Slashdot Mirror
Tim Wu: Why the Courts Will Have to Save Net Neutrality (nytimes.com)
Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia who first coined the term "net neutrality," writes for the New York Times: Allowing such censorship is anathema to the internet's (and America's) founding spirit. And by going this far, the F.C.C. may also have overplayed its legal hand. So drastic is the reversal of policy (if, as expected, the commission approves Mr. Pai's proposal next month), and so weak is the evidence to support the change, that it seems destined to be struck down in court. The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled), such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn't enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong. It isn't. In fact, it's very weak. From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives. More specifically, Mr. Pai claims that industry investments have gone down since 2015, the year the Obama administration last strengthened the net neutrality rules.
For one : 2015 is not "Long standing rules". If anything, the "Long standing rules" apply more to the 1996 Telecommunications Act which labeled ISPs as Information Service Providers.
For two : Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down. If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.
CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).
Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Over on Twitter, a frequently promoted Tweet is Comcast claiming that they're not going to block/throttle anything.
That and a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of coffee.
And they're specifically not saying anything about refusing to raise rates.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I can only hope that there will be a sudden outbreak of common sense and that the courts will uphold net neutrality. ISPs should really only be access providers whom can optionally offer their own competing content services without harming competition by charging extra for access to, and throttling, the competition. Big Telecom has complained about the expense of building out their networks and maintaining them. Really, these networks have been subsidized by government granting them duopolies, or in some cases, monopolies. And in other cases, municipalities have offered tax breaks to Big Telecom for building out high speed data, which in effect, is a tax payer subsidy.
I do not want a return to the days of AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServe. Those days were truly walled gardens. You could not send email outside of those services. Bulletin boards were open only to subscribers and there was no sharing of content amongst the online services. If you wanted information on both a CompuServe and an AOL forum, you'd need subscriptions on both services. Then, as if to add insult to injury, you were sometimes charged exorbitant per minute usage fees on top of the monthly fee. Perhaps, the only more generous of services was Prodigy. At least with Prodigy, it was just about an all you can eat.
in addition, the gop controlled Congress, which refused to seat hundreds of judges under Obama is packing the courts with incompetent republican partisans, so the activism from the bench will be decidedly pro-business
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
The will of the public is enforced through the ballot box. In this case, it was clear the Trump agenda was deregulation. It was a theme of his campaign that Government is too big and needs to be trimmed down.
He even addressed SPECIFICALLY the 2015 Act prior to its passing :
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
And he was elected. You can't argue "Will of the people" in this case.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Right... I'm sure a law professor at Columbia has no idea about how laws and judges work, and that you certainly must know more about it because you are an official Denizen Of The Internet.
So let me get this straight:
Oh, brave new world!
The FCC is going to have no shortage of examples of censorship and flaming hypocrisy from the most vocal advocates of Net Neutrality like Google, Facebook and Twitter. If the goal is an "open Internet," it's going to be the biggest backers who end up looking the worst because they are doing all of the things that they fear the ISPs would do (and yet have never done).
Big Tech crushes dissenting opinions, even slightly dissenting opinions. People get banned, shadowbanned, demonetized, etc. at the drop of a hat. By comparison, even Comcast looks downright honorable in how it treats its users.
Leftists on slashdot love to say "no one has a right to give you a platform." It's just terrifying to think that someone else might have the power to deplatform you instead of those who are amenable to your point of view on issues like this.
In this instance, the Supreme Court is acting as the checks and balances to the changes being made by the FCC. It's not like the Supreme Court are the ones suggesting that the law should be that the internet is free for all. Far from it. Instead, if the FCC go ahead with Pai's plans, someone will file a complaint with the Supreme Court. If there is enough evidence to show that the FCCs changes break the laws of the US, they will be ruled illegal. The SC simply aren't going to decide that they don't like the FCC and send a decree from upon high that everything must be reverted. This isn't how courts work.
The leading contributor of lobbying efforts to Congress is the healthcare industry. Number 2 is Telecom and there may be concerted effort on their part to be #1.
The Democrats just seem to be looking back. Books about why Hillary failed. They also are only talking about Hillary for 2020, which will pretty much ensure another Trump win. They need to stop that. Focus on getting a candidate that isn't "damaged goods", that doesn't strike abject dislike in Dem supporters, and abject loathing in everyone else. Focus on someone with an actual constructive platform other than "We will hit Republicans where it hurts." This isn't World of Warcraft, folks.
Oh, and stop letting a few people with their own interests lead the party. Otherwise, expect to be swept out of Congress completely.
If there is enough evidence to show that the FCCs changes break the laws of the US, they will be ruled illegal
How was it not illegal before 2015 but suddenly illegal now?
"The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason"
Well no, he gets this exactly backwards. Network Neutrality was EXACTLY such a reversal, and here's Pai simply undoing what the FCC wasn't free to do in the first place. Pai is correcting the very transgression Wu is citing here.
It was previously a longstanding rule--supported by law--that the FCC would have a hands off approach to the internet. Wheeler reversed that policy drastically. Pai is saying the FCC can't make such reversals.
Anyway, in the end Wu is complaining that he's not getting his own way. It's akin to throwing a tantrum when he's just not managed to convince lawmakers that his perspective is the right one.
Why Hillary failed? You need a BOOK for that? For real?
The US population is used to their presidential elections to be a dog-and-pony show. This time it was worse. It was a bitch-and-jackass show. BOTH of them were unfit for the office and both of them also knew what we all knew: We can't simply say "no, fuck you". One of them WILL be president.
The main reason Hillary failed is that for most people it doesn't matter whether a bitch or a jackass is president, they want neither.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not that any previous administration packed the courts with partisans, competent or not.
You actually may not want competent partisans packed onto the courts, though it's hard to tell what's worse, partisan judges or incompetent judges. Not a big deal however, as the results are often the same. So is the fix.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Checks is what I write to politicians when I need a law, and balance is what I care about in my bank account.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... a basis for decreeing Net Neutrality in the first place?
Networks have prioritized certain types of high-value traffic ever since someone figured out that their network was saturated with someone else's data, and that you could program a way to control that.
NN isn't a "long standing expectation", but a relatively new idea. If the basis for fighting the "abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason", the reasons behind the "longstanding rules" need to be proven to be "good" first, then we can argue about these two-year-old rules being "longstanding".
And freedom. Somehow this is certainly very much pro-freedom. Dunno how yet, but we'll find a reason why everyone is much freer if telcos can rape your butt.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What's that got to do with anything?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down.
Sigh... Courts make laws constantly in the form of case law. That is normal and proper. It is their job to make regulatory bodies adhere to the law when they overstep their authority. That is exactly the point of the judiciary. They are there to determine what the interpretation of the law should be in the event of an ambiguity or conflict. A judiciary that does not have the authority to create binding judgments and to correct regulatory bodies is worse than useless.
If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one.
If a judge oversteps their authority that is why we have an appeal system and a supreme court. In the event they cannot handle it that's why we have Congress and an executive branch to provide a counterbalance. Sometimes judges get it wrong just like sometime congress passes laws that are wrong. That's ok as long as we have a mechanism to right the wrong.
Law professors are not immune to having opinions swayed by their personal preferences and desires. In fact, the lawyer's profession requires the ability to form arguments supporting either side of a case in question. We cannot pretend that his statement is purely objective.
technical whipping boy, Occam's Strop (think about it...)
Try to guess the number I'm thinking of.....
It's the number of people who voted for Trump based on his Net Neutrality stance.
It is also the number of people who voted against Trump based on his Net Neutrality stance.
Can you guess this magic number? I'll give you a hint-- It's between ZERO and ZERO.
Say what you want about whether NN is being "destroyed", or if it never existed in the first place... but don't fabricate a public mandate when 99.9999% of people who give a fuck disagree with what is happening.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
The main reason Hillary failed is that for most people it doesn't matter whether a bitch or a jackass is president, they want neither.
Where 'bitch' in this case supposedly means a person lacking a certain body part, and in possession of a pair of other body parts that the other candidate doesn't have.
Sadly, there seems quite a lot of truth in this statement, so it is more accurate to say that for many voters the presidential elections should be a 'cur-and-pony' show.
Tom Wheeler ,the former head of the FCC, dismantled Ajit Pai's arguments for net-neutrality.
What is "anathema to America's founding spirit" is giving a federal agency control over what private publishers can and cannot say. That is what FCC net neutrality regulations do.
Comcast charging more for Netflix, on the other hand, isn't "censorship". It is "anathema to America's founding spirit" for the federal government to force printers to print content that they don't want to print.
Wu got it backwards: the legal case for net neutrality regulation is exceptionally weak, as is the evidence that it is needed in the first place; and the whole thing was regulatory overreach. This challenges to the reversal will go down in flames in court, unless they find some progressive activist judge.
Well no, he gets this exactly backwards. Network Neutrality was EXACTLY such a reversal, and here's Pai simply undoing what the FCC wasn't free to do in the first place. Pai is correcting the very transgression Wu is citing here.
If there is any disagreement as to whether the FCC has that authority it is the responsibility of the judiciary and/or congress to clarify the matter. I disagree that the FCC doesn't/shouldn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality but if there is disagreement on that point then the courts are a perfectly reasonable place to address the matter. To be frank with the current Congress and administration the judiciary is probably the only place to fight what Mr Pai is trying to do.
It was previously a longstanding rule--supported by law--that the FCC would have a hands off approach to the internet.
A hands off approach isn't an option. You either support the content makers or your support the ISPs and there are consequences either way. Elimination of net neutrality rules de-facto is favoring the interests of certain parties over others. There is no middle ground here and someone has to play referee. If not the FCC then someone else but I would argue that net neutrality is a vital policy that needs to be enforced. I think Ajit Pai's arguments against net neutrality are specious at best and corrupt at worst.
Pai is saying the FCC can't make such reversals.
Why not listen to what he actually said? Pai is CLEARLY in the pocket of those who favor elimination of net neutrality and has a long track record of favoring the interests of broadcasters over other parties. This is neither new nor a secret. His arguments are ridiculous and specious and transparently one sided.
He promised it in his campaign and is now delivering on his promises. He was voted into office. I know you're not used to Politicians keeping their campaign promises, but this is what is happening now, and yes, he wasn't voted into office based only on his stance on Net Neutrality, but the fact remains : He is the sitting President of the United States and he is fulfilling his campaign promises.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
If you could be bothered to read the article, it explains that the long standing rules are from 2005:
Back in 2005, a small phone company based in North Carolina named Madison River began preventing its subscribers from making phone calls using the internet application Vonage. As Vonage was a competitor in the phone call market, Madison River’s action was obviously anticompetitive. Consumers complained, and the Federal Communications Commission, under Michael Powell, its Republican-appointed chairman, promptly fined the company and forced it to stop blocking Vonage.
That was the moment when “net neutrality” rules went from a mere academic proposal to a part of the United States legal order. On that foundation — an open internet, with no blocking — much of our current internet ecosystem was built.
Just another day in Paradise
The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason
The Net Neutrality regulations Chairman Pai proposes rolling back are only 2 years old...
Ken
This is another reason she lost. People like you tried to make this a sexism thing. It wasn't. It was that she was unlikable and stunk of corruption. All I could think about when seeing her was "man, the teflon don could have taken lessons from her". Seriously, how did she never land in prison?
You can claim it was sexism, just like with obama you claimed it was racism, but failure to see the actual reasons just dooms you. You have to stop throwing around "isms" to demonize people you disagree with. It will backfire, as it did in 2016.
What was in place before 2015 was not what is being put in place next month. By 'undoing' what was done during the Obama administration they are 'undoing' the way things have basically always worked. But since they are undoing something done by Obama's administration, it has to be good, right?
Most people in favor of repealing net neutrality have no idea of what net neutrality is. Of course, there are also the very few who will benefit greatly from it financially at the expense of everyone else. They do definitely understand it and are in favor of it. And now one of then holds the reins.
overtime citizens came to look at the internet as common carrier of public information/data/communications, not Information Service Providers.
today people rely on the Internet in the same fashion as schools, bridges, roads, and the courts. this means we need access to be more reliable than "whatever the retarded mega corp wants to provide."
https://www.trumpsweapon.com/
Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.
https://medium.com/theyoungtur...
https://represent.us/action/ho...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Just another day in Paradise
And apparently you've never heard of this thing called "Marbury v. Madison"
You are welcome on my lawn.
Obama did a lot of good, like it or not...
* Released a lot of prisoners who were being unethically held without trial in a foreign country
* Got health care reform passed, so that people that have pre-existing conditions like epilepsy don't have a choice between charity and $2500/mo insurance if self-employed
* Started the US on the path of criminal justice, civil forfeiture, and bail reform (yay Eric Holder -- hell of an appointee!)
Just not the people that elected the Republicans. It's OK, the Republicans are just as bad when the Democrats win.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
He is doing exactly as promised your number of 99.9999% is way off base. Everyone that voted for Trump is behind this. Get rid of the government bloat and get them out of micromanaging business. Let the free enterprise system work.
For what crime? Please, be specific, and don't waste our time with unproven allegations and accusations...
How much will Democrats force the federal government spend to investigate the Steele dossier, which they themselves funded the creation of and never bothered to corroborate or vett any claims within it before 'leaking' it to the press?
Ken
I just watched a bunch of Republicans c*rcle j*rking on YouTube about how they were now facing an unprecedented pool of unfilled positions in the judicial system that can now be filled with 'right thinking people' thanks to McConnell's obstructionist tactics during the Obama presidency.
Not to defend the clearly-partisan choices of the Trump administration, but Hillary explicitly promised "activist judges" - one of the few campaign promises I truly believe she intended to keep. It doesn't make Trump and friends right for doing it, but there was simply no way we were going to get nonpartisan judges out of the 2016 election.
also think about what an Information Service Provider is. it's actually defined as an enhanced service provider in the law. back in the day it was a phone number you called into like a 900 line. it was a service someone provided to the public back then. 900-dial-hor got you a chick to sex with. if you called 555-AOL-HELL you connected into AOL, and the internet. all of this was done over the telecommunications network (however, by dialing into AOL, you actually were accessing another common carrier network known as the Internet).
now you no longer call up a number to gain access to those "Information Service Providers."
instead the internet exists by itself purely, as a separate network as it did from the start, a telecommunication system we all use to connect separate from telephone system. we use it more than telephones. it's become the definition of "common carrier" of all our personal communications, data, and information. there's no other common carrier anymore. it's just the internet. telephone is still around but not nearly as big anymore or as relevant because we send our voice communications over the internet instead. voice is in fact being transmitted over the internet, ie VoLTE and VoIP.
see. it never was a Information Service Provider. It always was a common carrier, but previously accessible like an ISP by use of a dial up number over the telephone network. it was always vastly superior to an enhancement of the telephone system of course, it was always an entire network to itself, a common carrier connectable to by a common carrier.
here's what a telecom service is: the offering of a pure transmission capability over a communications path that is virtually transparent in terms of its interaction with customer supplied information.
seems to describe the internet doesn't it?
here's what an enhanced service is: For the purpose of this subpart, the term 'enhanced service' shall refer to services, offered over common carrier transmission facilities used in interstate communications, which employ computer processing applications that act on the format, content, protocol or similar aspects of the subscriber's transmitted information; provide the subscriber additional, different, or restructured information; or involve subscriber interaction with stored information.
that seems to describe Facebook, Twitter, 900 line sex service, etc.
yeppers the internet was always in actuality a common carrier, however when accessed over the telephone lines back in the day using dial up modems, seemed a little enhanced servicey. however this classification was likely done because the republicans were in power, and their desire to misclassify the internet, in order to reduce regulations, make more money and profits, and reduce the rights of citizens who used it..
https://www.trumpsweapon.com/
Politicians actually usually do keep their campaign promises.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
It's not the job of regulatory agencies to give the public whatever the public wants. It's the job of regulatory agencies to follow the law and the Constitution.
The political appointee positions you speak of typically turn over after each administration - it is rare, but not unheard of, for them to remain between administrations.
Republican obstinacy under Obama did not create additional opportunities to put republicans in political appointee positions. Democrat obstinacy under Trump is a bit more overt that under Obama - with Democrats proudly referring to themselves as the party of 'no', a label they used to mock republicans as recently as last year.
Ken
With all due respect, are you sure you've not had some of that Trump kool-aid? He's flip-flopped on even his promises more than a Northern Pike that just got reeled in. You cannot put much credence to what he promises any more than you could trust him if he said "the check is in the mail, trust me!"
What's that got to do with anything?
What? Is there a new requirement that /. comments need to be relevant to the topic at hand?
Ken
ow you can say that Trump's tweet addresses anything "SPECIFICALLY"
He's not talking about the vague concept of "regulations" in a general sense, he's talking directly about the Net Neutrality policies that are about to pass (when the tweet was written in 2014). So regardless of whether you think he got the finer details right or wrong doesn't change the fact that he's addressing the subject specifically.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "specifically"...
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
By 'undoing' what was done during the Obama administration they are 'undoing' the way things have basically always worked.
OK. Too bad Obama fast tracked congress so many times and didn't get actual laws passed. He mad it pretty easy for his legacy to be unraveled.
Most people in favor of repealing net neutrality have no idea of what net neutrality is.
Same goes for most people that are for it. Of course the people in the industry understand it so your next statement is pretty redundant.
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
The will of the public is instantiated in an election. If the people don't like what the elected officials do, they change them at the next election.
One doesn't throw a coup against democracy because it hasn't turned out the way you imagined. There's nothing he can do that can't be waved away in the future (unless 18 months counts as long-term precedence, as OP claims, in which case 30 months under Trump will be even worse.)
The real problem is the supine, ballless Congress of both sides who prefer to do nothing for fear of anything being held against them. So we get crap like a regulatory agency stretching the original legislative mandate out of all proportion...to satisfy the goals of the legislators, who are too scared to pass laws directly.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I have seen a lot of demonization of Hilary Clinton. Decades worth of it. Bengaaaaazzzzziii!! Butheremails!!!! Nothing significant ever stuck, but yes, this demonization produced the stink of corruption. It is very disappointing.
What amazes me is that almost issue-by-issue there were similar allegations against Donald Trump, and in his case there is a lot of substance, but somehow it doesn't seem to matter. Just take the supposed corruption with the charity foundation of the Clintons. A lot of mud has been thrown, but nothing substantial was ever proved. Whereas Donald Trump's charity foundation was used to pay off a prosecution and buy a portrait of Donald Trump; this is fairly well documented.
Similar for that stupid pizzagate versus DJT harrasment of lots of women; the uranium nonsense versus foreign diplomats staying in Trump hotels to please the president; Trump's 'original' way to handle state secrets; and there is Trump's past history as a shady business man, and I haven't even used the word Russia or Twitter yet...
Given all that, I try to understand why so many people still go for Trump, and all those 'isms' seem to be the most plausible explanation. And despite all evidence I still hope that enough people now realise what a danger to the country (and indeed the world) the current president is, and that THAT will backfire on him.
Checks and balances you know.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The understanding of what Net Neutrality is is not strong with this one...
By a wide margin. He won because our system of government was set up to give wealthy rural landowners a disproportionate amount of voting power. So yeah, I can argue will o the people because America isn't really a Democracy, we just play one on TV.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's pretty much always the case in politics: concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. It certainly applies here: net neutrality provides concentrated benefits and imposes diffuse costs, which is why you have such vocal net neutrality proponents and hear little from the other side.
We elect representatives that represent us on a variety of issues. In the last election, we elected a pussy grabbing businessman over a faux-progressive career politician. That tells you the tradeoffs people generally prefer, namely less regulation and lower taxes as opposed to more social justice and progressivism. Repealing net neutrality is consistent with that choice.
Buy the people who make the laws. Oh, wait.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I just watched a bunch of Republicans c*rcle j*rking on YouTube about how they were now facing an unprecedented pool of unfilled positions in the judicial system that can now be filled with 'right thinking people' thanks to McConnell's obstructionist tactics during the Obama presidency.
Not to defend the clearly-partisan choices of the Trump administration, but Hillary explicitly promised "activist judges" - one of the few campaign promises I truly believe she intended to keep. It doesn't make Trump and friends right for doing it, but there was simply no way we were going to get nonpartisan judges out of the 2016 election.
So now you have arch conservative Republican judges being appointed and those guys are not 'activist judges' ? Furthermore many of them are into the bargain either woefully inexperienced, down right incompetent, simply corrupt or some combination of the three and they are not appointed by the administration, they are being appointed by the Federalist Society. Who the hell elected the Federalist Society?
The political appointee positions you speak of typically turn over after each administration - it is rare, but not unheard of, for them to remain between administrations.
Republican obstinacy under Obama did not create additional opportunities to put republicans in political appointee positions. Democrat obstinacy under Trump is a bit more overt that under Obama - with Democrats proudly referring to themselves as the party of 'no', a label they used to mock republicans as recently as last year.
People can try and pivot this 'my way or the high way' attitude onto the Democrats all they want but it was the Reps. who started it. It was Mitch McConnell who started that tradition and now he's stuck with it. If he really pulls off the great American tax-cut the Republican party will get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020, lose the house, the senate or both and possibly the presidency as well. Jeff Flake is right, with Trump and Moore's scandal baggage tied to it's legs and McConnell's 'my way or the highway' politics weighing it down the Republican party is toast. Where does this ultra partisanship get anybody? People are not stupid, they know what that tax-cut is about, they can see their own tax-cuts will time expire limited but those for Trump's cronies are permanent. People are missing the days when Conservatives were people you could negotiate with, when you could hammer out a compromise in a smoke filled room, get a bipartisan passing vote in Congress and ignore the lunatic fringe of both parties. That is a physical impossibility today. Nobody on either side thought these compromises were optimal but everybody could live with them, all we have today is unrestrained corruption and trench warfare and people are completely sick of it.
I can't tell you if you're trolling or just misunderstanding what the argument is about, but I'll bite.
There is a huge difference between regulations regarding blocking a competitor 100% and allowing one customer to pay for faster service, which has no net effect on others that choose not to pay for faster service EXCEPT to make them slower only by comparison to those that paid for faster service. (It's like arguing that first class mail got slower when the post office started offering priority mail service.)
That isn't what NN is about. You, the customer, are free to purchase higher or lower tiers of bandwidth. You always have been, and probably always will be. Each byte is given the same priority of service, no matter where it's bound or what type of byte it is.
Net Neutrality is all about how those bytes are handled. It affects services that you may subscribe to (Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, Skype), commercial websites you may frequent (Amazon, Reddit, Slashdot), or non-commercial sites (bit-torrent, your cousin's blog). This list is not exhaustive, but you get the idea.
If Net Neutrality is repealed, your ISP may charge you more to simply unblock any of the above -- you're not guaranteed access, because they will no longer be required to treat all bytes the same way. They may also charge the site (not you) money just to allow them onto the ISP's network. Once they're allowed, the ISP may charge you yet again to make one site -- but not other sites -- go faster for you so you can effectively use it. This is on top of the subscription fees you may already pay to the ISP and the service.
With NN, ISPs work like telephones. You may call any other phone, and talk as long as you want, under terms that apply equally to the entire class of calls. The phone company may not intentionally interfere, may not listen in, and may not dictate which other subscribers you may, or may not, call.
Without NN, ISPs get to work more like Cable TV and decide what you get and what you don't get. Don't like it? Get another ISP that offers a different package. (haha, you only have one ISP to choose from.)
Do you see the difference?
The mandate applies to the elected officials and their appointees, not to their individual policies.
For better or worse, we elect officers to exercise their judgment. In this case, it's pretty clearly for the worse.
You are imparting meaning to Trump's words where none exists. And it's not whether or not I "think" his words are factually incorrect,, but the evident fact that his words are indeed factually incorrect.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's not even close to what they'd be doing. You are characterizing it dishonestly. It merely states that the SCOTUS can rule on whether or not a law (or regulation) is legal.
It has been that way since founding fathers still walked the land.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's old news; RTFA about the Madison River/Vonage case from 2005. Lack of network neutrality proved itself a disaster because it enabled anti-competitive practices. This isn't speculation; it's what happened. And the FCC got involved to address that. That's when NN started to become a more formal (but still unpolished) policy (rather than merely a theoretically good idea).
People seem to think the recent change is just a reversal of some recent Obama thing. It's true that reversing the 2015 under-Obama order is probably the motivation for the president wanting this, but the overall policy being reversed is a decade older.
On one hand, 2005 still wasn't really a long time ago. OTOH, it's a long time in "internet years." I'd normally laugh the internet-years thing away, but it happens to be relevant when you're looking at the histories of the large companies involved in both the ISP and information services businesses (and hell yes, those are two totally different things). The last 12 years have been a big deal, and the 2005-2015 period happened under incompletely-formalized NN.
So the problem we're looking at, is what if we go back to 2004-like uncertainty where lack of NN enables anti-competitive practices again, like what Madison River was caught doing. There were a lot of businesses that we take for granted now, that couldn't start back then due to ISPs being seen as a threat, where the FCC's action opened things up. (I tend to think of 2004's internet as being very similar to today's, but it's not really true. There wasn't even such thing as Youtube, if that helps put things into historical context. And it makes sense, since things like Youtube would be severely threatened without NN or expectation of NN soon coming up in the FCC's docket. Would you put money into something like that, if you might be shook down by ISPs? And most people weren't walking around with little handheld internet terminals in their pockets, either.)
