Slashdot Mirror
First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive
An anonymous reader writes: A small ISP based in Texas and an industry trade group have become the first to file lawsuits challenging the FCC's recent net neutrality rules. The trade group, USTelecom, argues that the regulations are not "legally sustainable." Alamo Broadband claims it is facing "onerous requirements" by operating under Title II of the Communications Act. Such legal challenges were expected, and are doubtless the first of many — but few expected them to arrive so soon. While some of the new rules were considered "final" once the FCC released them on March 12, others don't go into effect until they're officially published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet.
to not recognize that more government control of the Internet is a good thing.
Says Johnny Cash!
Cry me a river, get off your asses and invest in your old infrastructure.
I would have had first post, but my message was arbitrarily slowed down.
Actually, I don't have to wish. I just have to watch. Government will fuck this up - it always does. In its own special way. My bet is on regulatory capture.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Because Operating under title 2 cost them so much more money than they were making before....
I agree with some of the points of the ISPs. But I also know that these points are either overstated or invalid lies.
The Alamo Broadband complaint reads as follows:
Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is in excess of the Commission's authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is contrary to constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.
That's about as generic as it can get. I don't see it going anywhere.
Nice try, idjots.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Should sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?
Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.
A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).
The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).
With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:
* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?
and
* What are the consequences of not doing this
Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercon...
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"
He believed a revolution was coming.
There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered?
The only reasonable outcome is for government to take control of the infrastructure that is the backbone of the internet and build it out as they did with roads. This is not a communistic viewpoint as free travel spurs commerce while tolls inhibit it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Comcast or at&t?
You know it was one of them.
Well,given that free software is an overly generic term, inclusion within that space is impossible to police.
However, those who provide services for free software distribution may well make decisions regarding those with whom they wish to associate.
Or do you not believe in the freedom to reject others?
who in their right mind modded this up. This is clear flamebait
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You're the reason we can't have nice things.
Excellent, now we get to observe a bunch of 60+ year old men, most of whom have likely never so much as checked their email without an intern or a grandkid watching over their shoulder, try to judge the value of the Internet to American society.
Simple, it has become a political thing. Despite my warnings ( as loud as I could make them but OK not that loud ), to keep arguing it as a nonpartisan issue. THe opponents of net neutrality have an advantage that we who support it do not. Once net neutrality is gone, it will be hard to bring back. The ISP cartel knew this and were fighting very hard for politicization to happen.
Instead of, for example, arguing that this action swaps in one set of regulations for another, ( In fact the old set gave all the power to the ISP cartels, and they took us from #1 internet service to middle of the rtoad. ) some proponents let the ISP cartels make it a political issue. The fact is that some people would rather have Title II as a political argument instead of actually having the ISPs be controlled by Title II.
So here is what will happen, the ISP cartel will tie up the implementation for the next two years in court. Then who becomes President? Hillary? Seems to be imploding right in front of us. John Kerry? The guy who helped bring back the cold war. and Al Queda in the form of ISIS and who couldn't win before? Joe Biden. The guy whose interactions with women is so creepy he makes BIll Clinton seem normal.
here is an interesting fact for you , since World War II there has only been one person elected as President that came from the same party as the sitting President-- Bush (41) (following Reagan).
So we have a Republican, who when the next seat on the FCC comes up names a Republican FCC member who replaces a Democrat. The new Chairman becomes Ajit Pai. Bye bye net neutrality.
it racist For a long term s0rvival
The irony of it all, cable companies don't want government getting in their way and yet they use(lobby) government to get in the way of others(competition). Aren't monopolies illegal in this country?
This sounds like a pre-made lawsuit, something the Kocks would fund. The conspiracy theorist in me says that this suit was just ready to go, probably when the FCC first started talking about net neutrality. This tiny ISP is being used because it's a "small business"...if Comcast / Cox / AT&T filed this it would be even harder to push. And it's no coincidence it's in Texas either. Someone needs to start digging around and find out who is REALLY funding this...as I doubt this ISP is using their own profits to pursue this.
Nope not bye bye. Just another round of lawsuits. From the good guys this time.
And the government created that too. And the government decided eventually that confining the internet to just academia (as the NSFNET was) didn't make sense so they closed down the NSFNET and the main links changed to be commercial instead of government paid.
This period you speak of where the ARPANET was the backbone for a network that was generally used never existed. The NSFNET started out around 1987 and you didn't see any real commercial use of the internet until the early 90s. Even CIX (ANS) came in 1991 with the help of the NSF. After Congress (including Al Gore) passed legislation pushing the NSF to repeal its restrictions on commercial use you saw significant commercial uses take off.
