Slashdot Mirror
FCC Announces Plan To Reverse Title II Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission is cracking open the net neutrality debate again with a proposal to undo the 2015 rules that implemented net neutrality with Title II classification. FCC chairman Ajit Pai called the rules "heavy handed" and said their implementation was "all about politics." He argued that they hurt investment and said that small internet providers don't have "the means or the margins" to withstand the regulatory onslaught. "Earlier today I shared with my fellow commissioners a proposal to reverse the mistake of Title II and return to the light touch framework that served us so well during the Clinton administration, Bush administration, and first six years of the Obama administration," Pai said today. His proposal will do three things: first, it'll reclassify internet providers as Title I information services; second, it'll prevent the FCC from adapting any net neutrality rules to practices that internet providers haven't thought up yet; and third, it'll open questions about what to do with several key net neutrality rules -- like no blocking or throttling of apps and websites -- that were implemented in 2015. Pai will publish the full text of his proposal tomorrow, and it will be voted on by the FCC on May 18th.
Its whats for dinner. The cash votes of the lobbyists are far more valuable than your ballot vote will ever be.
Trump was elected on a platform of clearing burdensome regulations. This is the result. If you're gonna take a buzz saw to bureaucracy you don't get to pick and choose the parts you like.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fucking republicans, wrecking the world and destroying western civilization, one bribe at a time.
Sayonara America, it was nice while it lasted. (And yes, I know net neutrality is just one issue, and by no means the most important, but it is important, and in the broader context of what has happened these last 100 days or the America we knew and loved is dead, and the rotting corpse feeding the fat Republican billionaires club that Trump is figureheading).
Cable company lobbyist who sleazed his way to the head of the FCC wants to make cable companies more money at the expense of consumers, more info at 11.
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
In related news, Ajit Pai is an asshole.
All of them, and make no mistake Hillary would have been just as bad. We need to get government OUT of the issue. Wheeler was the closest thing we had to a gaurdian angel. 'Money is speech' has got to be reversed.
Anyone who thought they could vote for Trump and their ISP company could raise rates, raise your hand.
Oh, all of you?
Did you guys think that Google might compete with you ISPs? Ever hear of google fibre? Can you imagine if google starts to slow traffic to your ISP? Prioritize data to their own network? No? Interesting.
Did you guys think that Google slow data to your ISP anyway unless you start paying their "special charges for high speed service?" No? Interesting.
ISP should be afraid...very afraid. (They aren't...but they should be)
Maybe he means the ones that only provide 6Mbps down, 768k up?
I foresee all types of possibilities for abuse here beyond the obvious "pay the toll" bullshit. I can honestly see the real possibility of some ISPs slowing some political sites down to the point where they timeout in an attempt to prevent someone from donating money to a cause they don't like.
Frankly, I would love to see them start collecting from the biggest social media sites lest they be heavily slowed because people need to stop using that shit.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
> Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee
At the suggestion of Mitch McConnel. Trump is the one that made him Chairman, not Obama.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This is not the first time he's been in the news lately: Remember, "Broadband Market Too Competitive For Strict Privacy Rules"? Yeah, that was him.
Someone please fire this prick!
As Nelson would say "Ha ha".
The US already pays more for "health" by a VERY large margin than anyone else. How soon will it be before the "internet" follows suit.
The rest of the world will be happy to stick with its Net Neutrality , get the same (if not better) service for a lot less money.
Unlike health though, it is easier to host servers in other countries, which is all that will happen.
Will this encourage investment, sure, just not in the USA.
Ok lets talk about this, then.
Previously Verizon killed Netflix's bandwidth for around a month to force them to pay more for the bandwidth they were using. Verizon was also the second largest lobbying company before the previous Net Neutrality rules went into effect. As they were completely against these rules, also they sued the federal government to force a decision about Net Neutrality.
I agree that law makers should do something about this, but most of them are corporate shills who would not disobey their masters. And net neutrality is going to affect everyone that uses the internet in America.
Also the tax overhaul is not happening right now, first it has to make it to the floor of the House then the Senate, and pass both of them. And this just seems like a distraction from the topic at hand.
Last time they almost did this, during Obama's term, it took a great video from some comedic fool to set it straight. Last Week Tonight Net Neutrality And this was done during the FCC comment period, before the rule went into to affect, to force people to look at this.
Let Congress pass a law [...]
They did. It was the FCC charter. It explicitly gave the FCC the task of and granted them the authority to make decisions about how to classify companies. If Congress wants to pass a law doing what you say, they can, but in the meantime they've said that it is the FCC's job to make those decisions.
