor into internet systems the NSA was attempting to put into place. Many of those items on the list are indeed bad, so why are you pushing for yet ANOTHER example of the government trying to screw with our internet to add to the list?
Yes the government was involved in the internet early on but it quickly moved past that. When you launch a rocket do you also carry into space the scaffolding that holds up the rocket? No, the scaffolding falls to the side because its part of the job is done Government is like scaffolding clinging to the rocket as it ascends, trying it's damnedest to bring the thing back to earth because halting progress is all it knows.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"So you want corporations to control the Internet?"
Between them and the government, yes.
Because there is only ONE government. If you don't like it, too bad.
If a company operates in a way that you dislike - you use a different company. Unless of course, the government prevents you from having choice as they do with cable monopolies... But there's always DSL or even wireless options.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
O rly? I use the cableco's VoIP? No cap. Vonage? Cap. I use Windows, updates don't count against the cap, Linux or OSX? Cap. I use their PPV? No cap. netflix? Cap.
Sorry but THE ENTIRE REASON that anybody started talking about NN was the ISPs WERE ALREADY BONING US and walling of as much as they could. More and more of the USA now has caps and if you were to bother to look just a liiiiittle bit closer? they ALL punish you for not using THEIR services.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This is all moot. if tcp/ip would allow to SIMPLY be connected to multiple "ISPs", then we could all do routing.
but as it is, 99% of users live their lives as a cule-de-sac.
so my neighbor has isp A and i have both A and B, why not let me route traffic for him?
we are so aversed to sharing our wifi, but in reality the "endpoints" should really start peering amongs each other.
no more "spoke-wheeled" internet, but a real mesh?
-
to wit: yes, tcp/ip can do routing but that's "carrier grade" tech and hardly ever seen in "consumer" gear.
Netflix should very loudly sue all of the major ISPs in the states, asking the court to affirm its right to reach its users at the same rate content-partners (or other business units) of the ISP pay.
They should make all sorts of noise about anti-competitive practices, damage to the Internet, corruption and bribery, lack of last-mile competition, lack of common-carrier status, etc.
They wouldn't win any judgments, but at least they could provide exposure and coverage in mainstream media so more of the population would grasp what's at stake here.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
They consider Verizon Wireless a competitor. Which is bullshit because Comcast and Verizon Wireless advertise each others' services. Competitors rarely do this. This is of course aside from the obvious reason that it is physically impossible for wireless broadband to come anywhere close to the quality of landline cable or fiber.
But you probably know by now that they don't actually believe their own arguments. Debating their validity with them is a waste of energy because this is not a symptom of their poor judgement but rather of corruption--we live in a plutocracy. It's only going to get worse, and Americans are so misinformed that there's a chance they won't ever realize how bad they've got it.
If you want real competition any time soon, the only choice you have is to move somewhere else--for instance, Europe. You'll probably be happier there anyway.
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if Amazon Prime and Netflix streaming videos are further bandwidth limited in the near future by ComCast/Xfinity, Time Warner and other carriers. Why not, since they directly compete with Streampix and other ISP On-Demand movie services?
If you assault people, you might get shot.
I generally operate under this belief where I live.
Who handed authority over the international networks to the US Federal Government?
Money > Common sense.
With the head of the FCC a former cable lobbyist you can be assured that consumers will now suffer.
There are thousands of corporations, and not a single one of them is accountable to the public.
All of them are. If they do something the government dislikes, the public stops using them.
Witness the latest Target breach. Millions stopped shopping there and Target was (rightfully) forced to take numerous steps to draw people back in.
A grocery store near where I lived stopped carrying a lot of things I liked to buy. So I stopped shopping there.
Basically any company that has customers, is accountable and will self-regulate based on customer feedback.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Time for a change.org campaign. Not to mention for Congress to get off their asses and work FOR the people, NOT the corporations.
Though the ISP could throttle, demand a ridiculously expensive network usage fee to make the service unaffordable or even block services all together such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime, I doubt they would. Any of those services would likely sue the ISP for anti-competitive practices.