Today's internet is in no way an unintended consequence. It may not have been paid for by the government, but they did design and develop it and were well aware of the possibilities beyond academia.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
That's as asinine as a communist claiming that if you start your own business, it will be a given that you'll dump toxic waste into the river while sexually harassing your secretary. Because other business owners have done that and the communist has an axe to grind.
The government passed regulations on seat belts, lead paint, asbestos, DDT, and of course the FCC which has thus far prevented NBC from trying to edge out ABC with more powerful transmitters. It didn't cause civilization to collapse, capitalism to be banned, or Zombie Stalin to come for your stock options.
Your solution is to let AT&T and Comcast double and triple charge anyone and everyone who connects through their network? GTFO with these Randian clown shoes.
Because Republican voters no more want Comcast double and triple charging for internet access than they want their social security benefits cut. Well, there's also the Randian fools which you can see around this story, but 1) they're idiots with an axe to grind against all things government and 2) are a minority even amongst teabaggers.
Censorship is what the government does. Private individuals are free to engage in editing and may pick and choose what to allow in their own homes or on their own web sites.
ooohhhh my profit margins bwwaaaaaaaa I'm not going to be able to afford a new learjet sob sob sob oh those mean userrs who want internet ITS NOT FAIR bwwwaaaaaaaaa
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You mean choosing to continue most of the Bush Tax Cuts while arguing for years that the corporate tax rate - already at very low levels after deductions - should be cut some more? Randians should move to an island with the Obots and fight it out over who's revisionist history is more delusional.
bush tax cuts expired, if he continued them, they are now his. Funny how that works
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Income tax rate in CA on top incomes is over 50%..
It absolutely is not. The top marginal rate may be above 50% when you consider both state (13.3%) and federal (39.6%) income taxes, but this only applies to persons earning more than $1 million per year, and it does not mean that the government takes more than half your income. It means that the government takes more than half of income earned past the first million. However, in that case, you are probably guaranteed to have a way to reduce your tax burden.
Personally I think you have quite a bit of hubris if you imagine that this information will ever apply to you. I don't want to get too into the topic, but it sounds like your understanding of taxation is limited to, "It's the durn gummint takin our munny!", without an understanding of either the purpose of taxation or how it affects socioeconomic status/societal structure. Maybe a good summary would be that it's inefficient and freedom-reducing when a minority of actors has undue control of a market. It is very useful to these people to portray taxation in a simplistic manner, and very likely against your own interests.
The Republicans were always going to oppose net neutrality. You're blaming the victims here.
I can't speak for Republicans, but for the last decade the FCC has been enemy of technology numero uno. When and how the hell did they become the solution?
Not only that, but there's NO problem that they're claiming to solve with the new rules. The entire ruling and rationale is purely speculative. In particular, they explicitly declined to apply their 'finding' to peering agreements, e.g. Netflix-Cogent-Comcast.
And if the Internet isn't an "information service", what is? They're deploying a massive, unconstitutional power grab, that was unnecessary to begin with: New Neutrality has never failed in court. The ends don't justify the means.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
You're technologically illiterate if you think the FCC has impeded technology. For starters, without regulatory oversight, the airwaves would be an unusable mess.
Yeah, I get the notion that if comcast wants to shake down netflix ("nice packets you got there, shame if they got slowed down by all of your competitors packets") that's bad.
But I don't fully understand how this works practically. For example, lets ignore that Netflix or Google might have its own CDN or peering capability and just think of it as a simple content source. My imagination is that they pay for bandwidth and total data cap in the same sense that I do. That is, Netflix could buy a X gigbit connection or a 10X gigabit connection and there would be some price differential for those. Am I wrong? Assuming I'm not then presumably as it is for me, you don't really get the bandwidth you pay for in the case of ad hoc connection. You only get that under ideal circumstances (such as connecting to speedtest when none of your neighbors are using their connections). So it's not clear to me what Netflix should expect if they buy that. That might be good enough to reach 80% of their customer reliably but some won't ever get a good stream.
But lets say they buy that and Sony buys 10 times as much for their network. Now sony perhaps can eek out a little better performance. some of its network dependent in ways that can't be beaten with more packets from the source, but some things like packet resends and alternative routings might improve things.
So how is this really different than the QOS that comcast wanted netflix to pay for in the first place? One company can pay for more.
Next question is what is QOS. does net nuetrality really mean that the few instance where we do need QOS routing rules that those are now verbotten? Or does it mean that there will be packey kind labels like "video" that get priority for everyone or no one by mutual agreement? If so then presumably no one can charge extra for QOS labels? if you could it seems like a backdoor to paid priority. But if you can't charge more then what prevents me from labeling any packet I send as a priority packet?
Final question is about the fact that something like 35% of your typical cable bandwidth is not internet. It's an RF communincation channel owned by comcast. They use it for their video content. Its not governed by the internet rules. In principle they could stop using it for their content and sell it to sony or netflix or apple or google to use for theirs. So were back to paid priority on a toll road. Comcast so far has said they are leery of that because of the consent agreements they signed when they bought NBC might not allow that. But that's just comcast. AT&T or verizon don't have that restriction. Since both kinds of content enter yout house on the same physical cable any distinction between them is purely virtual
So is this whole no-paid-priority moot?
The thing I worry about is that in order to get the FCC net Neutrality rules the FCC had to agree to not regulate the pricing of internet as well as creating regularoty burdens that will likely act as a barrier to entry. For example, people providing both content and networks (I'm looking at you google) might worry the FCC would start to regulate its content. And so if net neutrality vanishes in virtualization then I just got less than I bargained for in supporting net neutrality.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
That makes an odd amount of sense.
Whoever heard of an asinine, progress retarding lawsuit coming out of East Texas before?
Anyone?
QoS throttles based on port number, Net Neutrality is about NOT throttling based on endpoint identification.
If your network is choked, you can QoS it (or use CIR to apportion the available bandwidth to the amount each user has without overcommittment, irrespective of port number) to throttle each user because download/ftp doesn't matter if it takes 5 minutes longer, whereas video does care. You can also QoS to reject all video packets if congestion is high.
What you can't do is reject or throttle video packets coming from Netflicks and not from Amazon because you're affiliated with Amazon Prime.
What you also can't do is throttle when you don't have congestion. People in Comcast (Canada) were throttling top users all the time 24/7 for being high users, even though their network only saturated for 1% of the time. They did this so that they could force users to buy a more costly package or to make them leave, because they could make more profit selling the bandwidth to 100 grannies for the same price each.
Net Neutrality disallows throttling based on "unfair use" or on destination. QoS isn't disallowed because it;s throttling based on congenstion actually happening and throttles based on packet type, not destination.
Only now that they are Obama's, the Rs employ doublethink (now that's irony) to say they're bad. Kinda like Romneycare was a great idea until Obama implemented it.
"I don't like it! Waaahh! Waaaah!! The FCC is being mean to me! It's not fair!"
I would have preferred Obamacare's single payer. but instead we got a perfect copy of Romneycare.
Republicans are too fucking stupid to see it.
I don't see the double think but maybe you do because you misunderstand where they like government to have power. When I talk with conservatives they like to have government authority and power invested at the state and local levels rather than the federal government. So it is odd to me to suggest that they should have supported Romneycare at the federal level for two major reasons. The first is that Romneycare was passed by a Democrat state legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor and the second is that something done in another state should be done at the federal level and thus forced upon them which is a bit contradictory to their general support for more power at state and local levels and less at the federal level.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
We lose either way in this situation when you think about it. If the FCC regulates the internet it will give the government a way to control it and be abusive. On the other hand if the big ISPs have their way they will continue to abuse customers since they have monopolies in different areas across the country. The only thing that can truly fix this is competition in my opinion. It might be best to let this work itself out in the long run since for example people like Elon Musk want to build a high speed internet service via satellite. He is not the only one since there are other companies working to do the same. Another one is Google if I am thinking right? We already know about their fiber which the big telecoms already hate. Either way I think we run the risk of killing the internet if we try to regulate it to much. I hope I am wrong, and would be very happy to be wrong about this situation.
I can't fathom upon what basis these lawsuits are being pressed. There is no conceivable reason for these litigants to believe they have a right to provide communication services free of regulation from the owner of all means of communications.
The FCC has altered the deal. They should simply prey it is not altered further.
Censorship does not require a government,
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
it is not an unconstitutional power grab.
and it is NOT unnecessary.
there's no problem right now because the internet already functions by and large under the concept of net neutrality.
they aren't fixing a problem, they are setting the current status quo in stone.
it's pre-emptive rule making done precisely because Comcast and its ilk want to violate net neutrality, and have tried to do it in the past.
you are a complete moron.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Removing things you dislike from YOUR OWN website is moderation. You don't have the right to push your beliefs using my property!
