Slashdot Mirror
Charter Hires Net Neutrality Activist To Make Policy
An anonymous reader writes: The Federal Communications Commission has been at loggerheads with many ISPs lately, after the agency pushed through net neutrality rules that have now gone into effect. The defeat of Comcast's attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable was hailed by many net neutrality activists as a victory, but then came the news that Charter was looking to buy TWC instead — which brought the worries back. But now Charter has taken the unusual step of hiring one of those activists to help develop its policy: Marvin Ammori. He says, "Charter hired me—which, to be honest, took some humility on its part since I have helped lead public campaigns against cable companies like Charter—to advise it in crafting its commitment to network neutrality. After our negotiation, I can say Charter is offering the strongest network neutrality commitments ever offered—in any merger or, to my knowledge, in any nation. In fact, in the end, I personally wrote the commitments." Put briefly, Charter agreed to abide by the interconnection mandates and prohibition of paid prioritization — regardless of the outcome of pending litigation from the ISPs fighting it — for a minimum of three years. The company has also promised no data caps and no usage-based billing.
Alternate "tinfoil hat" explanation:
Once he's in house, sufficiently "re-educated" and compensated, and once the lawmakers have been paid off properly, then he will become a lobbyist to tell us in newspeak that net neutrality is slavery, and that corporations should be able to block competitors and promote their own services as innovation.
I hope this guy is honest and sticks to his guns. But my experience in the world suggests a much darker outcome.
I keep putting more layers, and the world keeps showing me I'm not paranoid enough.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What does it say when this is the strongest commitment ever?
"We promise if you consider letting this go through that we won't break the law for at least....um....yeah 3 years sounds good to us, what do you think?"
Are they fucking kidding?
I promise not to beat her for 3 years....
I was actually buying this until the "for a minimum of three years" part. Why only 3 years? Why not 10 years? Why not indefinitely? How can a "Net Neutrality Activist" actually have the nerve to present that to us with a straight face? I certainly think that Charter is better than Comcast, but this looks like a publicity stunt to get their merger approved.