Administrative Procedure is the kind of thing that makes even most lawyers go to sleep. From my brief review it appears that the court thinks that the FCC does not have an internally consistent logic for the treatment of the broadband carriers within the statutory limits set for it by Congress.
It could well be right. That court does practically nothing else but review the actions of administrative agencies. It is very good at doing that.
Not that Congress can do anything useful about anything. Which is another way of saying it cannot break things even more badly if you look at the bright side.
What's worse for consumers is the conflict of interest involved in the situation you describe existing in the first place. If the FCC were doing its job, ISPs wouldn't be allowed to be content distributors.
For congress to MAN THE F UP and give the FCC the power it needs.
So, because no ISP was violating the net neutrality rules, the net neutrality rules aren't needed.
Uh-huh.
Actually, Net Neutrality is cheaper for ISPs. They have to treat every packet the same way. That takes less hardware, software (and thus money) than inspecting each packet, determining who it is from and who it is going to, looking up the server and the customer in their "tiered Internet" database and then either delaying or blocking the packet.
While your government conspiracy theories are vaguely entertaining, you should be aware you have utterly no clue about the subject at hand.
We knew this day was coming.
Nobody made the US the center of the Internet.
Pull the plug.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There were also no problems while the FCC introduced the rule. So what is your point?
Do you know what the ISP's want to do? They want to make teirs for services like cable and have you pay extra for say streaming netflix services. They could block access to youtube unless you pay the bill.
So? That's how markets work you pay tolls to go places and you pay for goods and services.
What this ends up doing is hurting the openess of the internet. You are so worried about having gov. influence in your service that you didn't even consider corp. influence? Your ISP has a streaming service that they want you to buy into. It's not as good as netflix or amazon prime so they can't compete. So instead they mark up the price of being able to connect to those services instead of subsidizing their own. It closes pathways on the internet and even if you do work around it can cause lag time.
It's not to say that it would happen but it has been suggested by the gentlemen at AT&T and Time Warner.
Now having the net neutrality laws in place what did that do? Maybe it jacked up the price that some ISP's offer their services at, though I highly doubt that. But what it did was keep all of those channels open and not filter things out. They couldn't prevent access to competing systems for a toll.
The reason there wasn't a problem before is because they were doing something crazy, like future proofing the internet from ISPs trying to muck up the openess of the internet. Streaming, gaming, facebook and so much more is now a part of our lives that an open internet for all is very important. It would be like having the great wall of china but instead it's instituted by the Corp. and they block or limit content they don't want you to have.
So I might not be Einstein but the implications of removing net neutrality could be very consequential to everyone.
I can't say it enough.
Line sharing, line sharing, line sharing.
From a 2009 Ars Technica article:
"...mandating "open access" to broadband networks works really, really well as a way to boost speeds and lower costs."
Link
If ISPs want to experiment with data-caps and pay-to-play systems, let them. If there's 10 ISPs in town they can all offer different packages. Competition and market-forces will do the rest.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
been nice knowin ya.
i betcha the fcc didn't put much, if any, effort into defending themselves here, given that their current boss used to (still does?.. hush hush! under the table, plox) lobby for the cable companies.
The "conservatives" believe in letting powerful people do whatever they want even if---especially if---it results in a less free market.
Free market requires pricing transparency and low-friction competitive substitutability.
At its core, the ideology is simple: they believe in wielding government power for the benefit of the powerful and against wielding government power for the benefit of the less powerful.
So, if you are correct, locally cached Youtube, etc. content (Akmai caches and the like) should only count against the cap of the very first person who brings that into the cache. That is obviously not true.
You are missing what they are actually saying. If I have a cap of 250Gb of traffic per month, viewing something from Netflix/HBO counts toward the cap. Viewing something from a service run by your provider does not count towards that cap. This essentially means that you have limited Netflix/HBO but unlimited 'Warner' or 'Comcast' or whatever. Also, bandwidth is bandwidth: if Netflix can push 1080p out to me, why should I have to accept 720p from them while still able to get 1080p from the local cache?