Preventing you from pushing your own beliefs in your own space.. that's censorship. Who has the power to do that? governments for sure. I suppose ISPs could do it too. So.. yeah.. I guess you are right, you don't need government to have censorship.
GP was talking about a website though. It's their own business what they do/don't allow there.
Except that they routinely p[ull the same sort of flip-flop. I have no idea how much psychedelic cool aid it takes befor that becomes invisible, but you must have consumed it.
As for state and local power, they only like that when the D's have a majority at the federal level.
For those of you against the FCC’s recent actions for net neutrality, Do you really know what you are supporting? Without net neutrality: If you are running for office and the ISP’s executive board supports your opponent, the ISP could censor you by blocking all content about you. The ISP’s can block, throttle or create tolls for competing services such as Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime by charging them extra to use their network so that the ISP can be compensated for the losses due to customers cutting the cable. (which is already happening). An ISP’s executive board that is dominated by agnostics and atheists could block all religious content. Company A could influence an ISP to block the site of a competing company. Radical lefts blocking Tea Party and conservative sites or vice versa. The potential abuses can go on and on. Yes, these may seem extreme or unrealistic, but how often have you heard lobbyists claim “oh no! We would never do that. That is not the purpose of this controversial bill or act.” The later on after it is passed, they begin conducting those activities they claimed they would never do. How many times have you heard of that happening? DMCA is the perfect example of this.
The FCC has no authority over the Internet. We own the equipment, the cables, the electricity, the code, everything, and we are ignoring the FCC in every capacity. Letters will be unanswered, fines ignored; we will not take them to court, we will make them take us to court, and their true authority and power will be revealed once and for all.
since World War II there has only been one person elected as President that came from the same party as the sitting President-- Bush (41) (following Reagan)
You are talking about 10 fucking presidents in total. Wow. What a large and statistically significant sample size.
It's the status quo because of existing contract law. If that's violated, that's what the court system is for. Using the executive branch for judicial matters is blatantly unconstitutional.
If the courts fail, then you go to the legislative branch, and pass a law.
This is Civics 101 checks and balances. And you're allowing it to be steamrolled over just because you like the ends.
If the FCC can do this, what can't they do? Broadcast Flag? Censorship of cable TV, phone lines? Those have been struck down for the same reason Title II is going to get struck down. You can't have it both ways.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
net neutrality sould be called instead 'no first class ' or 'no premium products '
Sure they are. Obama owns them the same way he owns extensions to the Patriot Act, since they now bear his signature. Why would that be funny? Did you think I was an Obamabot after calling them out by name? I have contempt for blind partisan tribalists of all stripes.
Conservatives are the ones who proposed Romneycare at the federal level to start with, when it was it was the Heritage Foundation alternative to the Clinton plan in '92. It was pushed again by Dole in '96, before finally being signed into law by Romney at a state level in the aughts.
So there's an easy test here for political hackery: ask Republicans why they didn't vote for Clinton in '92 and '96, if Obomneycare is so horrible. And ask Democrats why they didn't all jump ship and support Romney in '08, if Obomneycare is so awesome. Both groups invariably respond with empty partisan butthurt.
Do you think you're somehow special or wise for not wanting net neutrality to be a partisan issue? Or for that matter, hundreds of other things? Anyone who's not a certifiable idiot wants that, but we are currently in a partisan war. More so that even in the past. Definitely worse from the right, but neither side really cares about what's best for the country or it's people. They just don't want the other side to win. Period.
Everything is a partisan issue now. Every damn thing. Us simply stating reality in a forum is in no way insightful or even useful. Try doing something useful because spouting "warnings" on Slashdot is without question not. Here are some other pointless warnings that everyone already knows to save you time trying to feel superior.
We should say the hell out of the Middle East and let someone else deal with it.
We should reduce our military spending by at least half
The tea party should be squashed at all cost before that crazy get's worse than it already is.
Government spying has gone way too far.
Our police force is out of control and needs to be reigned in.
America is run on fear
GOP will promise whatever they need to win, but have no actual plan to fund anything.
Marijuana is harmless and practically defacto legal anyways. Federal legality is just a matter of time.
The DEA should be disbanded but decades of FUD keep it alive
If you heard it on fox news, it's a lie.
Well, everyone commenting on every thread on the Internet could try writing their Senators and Representatives to encourage them to support these policies.
But hardly anyone ever does that...