Slashdot Mirror
FCC Will Also Order States To Scrap Plans For Their Own Net Neutrality Laws (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service. This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the U.S. government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting. It isn't clear yet exactly how extensive the preemption will be. Preemption would clearly prevent states from imposing net neutrality laws similar to the ones being repealed by the FCC, but it could also prevent state laws related to the privacy of Internet users or other consumer protections. Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.
states rights!
Thanks again, Trump voters! I really can not express strongly enough what an awesome decision you made.
I cannot think of a better way to kill the tech sector.
This is the "and you are not permitted lube" phase of the punishment.
"And if you can kill it at the state level too, we'll throw in a private jet"
Sigh.
It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.
We heard you hate regulation, so we put some deregulation in your regulation so you can deregulate while you regulate.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Somehow the rationalization that the internet is simultaneously a vital interstate service that precludes state regulation and a purely market driven business seems like a big business wet dream.
States can regulate and tax most businesses but not *this* business because it's special for "reasons".
"Pray I don't alter it any further."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Fuck you twice, then. Once for letting the foxes into the henhouse, and once more for locking the door behind them.
1. Net Neutrality: OMG Its the END OF THE WORLD that corporations will get to choose what they want to do with their own infrastructure no matter how much this will suppress competition and free speech. FU Trump for allowing this to happen! 2. Internet Censorship/Corporate Mergers: Its WONDERFUL that corporations will get to choose what they want to do with their own infrastructure regardless of how much this will suppress competition and free speech. FU Trump for not allowing this to happen!
You missed your anger management classes again, didn't ya?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well, what I get delivered isn't anywhere near the standard for "Broadband", so I guess they can still regulate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
#DeleteFacebook
is it will be used as ammo by anti-federalists to push states rights issues, completely ignoring the fact that it's cheap as free to buy off state legislatures and that with few exceptions they're all in the hands of the likes of the Koch bros. et al. e.g. in the absence of the FCC forcing NN we wouldn't have had it in the first place as each of the State legislatures was picked off one at a time by the elite ruling class. Anyone else remember that picture of the snake cut into 13 pieces? Anyone?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm for net neutrality. I just think its a little rich that people are so vehemently for it while at the same time supporting things that will essentially put us in the exact same place as if we repealed it entirely.
What on earth are you talking about? I don't see anyone who wants 1 and 2 together. They either realize that net neutrality is better for everyone, or they they realize that businesses should run the world without any restrictions.
You must have missed the daily submissions here and on other sites where people extol the virtues of allowing Google/Yahoo/Twitter etc to censor and ban people from their services to their hearts content while excoriating any attempt to waylay the AT&T merger.
Tell the FCC to fuck off and die.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"I'M NOT MAD I'M ACTUALLY LAUGHING, ASSHOLE!!!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
I found his office's phone number on an imgur post: 202-418-1000
Not verified, but feel free to check it out and leave love messages!
we will build our own internet, we dont need you telling us how to surf the internet anyway, as far as i am concerned this is federal government overreach and the FCC needs to go find something else to do
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
They're going to get killed, believe me. It isn't good for them. Drain the swamp!
We have privacy and more GDP than the Red Commie GOP Beltway does.
FCC can go to Hades.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Good thing me being an idiot doesn't change the fact that OP is a reactionary idiot.
Also I didn't say I agree with any of this.
what if they kill off good stuff like ad blocker plugins for your browser, they kill off internet forums that allow free speech, they might even kill off linux & bsd and your only choice is ms-windows or apple's osx or android, and there is an american version of the great wall of china firewall so the only websites you can visit or spammy websites that want to sell you something at every turn, and the giant online retailers, it will kill the internet or cripple it,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I suspect that tomorrow will not be a big day for my hard Radical Right coworkers to expound on the centrality of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, nor to opine on "states' rights". Just a guess.
I remember something about Tennessee...
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.go...
Maybe related?
People who make daily submissions are called shills.
We've been ignoring them so long we don't notice them anymore.
Does anyone think that having different states putting their fingers in the mix will help anything? Whether NN dies or not, I don't want ANY mix of states stickign their noses into the traffic when the purchase I'm making is on an E-commerce site hosted in California, for a company whose physical presence is in Oregon, but incorporated in Delaware, but shipping from Texas... (Yes, I want NN, but mixed state regulations for medical marijuana and guns make things into a clusterfuck as it is. No need for more.)
I had a sucky sig.
California will sue the FCC, and given all of the liberal federal judges in the local circuit, will likely win.
Or maybe some of Pai's past girlfriends will come out of the closet and allege sexual harassment.
I used to pay taxes monthly to the bank. Every month, I sent a decent sum to the govt for not much. One day, I was told no more. I needed to go "on Line" and pay that way....not only the Feds, but New York State too.... Now, I go online, and like sort of the inverse of buying stuff on Amazon, I pay taxes. I am required to do it this way. The internet is the post office.
Does this mean states no longer have the ability to limit 3rd parties coming in and using the service poles (e.g., google fiber or cities/towns establishing their own ISP) ?
How soon before you will be imprisoned for speaking against Comcast? Congress never read 1984, or decided to implement it, and not learn from it.
I didn't think his Reese's mug was anthropomorphic.
Interesting that the actual plan comes out tomorrow, and no one will read it.
Instead they'll trust Slashdot and CNN and Fox to tell them how to feel.
I'm thinking I'll read it and decide for myself.
And also see who actually publishes links and quotes from it. I'll bet no media outlet does.
Would this potentially provide standing to fight the effectively monopoly style local level deals since the FCC is classifying broadband as an interstate service would this limit local communities power to enter exclusive agreements with broadband providers?
Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.
It's actually an international service, so by the same logic surely the federal government shouldn't have jurisdiction either?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Smells like... oligarchy. Some day, this country's gonna end...
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
and not just a verizon shill posing as the fcc chairman making shit up as he goes?
FUCK TRUMP and FUCK YOU for voting for him!
You dip shits get exactly what is coming to you and then some you fascist fucks!
How is pointing out that a federal regulatory agency has the authority over an interstate matter "corrupt?" This isn't any different than the FAA having the authority to tell states/localities that no, they can't pass local laws controlling the airspace. That's not "corrupt" either - it's been legislatively established as such (in both cases) precisely so we don't end up with a patchwork train wreck of conflicting rules.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
who said Arizona couldn't enforce it's own immigration laws (which were near identical to Federal immigration laws) when the Fed chose to not enforce US immigration laws, cry foul now that the Fed will tell states they can't supersede FCC regs (or lack thereof) with their own. ..IRONY :D
I hear see comments, but I still do not think it matters!!
;)
Net Neutrality!!!! The Holy Grail, Oh my god we have to have it!!
I feel this is about common carrier law legal liability isolation the phone companies got back in the day!!
If they peek, route or tier the trial lawyers will carve them up, Maybe?
Under common carrier, how can they peek and not be responsible for bad things.
I think they feel they can do it, I am not a lawyer, but I think the system will teach them an expensive lesson!
Just my 2 cents
With blackjack and hookers - in fact forget the blackjack.
If we had a true marketplace for ISPs, we would have competition that would allow consumers to avoid the worst outcomes of these changes by switching to ISPs that weren't working against the consumers' interest.
But we don't have a functioning market. We have regional monopolies, likely established through collusion, where there is no competition.
Worst case scenario, Ajit's changes are only spurring a movement to break up the major cable companies through anti-trust.
I would love to see this happen.
what if they kill off good stuff like ad blocker plugins for your browser, they kill off internet forums that allow free speech, they might even kill off linux & bsd and your only choice is ms-windows or apple's osx or android, and there is an american version of the great wall of china firewall so the only websites you can visit or spammy websites that want to sell you something at every turn, and the giant online retailers, it will kill the internet or cripple it,
Well, then they kill off a whole lot of the internet. I'll find something different to do with my time if say, they make adblockers illegal. A few times when I had to turn off adblock and no script, the internet was damn near unuseable.
Of course, I won't be spending the bucks for my internet connection either.
Do you figure that Pai would have done this if But Her Email was elected president? My guess is no. But the American people have spoken. Republican politicians have been against net neutrality for years, and with the American people making up congress by their votes, they have tacitly demanded the death of Net Neutrality.
The last part was sarcastic, I suspect that only certain companies and the politicians they own actually want to kill it, and very few Americans, left or right do. Then again, with less than 50 percent voter turnout, maybe they actually don't care? That part isn't sarcastic.
One thing I always wondered about My Republican friends have always screamed about unelected people making law. I don't remember any ballots that Pai was on. But either way, we are not getting anything we don't deserve.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's simple to set up a GoFundMe to cover the legal bills related to punching Ajit Pai in the nose. Just sayin'.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
a few things before i start in:
* I actually remember when the EFF was about preventing unecessary regulations and legislation for the sake of avoiding creating bubbles of fantasy land bullshit. The old thinking was that computers don't obey legislation. Now I'm dosheartened to see the EFF actively calling for regulations and laws to force things to be convenient for them. Who the fuck is writing this shit?
* I'm all for net neutrality, because I like the internet as a vital and growing platform for business and creativity, networking and socializing.
So, let me start in.
This shit is a fucking non. Issue.
Look, nobody is paying for the internet just to make a modem connect across miles of line to a distant server just for the wow factor. Nobody is paying for internet service just to ssh to the ISP and >message everyone else who's logged in.
And nobody is paying for internet service just to connect to the WWW pages of their favorite sites just for wow factor, either. The front pages of most web sites and services are really fucking boring and typically just offer shit like legal things to read, contact pages, "about us", etc. Most sites these days don't even offer a site map, so we're talking immensely boring.
EVERYBODY who connects to the internet is connecting to see other users' content.
Nearly every major web site or service exists to host user content: forums; photo hosting; facebook; twitter; youtube, vimeo, vidme; reddit; amazon, ebay, craigslist; they all host user content. The exceptions like netflix, hulu, other entertainment services, let's leave them out of the discussion. Even fucking redbox has a website; so does your local library. But let's acknowledge that even though those sites don't host user generated content, they wouldn't exist without the users who show up to drink from the media tap.
No sites exist just to be on a hard drive somewhere. Well there's weird shit like Zombo.com but I think you get my point: the biggest sites online are all about connecting people to people, and the rest are about connecting people to companies.
Nowhere in ANY of this is the user left out of the equation. The user is part of the flowchart every step of the way. If you think otherwise, sorry, you're fucking retarded.
Which means that the user is in a position to place demands. You want congress to do that for you, that's great, have fun going round and round the cycle of bubble-bust bubble-bust while you strive to maintain the illusion of fantasy land and work on suspending your disbelief.
Some people, notably Stephen King (check his twitter) think net neutrality is about censorship.
Guess what, jerky? It's got shit to do with censorship. We have net neutrality right now, and facebook, twitter, youtube, and google have been censoring what you are allowed to see for over a year, and it's all been politically motivated. If you aren't aware of any of that, either you just got out of prison or, sorry, you're retarded.
Net neutrality is about whether your service providers, the content-less middle men just passing data between you and the sites that exist only to serve you, will get to start charging you to reach those sites. Of course you should feel a little discouraged at that prospect, considering by and large those sites work by not charging you anything (at least not up front. And in the case of twitter, I hear that for $99/mo. you can buy a sponsored content account and boila, no more bans). Without those sites being able to offer that service, those sites don't work out to be as big as they are today. Without those sites being that big, ISPs have nothing much to sell the vast majority of users. Now you can see how and why the user has control, complete and utter fucking control, of the situation.
So here's the fucking deal. Here's how and why net neutrality is a non issue: the user can flip the table by getting the websites on their side.
Here's the proposal:
1. Users get the major sites to agree that ISPs mon
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
The Constitution SPECIFICALLY places the federal government in charge of making interstate commerce regular (it's called "the commerce clause")... and big-government types in BOTH parties have stretched that to include nearly everything that even touches upon interstate commerce thereby enabling federal politicians to get bribes [cough] "campaing contributions" from nearly every industry in exchange for regulating or [wink wink] NOT regulating stuff. Oh, and they have re-interpreted the word "regulate" from its meaning whent the Constitution was written ("to make regular") to instead be "dictate all the details of, tax, approve, license, certify..." The founders placed that clause into the Constitution to make the feds responsible for preventing trade wars between states or groups of states NOT to have the feds decide the details of the plumbing fixtures in a person's house, the content of baked goods, the processing details of farm goods, etc.
The 10th ammendment so loved by conservatives explicitly states that all the powers NOT given to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states and to the people... but remember: interstate commerce is specifically given to the feds.
The trick is that corrupt politicians and bureaucrats from BOTH parties have spent decades pretending that everything is interstate commerce and is, therefore, not subject to the 10th. You will note that even a Republican-controlled congress ignores conservatives on the 10th amendment and the idea of down-sizing the federal government; most Republicans are "establishment" types who are as in-love with big corrupt government as any Democrat and the LAST thing they want is to disentangle the feds from stuff and remove the incentives for any industries or interest groups to contribute to campaigns.
You can go to the phone company, city, power company etc and pay in person.
You can mail your payments in, though admittedly many entities no longer send you a pre-paid envelope anymore.
Nobody has to do these things on the net. You CHOOSE to. I have friends/family in most areas of the US and a number of them (mostly older folks, some are just way out in rural areas) do not even use the internet.
You are pretending that you must use the method you prefer and then insisting that it be re-classified as a utility and heavily regulated so that somebody other than you will be forced to pay the costs for your convenience. This is like insisting you need an airplane to fly to where your bills are due to pay your bills and then insisting somebody else provide you with the airplane. Sorry, but NO. Pay your bills the old fashioned way and stop demanding that others subsidize your Netflix movies and porn habits.
you do not need high speed internet and net neutrlity to pay your bills. That's such a low-bandwidth activity you could easily do it on a dial-up modem internet link.
Admit it: you wanna stream video and play online multiplayer games and you want congress to make it cheaper.
YES! Finally we are rolling back the liberal mess that is the internet. The poor can read what we feed them, their issues are not important enough to deserve publishing, everyone knows that only the rich deserve a voice. You want a voice? Go out, work hard, and get rich!
Ajit Pai apparently does not understand how the Constitution works.
The fact that broadband is an interstate service gives FCC jurisdiction via the Interstate Commerce Clause.
But there is nothing in the Constitution saying states can't "subvert Federal policy". In fact States do it all the time, as long as the business or service is confined to that state.
Wake me up when all of my neighbors are free to run IRC servers from home (or their phones). I see it as more likely that this will happen in at least one state, if states are free to devise their own regulations. OTOH I'd rather have the feds say "free speech requires these sorts of rules, and any states that deviate from that are criminally violating protected free speech". And of course a logically consistent set of rules there. Therein lies the current problem with using a self-hosted IRC server at home as a venue for 'Free Speech'
Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.
It's actually an international service, so by the same logic surely the federal government shouldn't have jurisdiction either?
The policymakers are amazing at trying to brush the implications of international Free Speech to domestic law (and politics) under the proverbial rug. So a million Russian citizens make sport of internet trolling Kasich and Hillary Clinton supporters. Is our democracy 'under attack' from International Free Speech? Or is that just the way a human right of Free Speech would inevitably unfold? Oh, but the Russian /Government/ may have spent far less than $1M funding such a propaganda campaign? So what. I'm more worried about how Bill Gates can pervert democracy by sneezing ten times that amount at the problem and never noticing it's gone.
"more power to the state" and "yeah fuck the state you are forbidden to make your own communication laws". The republican, the party of giving power to the city and state indeed. Is there anybody which really believe that by now ? I have a bridge to sell...
I want to start with the fact that internet commerce is pretty much by default purview of 'Interstate Commerce' - as governed by the powers granted to the US government in 1.3.8 of the Constitution. Fair game. But then it hits a lot of lines. The 9th, the 3rd, The 5th, the 4th, and the 1st. Oddly enough, in this day, arguments could be made against the 6th and 7th, being violated (though that would take a lot of work).
The topic of Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the 10th amendment. It has a lot to do with the Constitutional powers of the United States Government; which were fairly well defined. But not well enough, so the 'Founding Fathers' (aka James Madison) felt the need to clarify places that the government was explicitly not allowed to intrude upon. While people like to discuss the nuances of meaning for many of them, there is one which is blatant, and (IMHO) should be the most important one - the 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is the 'We the People' amendment - it declares in plain text the government of the United States *only* has the powers granted to it, and the rest belong to the people. Fuck the Feds - if we are not minting coin, or engaging in untaxed interstate commerce, tell them to go blow... Amendment's 1-8 are pretty much an enumeration of places Madison _expected_ the government to over reach. The 10th, is a hilariously pointless one, but it does clarify that the states laws are more relevant to the individual than the federal. Yay?
Suppose for a moment I wish to issue a 'gun ban' upon all Citizens of the US. Suppose you can make an argument that trumps the 2nd amendment on a 'militia' clause. This then hit's the 9th, "Show me your Constituently provided power to deny me", and there things get interesting...
This brings me to 'Wickard v Filburn' - which is the most horrific case of legislating from the bench ever, and is the foundation of every '10th' argument, flawed as it is. It is important to note the time frame when that decision came through, but it is also important to note that that decision favored the broad strokes of the Constitution vs the clarification in the amendments. Based on that precedent, the Supreme court _could_ rule that it is legal to disenfranchise black voters. Regardless of the 13th amendment, the Constitution defined who can vote.
TL;DR: The 9th should be 1st - there is no need to enumerate freedom unless you wish to constrain it. We shackled our government so we could be free.
The political right loves their "state's rights" until it gives the individual states any rights that overlords don't want them to have.
This it's not a joke, net neutrality is common ownership of bandwidth. Are you a doctor needing to send a potentially life saving e-mail Sorry but your e-mail has, and with net neutrality will always have, the same priority as mine bullet coordinates from my FPS. And as with everything that is commonly owned no one owns anything, you have the tragedy of commons on the internet. Increasing bottlenecks on internet nodes and loss of packages.
Also increased costs because bad allocation of resources resulted from collective property.
- Some dude on the internetz
If Ajit Pai died from a particularly painful and drawn out form of incurable cancer. At least it would provide a tiny bit of evidence that karma really is a thing.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Well, that used to be in fashion. But now might be a great time to consider moving your bits to data centres in Canada. For instance, there is already one AWS centre up here, with another to follow.
Aren't you all glad you all vote for these people?
Stop blaming the politicians for this crap. You people put them there. You gave them the power. So go fuck yourselves! You have a shitty internet because that is what you want!
Your internet is now almost as closed as Russia and China. A country that is no longer a leader but a follower.
wooosh
There's one thing that can make us feel better while we all wait for whomever will finally lead us to freedom to *snap* and have us all rise up:
In the event of nuclear war with North Korea; Washington DC is likely to be turned to glass.
How in the world could they kill off linux and bsd? you people are fucking lunatics.. you come up with some bat shit crazy story in your head and then convince yourself that its true...
States rights states rights. Wait no they didn't they sucked the corporate cack like they always do.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice. None of this has anything to do with "not understanding" how the constitution works, although you can be certain they'll make sure to confuse their victims about how it works on their end.
No, the only way this is ending is with serfdom for all of us 'poors' (which as you'll recall from their tax ideas, is anyone making only 495k a year), or with the heads of the entire families of those responsible on pikes. I suggest the pikes; less victims and cruelty that way.
Make America Great Again!
In other words, Article I, Section 8 vs 9th Amendment... Round 3!
I do recall that John Marshall was the first that did the expansion of Section 8. I forget who did Wickard v Filburn, but I think it was related to FDR and the Depression.
I had stated, though, in another comment that I recall the FCC having an order under Wheeler that was overturned in favor of Tennessee's state law that prevented local jurisdictions from making their own providers. Maybe as a compromise: the state or local cannot make law enforcing network neutrality, but then state laws that prevent local jurisdictions from making their own network neutral ISPs are automatically overturned.
To be fair, the joke was pretty low effort. Most "but I repeat myself" jokes are.
So not only are they bought, they are forcing us... damn them.
You blew it up, damn you.
Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.
Seems odd that the very same people that argued against patchwork enforcement of immigration policy (clearly a federal domain) are arguing for patchwork enforcement of policies on 'broadband', another clearly federal domain.
Ken
The word you might be looking for is oligopoly. Personally, I would advocate rioting in the streets, or at least picketing cable companies, and at a state level imposing vast taxes for the lack of Net Neutrality. Politicians at every level like money, and while it is simple to buy off the FCC, it isn't as simple to buy off every county-level or state-level politician who likes money (aka all of them).
Forcible Data Theft / Telemetry / Spying, now citizens are being F'd. Wow.
Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.
Does mean State/Local Authorities don't have the power to impose vender lockouts either?
Most of us heard them very clearly state, using appropriate language (i.e. free markets, over-regulated, blah blah):
"We will FUCK YOU!"