Additionally, you would think that Netflix/HBO stuff would be locally cached due to the likelihood that a bunch of people would want to watch the same show/movie around the same time.
There were also no problems while the FCC introduced the rule. So what is your point?
There were problems, it cost the ISP's extra to comply with. Furthermore it provided a path for the government over time to impose more and more restrictions on how the ISP's managed networks. The real problems came later.
Leave your car unlocked today, there might not be a problem. Do it every day and over the years there will be problems.
If something is useless, then why do it? Why spend the money to do it? Why make others spend money to deal with the pointless thing?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And never will be able to.
From official statement from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) this ruling is a "victory for jobs and innovation." See http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/upton-walden-applaud-court-decision-favor-internet-free-government-control.
will someone please take a big huge shit in this judge's mouth while someone else wires his mouth open?
- when the NSA coopted Google and AT&T and Verizon and a bunch of other major corporations to spy on everybody..
FTFY... When some goon with a gun (even if it is a gun shaped like a law) points it at you and says "hand over the goods", you've only got two choices: obey or not. Your prospects for an immediate future are severely limited with one of those choices.
And if you obey often enough, it becomes habit.
With these rules struck down, it opens the door for people to pay extra to prioritize content that needs a faster connection, while overall saving money on service.
For example, I could theoretically pay extra to make sure all of the streaming video sites I use would not get choppy, or could deliver higher quality feeds - but for the rest of the service I could just pay a fee for a much slower connection.
For Slashdot users that would not work, but for most people you could do with a medicare browsing speed as long as video still looked good. For most people that would be cheaper rather than having to pay for a really fast connection just so streaming video speed was acceptable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Where they knew those commodities were toxic, so they insured themselves against the eventual meltdown- netting them another few billion for a self inflicted minor wound.
I can use Comcast, or I can use Xfinity.
Or I can use a wireless point-to-point that will give me an incredible 64kb/sec! If I had the money for the hardware, I might consider it. Gotta be better than the suck-ass bandwidth Comcast gives out here.
7 competitors in a major metro would be nice.
7 competitors in a rural small town would be 7 companies starving to death.
methinks you have not checked the markets very well.
Eggar: "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."
bug: "I find your proposal acceptable."
netflix lost a lot of content to license holders who wanted more money. they were making money where none had existed before- but got greedy and demanded profit-breaking amounts when contract renewal came up. Now they make none again and I have to watch them from torrents instead of paying for them like I was.
But the ISPs are saying that the last mile is congested. You're claiming that the issue is the trunk, not the last mile. The cheaper part of being an ISP is the trunk, it is cheaper than the last mile. To say "local content" is cheaper, is false in many situations. Once you get to a certain size, it is cheaper to pay for transit for Netflix traffic than it is to use one of their local CDNs. It's easy to scale bandwidth, it's much harder to scale a datacenter.
Time to re-enable "dialup" and wrap torrents in the unlimited voice band of my package.
A little more patience is needed, but something is better than nothing.
Tortious interference of contract and tortious interference of business lawsuits from Netflix and related companies should knock the shit out of the ISPs.
No big deal. Lawsuits will work this one out.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
- when Admiral Poindexter started the Total Information Awareness project in 2001
It's always hard to remember this isn't sarcasm—that's his actual name: Admiral John Poindexter.
Maybe it's just my generation.
Have you become acquainted with the new head of the FCC. 'nuff said.
it's a chance to fix the glitch and reclassify them as common carriers
Common carriers were created because it's a valuable enabler. Jesus. Does it need to be explained that giving up on the idea of a "commonwealth" will ultimately degrade your civilization.
Canada's looking pretty good.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
The whole point is that the FCC has no power over the "broadcast" companies... cable providers are like T.V. stations not Telecoms, at least as far as the current classification stands.
The last mile is essentially a one off cost if you are using your own infrastructure. There is the occasional repairs due to failed equipment and backhoe / tree branch fade. These costs are essentially bandwidth independent. As technology changes you have the occasional replacement of head end equipment to support new line protocols over the existing cabling. The costs of upgrading head end equipment can often be absorbed into the maintenance budget by replacing failed components with components that have newer functionality.
