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 all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
Bullcrap. Sane liberalism says that the government puts in only the regulation that is *needed* and put on the people that can do the most harm. I know of NO liberal that wants regulation for the sake of regulation.
Your portrayal of conservatives is wrong as well. Most conservatives seem to be fine with regulation as long it is on people they don't like and want to punish. They seem to want the people who can do the most harm have the least regulation (for money purposes) and tend to NOT care about regulation on individuals and small business, the very people who can do the LEAST harm.
The fact you are parroting these political stereotypes means you listen to a very limited group of people.
Post-capitalism also conveniently eliminates pesky constitutional guarantees enforcing the rule of law. Contractual language can now eliminate search warrants and right of privacy when Stingray cellphone technology is used for mass surveillance. Both government and private enterprise benefit in post-capitalism.
Broadband providers have just as much right as any other business to run an entrenched monopolistic enterprise and make vast amounts of money. I fully expect that the current court system will correct the loopholes that threaten their guaranteed profitability, and give them the same protection under the law that other corrupt special interests enjoy in our post-capitalist system.
Why is this so hard to understand? It's obviously the American Way.
Why is Snark Required?
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.
Not the AC. But of course the government created the internet. To argue otherwise because it has grown since the 80's and 90's is to argue that GM didn't create the first commercial electric car because a Tesla has greater power, range, and 3G.
You don't have a point, you have a Randian axe to grind. And that makes you a moron.