Unlike health though, it is easier to host servers in other countries, which is all that will happen.
I wish that were the case. The problem in the US is the last mile connectivity. Servers can be anywhere. That hasn't changed. But our last mile connectivity is so bad in some places, that it's tough to do business.
I don't respond to AC's.
because all good cable companies (and gubments) know that what consumers want is to be spoon-fed Pay TV, not to have general, flexible, peer to peer, decentralized (let's just come right out and say it "COMMUNISTIC") Internet. Please tell me I don't need sarcasm quotes around that.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No. F**k it. Internet pipes in your country are like the road network or the telephone network. It should be considered public infrastructure with egalitarian access.
It's pretty F'ing simple.
Getting rid of net neutrality regulations is like saying "It's ok. Just set up your highway robbery checkpoint in the middle of the on-ramp to the highway, but make sure to let your business partners limos through without paying the ransom."
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Said the Kettle to the Pot "Hey, you are black!" This repeal is a politically motivated action, but is said to repeal just that. It's going to make your Internet Slower and more costly. next we'll have another monopoly to slow us down, and more cost-add bullshit between my browser and my Url. Plus it creates more confusion for something that already works great. A working Internet. Making money and not adding value.. wonderful. My information is now for sale to anyone with money, Thanks Mr Ajit Pai. Now we can all pay more and have less privacy. This is complete reversal of logic... dont know about you, but I think we need a name for this brand of carefully crafted deception. What are we going to call it?
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Here we go, websites will be like channels organized into tiers. You need to go to Slashdot.org, not in your package? That's just a little extra.
How soon? Are you kidding? We already pay more for Internet than any other industrialized country, and some second world countries:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...
Here's the truth that other countries have already figured out: when the government provides a service, it's cheaper. When private companies provide the same service, it's much more expensive, because they have to make a profit. And while it might have once been true that private industry could do a task better than the government, now private industry has realized that doing a poor job yields higher profit, so we end up getting worse services for more money when private industry provides them.
The federal government should provide all funds for education, for Internet access, and for healthcare. We can start paying for it by cutting the Department of Defense by 10% every couple of years, and eliminating corporate welfare. No more privatized intelligence, no more privatization of military services, no more military, intelligence, or security "contractors".
And eliminate DHS, what a fucking waste of money.
If that's not enough money, let's return to a top marginal rate of 91%. It worked great in the 50s, and the economy was booming.
and the Republican party. We elected someone who took, as a pillar of his campaign, the notion that the free market can and would sort all this out. We gave him a Congress of 60% like minded individuals.
Yes, I'm well aware of the campaign donations and who's paying them. But that doesn't change the fact that the Republican party takes as a basic ideological concept the notion that government interference with the market is inherently bad. If you're going to accept that as a truism then you're going to have to follow it to it's logical conclusion, which is that Net Neutrality stifles competition, innovation and raises prices by constraining how ISPs run their business.
What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and they'll tell you that with a straight face. A lot of them will believe it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Good luck getting your modem to communicate over a voip line. I wonder how much of the old analog infrastructure even still exists. If I were a big cable company, I would want all that legacy hardware completely gone, so people would have to use my private cables and fiber.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
I wish I had mod points.
By your same logic this isn't Trump's fault - we need to know who suggested to Trump to make Pai the chairman and then blame that person accordingly.
begone you fucking shill
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Really? What did the internet do for the 20 years before net neutrality? Also it wasn't net neutrality it was applying 1930s law that literally created ma bell. They just called it net neutrality.
Since money is speech now, can I pay my ISP with "fuck yous"?
Can't wait for the mint to print dollars in the "Eat shit and die" denomination.
~X~
Can I keep my Title II protections if Iâ(TM)m using Dial ip instead of broadband?
THAT is a US problem.
The 96% of the world that does not live in the USA won't have that problem, just as they don't suffer the high cost of US healthcare.
"If that's not enough money, let's return to a top marginal rate of 91%. It worked great in the 50s, and the economy was booming."
WHY was it booming ?
Give you a hint. Name a large, highly populated 1st world country, with large amounts of natural resources and mature industrial sector and infrastructure that was NOT bombed during WWII. So the USA was able to build stuff for the rebuilding of Europe and Asia. It could invest in R&D rather than in schools, hospitals, houses, roads, rail, water, electricity.
Its not about America being great again, its about the rest of the world no longer being dependant on America.
In the 1950s the USA was about 60% of the entire worlds GDP, now its about 20% and falling.
The USA only makes up about 4% of the worlds population, so there is still a lot of room to fall yet.