The trunks are a recurrent which continually need to be upgraded to meet the increasing aggregate usage of all the customers either by replacing the optics or lighting more fibres which may involve trenching. For trunks there are also transit costs.
Data centres are a bit like both. The bandwidth is essentially free but there are huge costs when you exceed the physical capacity.
Well in some sense if they kept it to that it would be ok. Ie the local cable company should be able to provide cable television style services to their local customer base more efficiently than someone else who just wants to piggy back on the wires the cable company paid for. Now the problems come if instead of just passing on cheaper local services to the customer due to efficiency they go and make competing services run slower or add a surcharge or treat two independent entities differently.
Except that practically speaking, the big name ISPs were the content providers even before they were ISPs. Ie, cable companies control much of the content, but because they also built out a large chunk of cable infrastructure they ended up being the first broadband ISPs. The original infrastructure was not build to allow internet but to deliver content.
at this time, it is plain that the 'left' of US politics favors Net Neutrality.
why do people blame Obama or the 'left' for a decision like this? i understand it was a conservative-appointed court, but that's what **conservative** courts **do**...they rule against 'left' or liberal policies
the false equivalence comes in when the response to a dumb criticism is to say, "Oh, ah well, there all a bunch of crooks"...it's bullshit...there are votes on policies we can track. the 'left' or 'liberal' party, especially the progressive part of that party have consistently favored Net Neutrality. That is a fact.
Republicans have consistently opposed Net Neutrality. That is a fact.
second, I've traveled through Europe and Asia before and after 9/11 and while of course the US 'conservatives' would freak out at what their Continental counterparts, especially UK 'conservatives', consider good policy...yes this is true. however in the 21st Century globalism really has taken hold, and those distinctions are fading. Conservatism in the US (and Canada!) is as abusive and evil as Apartheid Africa. They mathmatically work out how abusive can be to maximize profits.
If you favor Net Neutrality, in the US Democrats are the only choice. The progressives of the Democratic party are the only organized group of politicians advocating pro Net Neutrality policies. This is a legislative fact.
Thank you Dave Raggett
What on earth is wrong with you people. You're usually so rational.
Don't you realize that the only power the government has is force? Don't you realize that everytime you grant them power they sell it to the highest bidder and fuck you with it? You are the 'target' and 'adversary'. YOU.
Don't you realize that there is no such thing as a 'government'? It's an abstract, fictional entity that masks the foul psychopaths that rule over you.
Liberty.
Left has NOTHING to do with "big states, in redistribution of income, in welfare programs". The "big state" and "redisctribution of income" is a shibboleth of merkins who have been propogandised by the cold war rhetoric of those evil reds under the bed.
And isn't that bullshit about "trickle down economics" and "job creators" you nurbar rightwingers keep bleating on about ENTIRELY about "redistribution of income"?
Presidential candidates are not the only ones that get money from big corporations to finance their campaings. Judges are worse cause they do it just to become rich. Corruption in the U.S. is Taboo and until we recognize it does exist here as much as in other countries, we will be kept in the dark thinking that what politicians and judges in this country decide, is for the good of the people when in reality if for the good of their own pockets and economic status.
Communication corporations like AT&T and Verizon know thast the future of communications is the Internet, so they want to have total control of it now so that in the future they have a new form of monopoly, which will be impossible to destroy. Governments will be able to shutdown any website they want just by asking those same communication companies to do it on their behalfs using a simple excuse as "the owner of the website did not pay his bills" or stupid excuses as that one
Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers".
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
Just fired up my old BBS system in the basement. I should have hundreds of users within a few months posting messages and trading information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system
The different companies have the same motives and act the same way. They tend to collude with each other when they have a common interest.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
That is not a lot of payback for what they put their customers through.
Why not? Most customers if they had anything happened, just called and got a new number. The customers didn't have much exposure, almost all card carriers do not charge you for a new card nor for fraudulent charges. 2% of sales for a company like Target is still a pretty massive number.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley