Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Seeks Supreme Court Review On Net Neutrality Rule (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: AT&T and other broadband providers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Obama-era "net neutrality" rule barring internet service providers from slowing or blocking rivals' content. The appeals, filed Thursday, will put new pressure on a rule enacted in 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission was under Democratic control. Filing a separate appeal from AT&T were the United States Telecom Association, a trade group, and broadband service provider CenturyLink. The embattled net neutrality rules bar internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking or slowing some web traffic in favor of other content -- their own or a paying customer's. "The practical stakes are immense," AT&T said in its appeal of a ruling that backed the FCC. The company pointed to a dissenting opinion that said the regulation "fundamentally transforms the internet" and will have a "staggering" impact on infrastructure investment.
It is clear these corporations no longer serve the public good.
Why are they allowed to continue existing?
To all Cell towers - make all towers neutral infrastructure, true "unlimited", no slowing, no shaping, no tiers, no caps, no massive customer wallet raping.
When a "speed" is sold, that speed is "absolute, rock-bottom minimum" 24x7x52 not "up to".
Any signs of tampering by the ISPs or backbone carriers will ensue a minimum 50k fine, per customer, per day, payable to every customer effected, not the government.
To AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Comcast, Cox Cable, CenturyLink, Time-Warner, T-Mobile and every other currency vampire, fuck off. Your days of unlimited cash slurping are over.
...this is what they asked:
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Obama-era "net neutrality" rule barring internet service providers from slowing or blocking rivals' content.
The Internet is a set of agreed protocols and standards. If these protocols are not adhered to, then the service provided is not "Internet". It becomes something like the late, unlamented AOL.
So if an ISP violates net neutrality, like deep packet inspection, blocking ports, injecting data, prioritizing or blocking specific traffic, it is violating one or more of the protocols or standards.
In such a case, the ISP should lose all Safe Harbor protection, government subsidies and assistance, such as peering, right-of-way access, tax breaks and the like. Of course, under truth-in-advertising regulations, they may not use the word "internet" in advertising or describing their product.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
If Walmart want to make a rule that says you buy toys from them, you have to buy all future toy batteries from them also, it would increase Walmarts ability to invest in toy sales, and enable their future infrastructure investments.
So they should ditch all consumer protection, since it hurts large cartels abilities to extract profit and since some of those profits go to infrastructure, it follows it's a bad thing.
Why should government hinder AT&T's ability to make profit in cooperation with conspirator companies from their shared cartel?
Why shouldn't AT&T be able to sell its service to users, and then sell the same bandwidth to the companies supplying those customers who already paid for that bandwidth? Why shouldn't they be able to tack on little hidden charges in their small print? Screwing over customers for profit is the American way.
Trump is right to restock the swamp with swamp monsters like Ajit Pai, the ex telecoms lawyer.
AT&T apparently can't afford to buy every judge out there yet - like they have likely bought every member of Congress in one way or another.
The free market argument works if there's competition. If the customers want net neutrality, they will ditch ISPs which accept payments for fast lanes, and switch to ISPs which honor net neutrality. If customers want services who pay for fast lanes, they will ditch neutral ISPs for ISPs which charge for fast lanes. This is pretty much how Internet service works in most of the world. If your ISP's policies piss you off, you cancel and get Internet using a different ISP.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case in the U.S. The vast majority of Internet providers have a government-granted monopoly, whether it be DSL (local phone service monopoly) or cable (cable TV/Internet monopoly). Without competition, there is no alternate ISP for customers to switch to if they're unhappy with their ISP's policies.
Hopefully the Supreme Court realizes this, and rules that local governments granting ISP monopolies is unconstitutional - state or local regulation of interstate commerce (the Internet crosses state and national borders). That way, everyone wins. The ISPs opposing net neutrality can charge for fast lanes. The ISPs for net neutrality can provide neutral service. And customers can choose whichever ISP they prefer. (For bonus points, websites which don't like ISPs who charge for fast lanes and artificially throttle their service to those companies as a way to "encourage" their customers to switch to a different ISP. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
I've heard Idgit Pai, directly from his own mouth, state that companies haven't violated net neutrality and they should be able to police themselves on this issue because they won't violate it.
So, if these companies aren't planning on violating the net neutrality rule, why is it so critical that it be removed?