Build your walls, have a trade war, stop immigration, its just going to hasten the fall.
The rest of the world agrees with Trump "No deal is better than a bad deal", and few countries (if any) now have to accept a bad deal from the USA.
Sure loss of trade with the USA will hurt, for a wee while, but other countries will step in and life will continue as before.
No one HAS to buy from the USA anymore, there are alternatives.
There are some things that private industry is more cost-effective at: things which consumers can choose not to buy, and things with no barriers to new market entrants.
For everything else (fire, police, health, armed forces, education, utilities, mass transit) there's both a natural monopoly and a strong economic case for ensuring that everyone has access.
I totally understand not wanting to pay to support strangers: it feels desperately unfair. But how much tax do you think the kids of the single parent who can't afford decent internet, proper healthcare for their kids, balanced nutrition or access to good education are going to pay? A few thousand dollars spent today nets a few tens of thousands over their working lives. It's just good economic sense to support those in need, absent any moral issue.
This stupidity and greed will hurt small businesses that rely on Internet connectivity, but cannot afford (or have need for) a leased line. We cannot use any "cloud apps" in our business because we simply cannot get good connectivity in our part of town from our two providers (AT&T, Time-Warner). Our VPN's are severely limited because we cannot get reasonable, reliable bandwidth. The US is quickly turning into a 3rd world country.
I don't respond to AC's.
Dear globalist scum! Hahaha. The USA currently runs a multi-100-billion-$ trade deficit. BadBad! If we tossed-out all wett-bakkks & stopped all foreign trading ... tomorrow... the USA citizen worker comes up way ahead ... by perhaps 8,000,000 new jobs and a 30% "real" wage increase. Passive investors get screwed and so they should! Eat that and crap globalist scum.
This change is badly needed to bring some free market competition back to the industry. I guarantee we will all be paying less for our internet access in a year. Big Government ALWAYS makes things cost more. Remember that.
because (in their own words) private industry can't compete with a heavily subsidized government one. Not because the gov't industry is better, but because it's got the full weight of the government behind it. The little guy running his business will get run out by the government and the government will cock it all up with waste and inefficiency because it has no incentive to improve. After all, the government can always use violence (aka 'laws') to prevent competition. What's the definition of a government again... An organization with a monopoly on violence.
Everything I just wrote is straight from the GOP's platform, and it's all utter bollocks. The government doesn't have a monopoly on violence because a) self defense and b) the government is only allowed to use violence either in war or self defense (cops don't get to shoot you for the hell of it... well unless you're a minority). Private ISP aren't little guys, they bought their own monopolies. Infrastructure is always going to be a monopoly because you need eminent domain to run cable/roads. etc, etc.
But, none of this matters once you've accepted as a truism that government interference with the market is inherently bad. That's the trouble with the GOP. They've already come to that conclusion and they have to warp their world view to fit it. Here's another saying: Reality has a liberal bias.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
that's what you get when you base policy on ideals instead of goals. You're start with a truism (government interfering with the workings of the free market is inherently bad). You're going to wind up with simplistic policy when you start from ideals instead of goals because you're always going to be trying to stretch reality to fit into your ideal. The real word is messy and hard. It's like trying to get good sound out of a 2khz sample rate. You're lucky if you get beeps and boops. Most of the time you get horrible screeches.
:) ).
:(...
Also you're either falling into false equivalency or strawman arguments. I don't know logic well enough to say which or both. GPL'd software is not public domain. That's a fact. It's copywritted and licensed. Public domain means not copywritted. Those are facts. You're bending facts to fit your narrative (probably without realizing you're doing it, it's easy and temping to do, see
I stand by my post. The notion that government interference in the free market results in inherently negative is a central feature of the Republican party. Paul Ryan himself (who is the defacto leader of the GOP) said exactly that when questioned on Net Neutrality. You can't reconcile that ideal with implementing a massive government regulation and requirement like NN. At best you're engaging in double think and at worst being outright hypocritical
That's a hard thing to face, BTW. These are deeply held ideals that feel good (freedom, personal responsibility, personal strength, etc, etc). It's tough to turn away from them towards a more tightly governed world. It's scary too. It means recognizing that the powerful tool that is government needs constant watch and that no manner of systems or ideals will free you from that labor. Didn't Ben Franklin or Tom Jefferson write something about that? I'd disagree with them though, I think folks still deserve freedom even if they screw up and get lazy from time to time...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Well, no shit. And to imply that Ajit Pai's move is neither "heavy handed" nor "all about politics" is also bullshit. Calling Obama era BS for what it is (though I liked it) doesn't mean the Trump era isn't pulling their own similar BS (that I don't like). Of course, the only thing the Trump administration seems to be capable of is reversing Obama era rules. They've no actual thoughts for themselves beyond reversing the Kenyan Muslim's work. Idiots.
Well, paid roads are a thing. Just like paying for bridges to pass them. So what you are saying is that we need more of that? Because this will increase something unrelated? Nice.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The FCC saying "fuck it, everyone do what you want" sucks, but the most significant reason this is a problem is the monopolies that local municipalities authorize. If the state/county/city levels of government where prevented in interfering, then competition would be an actual market balancer. Smaller ISPs would happily take the droves of pissed consumers.
With the Internet being an service that inherently crosses state lines, the Federal government has every right to tell these government levels that their rules/laws are invalid.
The fight for Net Neutrality should start by freeing the last mile. Give us real options for which net we get on.
I could see this bolstering public terminals and potentially the written word again. ALSO I wager we should wage a PUBLIC CAMPAIGN that calls on businesses, and individuals with extra bandwidth to offer free wifi or access to people in their area.
The market is squeezing people from every side: My rent is out of control, internet would be insanely expensive (from a personal data as well as monetary point of view) if I hadn't lucked out and gotten Google Fiber, healthcare is... my lord I hope I just never get sick again because it's BAD here in Atlanta and I am paying out the NOSE for the "privilege." I'm glad I could get rid of my car because if not? I'd be saddled with practically living month to month, and I'm a fucking PROFESSIONAL who is getting paid a reasonable amount of money.
Consume less, I guess. I'm apt to do what others have mentioned: ditch the internet, see if that's doable anymore.
-
I'm sure this AC will be the first in line for all the seasonal fruit and vegetable picking jobs that would immediately open up. Or maybe AC would prefer the garment factory making sneakers, shirts, or yoga pants. But maybe that's too much of a commitment, construction site or landscaping day laborer gives so many more options.
And we'll have plenty of natural resources, and access to the components needed to make computers, iPhones, tablets, etc. I mean, once we have a chance to move the factories to the US from China, Singapore, and the other Asian countries where they are currently located.
With all this new economic growth, everyone should be able to afford the new $3500 iPhone and a $60k Ford Focus.
file:
Or does Congress only have that power when it's something you agree with?
I'm not sure which part of this you think I agree with. I certainly don't agree with what the FCC is doing here.
It sounds as if you're challenging whether Congress even has the authority to create independent agencies in the first place, which is an entirely unrelated discussion, and one for which I don't have a particularly strong opinion (I've just taken it as fact that it's something that they do, without ever really questioning it, honestly). That said, I will point out that if you take issue with Congress delegating its authority to independent agencies, then you'd need to account for the existence of NASA, the Smithsonian, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and even the United States Postal Service, all of which are also independent agencies. Again, I don't have a strong opinion, but there's clearly a necessity that those services be provided in some form or function, and the 538 members of Congress are clearly not up to the task of managing all of that on their own, especially once you consider that most of those agencies are far larger than Congress itself.
If you can't withstand a little regulation that prevents you from contaminating the quality of the service that you offer for sale as a MONOPOLY, you are just incompetent and deserve to go bankrupt and be taken over by municipal ISPs..
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
That BS might get you a +5 on Slashdot, but it is false on the face of it. ...now STATE SPONSORED MONOPOLIES have realized that doing a poor job yields higher profit, so we end up getting worse services for more money when STATE SPONSORED MONOPOLIES provide them... (FTFY) Let me know when Apple or Samsung start making shit phones that rake in the cash, then your statement would be accurate...
The problem that we have in the US right now is that MONOPOLIES sponsored by the state and local government are controlling the internet access. If we had 3 ISPs competing head to head in every major market and a law that they must offer access to all the market and surrounding rural areas at the same prices, quality and speed would go up and prices would go down. That is just the way the market works. Right now ISPs have their infrastructure built out with 10 year old hardware and paid off. Their cost to provide internet service is somewhere around $15/month, yet they are charging between $60 and $90/month and the cable MONOPOLIES are laughing all the way to the bank. In some areas, internet service is propping up Cable TV companies that would otherwise collapse from lack of users. However, look at cities where Google fiber has come in (or even threatened to come in). The cable internet and DSL providers have built up their infrastructure, improved service and cut their rates (i.e. competition). Where I live, I have one choice of cable internet, or I would have to use dialup... and I live surrounded by 240,000 people (like within a 5 mile radius) and still I only have one choice...
" when the government provides a service, it's cheaper. When private companies provide the same service, it's much more expensive, because they have to make a profit."
Bullshit. Have you been to your local DMV? Government is in the same boat as these monopolies and their gross incompetence eats up more than any private company would make in profits. There is no market forces for them to provide better service or cheaper service. Whats worse is government has lethal force backing it up (don't believe me? try not paying your taxes and disobeying the armed GOVERNMENT agents that they send to your door.) You will likely end up dead.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
but there's clearly a necessity that those services be provided in some form or function, and the 538 members of Congress are clearly not up to the task of managing all of that on their own, especially once you consider that most of those agencies are far larger than Congress itself.
That's precisely the point; those who wrote the Constitution and those today who believe similarly do not believe many of those things are the job of the federal government, and for those things which are, Congress should be the only body in government with the power to pass laws, as they are elected which gives the people some direct way to keep them accountable and not appointed/hired. This delegation of powers is a large part of how the government has gone about expanding it's powers and scope.
The other problem is reinterpretation and redefining words and meanings of the Constitution to achieve political/ideological goals rather than using the means provided in the document to alter it. Maybe there's some civil right like the 2nd Amendment you disagree with (not accusing, I don't know nor care, this is just for discussion) and maybe this achieves your short-term goal(s), but it weakens all the other civil rights most people, including yourself, value, and renders them vulnerable to the same methods and strategies to effectively nullify/rewrite/abolish them. A case of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!" for those
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The US doesn't need to be 60% of the world's GDP, or even 20%. Assholes like you need a history lesson though.
We took our 60% GDP in that era and fed and clothed and rebuilt your ungrateful ass (and/or that of your parents and grandparents) through direct financial support, as well as imbalanced trade agreements. The goal was never to rule the world (or America would have immediately after WW2, we exclusively had nuclear bombs, as well as the world's largest industrial base and strongest military). But we didn't want to then and we don't want to now. Instead we used our economy to support democracies throughout the world and the spread of peace and democracy abroad. However, that task is largely completed, as you say, the GDP of the rest of the world has risen significantly (the GDP of the US has not fallen, contrary to your implication, others have just risen which in turn changes the fraction.) Making America great again has to do with returning to the posture of strength both financially and militarily as well as eliminating extraneous constraints on our economy internally. If you don't like that posture, by all means, do what you can to subvert US efforts abroad. You are subverting the nation that behaved as described above when it could have taken over the world. Conversely, I hope you like speaking Russian or Mandarin, because those are your two other options in the real world.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
"...for those who prefer the shorter reinterpretation path."
Wow, I don't know hth that got dropped...oh well.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Actually, agricultural companies would be forced to invest in harvesting machines and robotics that can pick the fruit. In the long term, it provides higher paying engineering and manufacturing jobs and actually reduces the cost of the fruit (robots are always cheaper, but they have a high entry cost. This will not happen until the cheap imported labor goes away though, because if you have $500 in cash you can hire 10 illegals for the day, whereas you are talking probably $10k/robot to pick fruit, even though it replaces 4 workers and doesn't give your customers salmonella from defecating in your fields...
Same thing with the garment industry and landscaping. We already have a number of mower equivalents to the Roomba in the $500-$1000 range, but people still want the illegal to come mow their lawn for $20 every week because it is cheap in the short term, even though the simple payback for a robotic mower is less than 2 years.
All those factories used to be in the US, they were moved to China and Asia for the cheap labor, not the natural resources or space... Singapore is less than the size of LA county for crying out loud. Most of the CMs like Foxconn are shifting heavily to robotics manufacturing anyway, at which point it doesn't make sense to pay all the overhead of manufacturing in China (foreign language, long distances, time differential, 3rd world employees and government, rampant corruption, rampant piracy, shipping costs, import costs and delays, etc) when you can for essentially the same cost locate those CM facilities in the US, especially if the US starts to be more reasonable on the regulatory and environmental requirements (clean air and water, but not the batshit crazy Obama regs).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
there's plenty of alternatives for Internet Service. Some are better than others. There's cell phones, Satelites, etc. You can also move. And that's not me being flippant, Ajit Pai himself suggested it.
The Republicans also argue that we'll see innovation out of this. That as prices skyrocket new services will move in to compete (balloon delivered internet?).
Now, the other side would argue that we don't need innovation here. That we have an optimal solution and should rely on that and support it with municipal efforts. But that's the other side. We didn't elect the other side last time around.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
take the power away from the regulators and there's nothing to capture. At least, that's the argument...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What department in the government, precisely, should regulate internet communication other than the Federal Communications Commission?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I tought the FTC, not the FCC, has jurisdiction over Net neutrality.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.