And now they are!
I'm telling my state's AG, Senators, Representatives to basically tell Ape Shit to go fuck himself.
The FCC can say that states can't mandate net neutrality -- but the federal government has already said that marijuana is illegal, too. If the states can pass drug laws that contravene the federal government's will, then they certainly can pass laws liberating the Internet for their citizens and freeing us from the monopolistic manipulation of two or three big corporations.
How does this improve my ISP service, reduce my costs or in any other way help me? Why do I want this? Oh.. maybe if I own stock in Verizon??
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Hey mush for brains. Google/Yahoo/Twitter don't use subsidies to build their infrastructure.
Also, are you still driveling on about censorship from private enterprises? Last time I checked, Nazi's aren't a protected class. Unless you're living in some alternate reality.
I swear, Ajit Pai is trying to earn his place as literal devil. He is evil and every thought he's ever had is to hurt people.
Net Neutrality will be reinstated when the parties switch in a few years. This is a temporary thing, methinks. Unless the next next group of Democrats are the same Wall Street-loving corporate shills like the Clintons are/were.
"Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband"
That's backwards. Federal agencies (FCC included) only have jurisdiction over interstate matters, not intrastate. So, the FCC has jurisdiction over the backbone but everything else including the "last mile" hop to the individual subscriber, is within state and local jurisdiction.
But alas, we have yet another case of a Federal agency exceeding its mandate, and states rights continue to evaporate.
If only we could count on the Supreme Court to do its job and strike down bullshit like this.
So does it mean that CloudFlare will be throttled? If yes then no point to use CloudFlare. If they pay then no point to provide free service.
Either way Consumer loose, Telcos win. Drain that swamp (Urban Dictionary: "swamp": consumer's wallet).
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
AT&T has Common Carrier status, which is derived from English Common Law as documented in Blackstone. This Common Carrier status allows AT&T to install its equipment on the property of others by granting them a "right of way."
However, Common Carrier status has an important restriction (from the wiki):
What is going to happen is some organization that owns physical property with AT&T equipment installed on it will sue AT&T when they face digital discrimination, assert that (unlike voice traffic) AT&T no longer has Common Carrier status for their data traffic, and demand either the termination of data services traversing their property or fair compensation.
This will go to the Supreme Court, and it will be anybody's guess what will happen to telecommunications at that point - AT&T might have to start paying rent wherever their data lines are installed. It could all very well end in tears.
The NPR interview with Pai was an eye opener. His basic premise is all regulation is bad so we should eliminate regulation. He believes that existing anti-trust regulation will prevent the "issues" raised by Net Neutrality supporters from occurring. That the "small" ISP are being hurt by the regulations. He is now going after states to eliminate local regulations. This is all to promoting new businesses to install or share existing hard-lines.
Pai is living in a dream world. Anti-Trust regulators allowed the monopolies that we see today to exist. They allowed them to freeze out competition. They allowed them to charge companies priority for priority access. The US anti-trust group was gutted years ago by the same people that are now doing the same to the FCC.
Remember when the FDA said "No weed!" and we said "Fuck you!" and do it anyways. Go ahead and try. I can only imagine the nightmare you'll be in trying to abide by all the different state laws because you continue to ignore us, the people.
If your internet service provider throttles your Netflix internet connection just call and downgrade your service from that $49.99 plan to the $29.99 one. When the customer service rep wants to know why you are downgrading, let them know exactly why their service isn't worth the money you are paying. If it continues to happen call and cancel the service all together. At the end of the day they are a business and like all businesses their #1 priority should be to make you the consumer happy, if they don't it's your job as a consumer to remind them why they need to.
How in the world could they kill off linux and bsd? you people are fucking lunatics.. you come up with some bat shit crazy story in your head and then convince yourself that its true...
I think it's something in the water. I personally have no idea how Linux or BSD would disappear.
My biggest personal concern is that the usual suspects will turn the intertoobz into something like Cable TV. But as I wrote to FudRucker, it it gets that bad, I'm Boom! Outa here. I don't need the internet that badly any more, and have a lot of other interests just waiting to be enjoyed.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Hopefully the open source community will come up with a way to replace isps. Iâ(TM)m surprised that nothing has sprung up. P2P mesh network of sorts.