You forget that ISPs consist of physical cables owned by them. If you're thinking about carrier provisions that force renting out of lines (ie: how boost mobile rents lines laid by AT&T and others); these are high bandwidth lines. As a company, to be forced to share your line that you dug up and planted with others which will cause congestion and degradation for your own customer base is inexcusable. They will make that argument in court and win.
Good luck convincing alternative carriers to have as much reach outside of the highly profitable areas (cities). Get screwed if you live in the country/remote/island or fringe suburb area.
I don't read AC
The entire FCC in their pockets and they still turn to other tactics in order to screw over consumers? What's wrong AT&T? Is you BFF Ajit moving to slowly for you?
Obviously he's outright lying. And given their privileged infrastructure positions these companies can hide a lot of their behaviour.
What they're really complaining about though is the limits this now places on being able to quadruple, or more, dip on the traffic charges. They already double dip as it is, on entry and again on exit.
Not the way it is being used today. The whole ethos of the IETF is ENGINEERING a network that can provide service in a timely and efficient manner. That might include prioritizing certain kinds of traffic. And gosh if there isn't a flag in every internet packet that deals with that.
There's also an "evil bit"...
None of the VOIP traffic I'm getting from the "Apple" and "Microsoft" people claiming "your PC has a virus!" is setting that bit, either.
Hey guys, I was a bit concerned about this whole thing, so I spoke to AT&T.
They said they're doing this to better serve their customers, so we have nothing to worry 'bout.
I don't mean any disrespect and I don't mean to offend any US readers, or those in the US who helped create the Internet in the first place.
The thing is, the Internet has become a universal resource, used by people all across the world. Except that many of the global services - and many of the most popular web-based services - are delivered from the United States. In other words, Net Neutrality is simply not a US-specific topic, but one which has global impact.
Much as I am *VERY MUCH* in favour of self-determination, local accountability and democracy-in-action... in this specific case I think that the United States needs to recognise that the consequences of net neutrality have global potential impact. In other words, whilst I am very much in favour of the US retaining the current Net Neutrality legal protections, I don't think they go far enough. I think that Net Neutrality needs to be removed from the control of any single nation state - i.e. put beyond the reach of "local politics".
I accept that this might be an unusual way of looking at this problem, but let's put it another way... Suppose the FCC had the ability to make a decision which could directly degrade the quality of telephone conversations in the UK, or Germany, or China, or Australia. Or suppose a UK citizen wanted to speak to a family relative or friend in the United States, but was left experiencing atrocious line quality. Now imagine that the line quality in that conversation was being controlled by a major US telecoms company that was being paid to carry the call, but which had neither of the two end users as directly paying customers. There would be uproar if that telecoms company started to degrade that call quality just to force the other participants to pay them more money, especially when they had the capacity to offer a flawless service, but were deliberately degrading it so as to coerce their direct and indirect clients to pay more. This would be possible and legal [on the internet anyway] if the Net Neutrality laws are revoked.
I don't mean to offend US readers, but to be blunt: US telecoms companies should not be given the right to do that.
The decision needs to be about the technologies and services used. I doubt anyone would object about throttling email. So it reaches your inbox a few seconds later, not a big deal! There may be other services that do not need prime access.
Back in the day, ISPs begged for Common Carrier status because they were being sued over the content of data passing over their networks, and facing criminal charges for the distribution of child pornography. Common Carrier status was granted, allowing them to say "we're just the network, we just pass traffic, and we don't look at it, and therefore have no responsibility."
Now they want to be able to examine everyone's traffic and make punitive routing and delay decisions based on profit, but I argue that the second they start examining the content of everyone's Internet traffic, they bear the legal responsibility to quash illegal content and activities, and should face the full force of criminal law for failing to stop 100% of it.
Suck it. Enjoy your lack of competition while it lasts. When it's not like that anymore, you're going to get kicked on the way down and while you're down. What goes around, comes around.
We'll make great pets
They should be able to police themselves on this issue because they won't violate it.
Let's abolish all laws and let all citizens be on the honor system and see how that turns out. AT&T you have no legal recourse but I promise I will pay my bills and we don't need laws because I would never do that to you.
We'll make great pets
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
Really, twice in one thread? Like I said before, you're being too obvious.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There. Now, maybe you worthless protesters can begin to direct your ire at the correct problem.
Ah, market fundamentalists. You guys are always looking at only half the issue.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
1) I put up a website for my small business.
2) Without net neutrality - I'll probably have to pay some contribution for the bandwidth YOU consume when you visit it or I'm in the S-L-O-W lane.
3) There are a bazillion ISP's - they demand money from me - how does that even work? I have to write 1000 checks every month? How do I track which ISP the end-user used to pull down my data to verify what I owe them?
4) Because I have no way to know whether my website might "go viral" - I have no easy way to cap the fees I might wind up having to pay!
End result is that I can't risk having my own website.
5) Hence, the only way to do business is to sign up with Amazon/Facebook/Apple-store/etc middle-men. They have the clout to haggle good prices from the ISP's because nobody wants to be the ISP that doesn't let you to connect to Amazon/Facebook/Apple/etc at reasonable speeds.
6) Hence, I have to pay a chunk of my profits over to an organization who did NOTHING to earn that money.
7) Hence big businesses get bigger, small businesses find it even harder to survive than they do now.
8) Worse still - if I do something that the ISP's and/or the middle-men don't like (maybe I try to compete with them) - then they kick me off the service.
If the ISP's truly need to make more money - they need to charge the end user for the bandwidth they use, not the information provider.
Since SOMEONE pays - no matter what - the end user either pays for the bandwidth they use - or pays for higher priced goods and services that indirectly cover the cost of the bandwidth they used. So for end-users. it's a zero-sum game...UNLESS we're all forced to pay tolls to Amazon/Facebook/Apple-store/etc for doing something that really didn't need to be done. Adding an extra (pointless) layer is expensive. The expression "highway robbery" is literally what can happen.
Incidentally, the same problem happens with healthcare. Come what may, healthcare charges must be paid for by someone. But adding an HMO between patient and doctor/hospital adds an extra pointless layer that adds cost and delivers nothing of value.
Hence net-neutrality.
www.sjbaker.org
I'm not surprised, but man -- AT&T sure does hate the internet.
I've noticed that some of the corporate proponents of net neutrality also seem to be the ones wanting to control what third-party content can and can't appear.
then what is your plan with all the NIMBYs that cry over a cell tower in their backyard?
If there is public evidence that this person opposed construction of a tower, then post "(name of person) is responsible for cellular data throttling in (city), (state)," along with a link to this evidence.
What's staggering to me about network infrastructure in the U.S. is how pitifully small the investment is that's being made by companies like AT&T. The Net Neutrality decision has only been in effect since, what, 2-3 years ago? Maybe if AT&T had been making infrastructure investments for years and years before the Net Neutrality regulation came into being--instead of spending a mountain of money buying politicians^W^Wlobbying for changes to laws that let them kill off all their competition--the infrastructure in the U.S. wouldn't be so far behind the rest of the world.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
So you are saying that as a non-customer who has become accustomed to the use of a service you are NOT paying for these providers should not be able to prioritize network bandwidth or "speed" for the benefit of their paying customers? Well, why didn't you say so, of course we should do things your way. Here is your unicorn-shaped-balloon and a can of WTF. Enjoy, guy-whose-opinion-makes-no-bit-of-difference!
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
AT&T may seek however that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will oblige. If they decline then that's that. If they hear the case then their job is to find it constitutional if at all possible. There job isn't to see if it is illegal but to see if it is not illegal. There's a huge difference there.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
No, net neutrality rules represent a codification of the way the internet has functioned all along, so far. So this business of Net Neutrality being something that "fundamentally transforms the internet" is simply a lie. A blatant lie intended to confuse the clueless jurists and politicians who think of the internet as 'a series of tubes'.
I'm impressed by your ability to not engage my point at all. As usual, people of your thinking ignore the power of concentrated wealth. A government of, by and for the people is your only defense against concentrated wealth. Sure, governments can get corrupted. It is up to the people represented by that government to ensure that doesn't happen. Many times they don't, I understand. But to use that as a rationale for eliminating government is unwarranted.
I am all for doing things without coercion. But what do you do when some ultra-wealthy individual or group decides to hell with that and starts coercing people? They can employ an army of mercenaries and lawyers to enforce their will. What are you going to do, get a million people to voluntarily pool their resources and present a united front? Good luck with that.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)