If America decides to back what Pai is trying to do (and elsewhere in this discussion, someone makes a case that this is part of what a Trump vote was for) then they're saying they're not so sure all this Youtube/Netflix/Spotify and VoIP and smartphones-running-whatever-app-you-want stuff is a good idea; you should be purchasing these services through your ISP. I think it's not so much a view that information services and ISPs are the same thing (that would be a blatantly stupid denial of reality), but rather, that we want to make them be the same thing. If you accept that a vote for Trump was a vote for repealing NN, then it follows that vote for Trump was a vote for turning the internet into AOL, Compuserve, etc.
(I'm not sure anyone could even characterize NN-repeal as pro-business with a straight face! It's very pro-ISP, though.)
I won't claim to have gotten into Trump voters' heads, but I kind of doubt that's really what they want. (e.g. they probably wouldn't even be able to keep up with their favorite president on Twitter anymore, if this happens.) But maybe? Any Trump supporters wanna share your opinion on that? Would you reverse the FCC's 2005 decision on Madison River vs Vonage (where an ISP blocked access to a competing VoIP service and the FCC slapped them for it), if you could?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Net neutrality is being revoked in the same manner it was implemented: by regulatory fiat. If the revocation is improper, it's very existence was improper in the first place.
That's false logic. It assumes that reversal of something is equally as easy as implementation. That's not remotely true in the real world. Putting in a road can take a few years. Removing a road and restoring the area to what it was before the road might take a decade.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Uhh.. you realize that pro-free-market and pro-business are pretty different (and often adversarial) positions, don't you? This particular FCC issue happens to even be an example of that. Try to catch up.
It will help you if you understand the terms Freedom Liberty etc are meant only for Corporations. Corporations are people, remember? If Corporations are people, then people are what? Think about it...
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is another reason she lost. People like you tried to make this a sexism thing. It wasn't. It was that she was unlikable and stunk of corruption.
I'll agree she was unlikeable, even to the point of being unelectable against any "normal" candidate. Corruption? Lots of hints, no substance, no matter the spitting red faced likes of Hannity and company proclaiming otherwise.
All I could think about when seeing her was "man, the teflon don could have taken lessons from her". Seriously, how did she never land in prison?
I suppose she never landed in prison because, surprisingly, she never actually did anything provably illegal. Much like pretty much everyone but ardent Trump and Moore supporters believe both are likely guilty of sexual assault (perhaps even a subset of their supporters) but we can't prove it. Much like we can't prove Franken groped anyone. Hint - look at the picture - you can see shadows under all fingers, which makes sense as it's a posed picture. That doesn't detract from the claim made that she was uncomfortable because of the picture, but he didn't actually grope her. And here's another question: other than her, who actually had a copy of that picture prior to her releasing it? I could go on and on about that one, but we'll leave it at that. Then there's Bush 43, who has admitted only potentially touching women, but given the number and actions and timespan, I'd far more believe the women than the spokesman's explanation.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Sure you do. Money always, different directions.
As if there is a difference.
But with Democrats, you get dozens of genders, attacks on police and Republicans, riots in the streets, and breathtaking swaths of corruption at the highest levels. The Republicans sort of shortcut the corruption cycle, and happily spend money on militarizing the police.
Not much difference. We could abandon the party distinction.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You are imparting meaning to Trump's words where none exists. And it's not whether or not I "think" his words are factually incorrect,, but the evident fact that his words are indeed factually incorrect.
Trump derangement syndrome is an ugly thing.
No matter what you think about his words, they were still specifically addressing the Net Neutrality regulation. Your opinion on their correctness doesn't change the scope of his tweet as linked.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
How much will Democrats force the federal government spend to investigate the Steele dossier, which they themselves funded the creation of and never bothered to corroborate or vett any claims within it before 'leaking' it to the press?
I don't know how much the federal government will spend investigating the Steele dossier but I will bet that it winds up being significantly less that the Republicans spent of investigating "Bengazi". And please address the contents of the dossier not where it originated, because if true then the contents are a damn-sight more important than who paid for it.
We can't simply say "no, fuck you".
Actually, we can. It is called "voting in the primaries".
12 years in terms of rules on ISPs? Yes, that is longstanding.
You clearly don't have any idea what Pai is proposing, so maybe you should fucking look it up before speaking out of your ass. I'd expect much more from a 4-digit member here.
Just another day in Paradise
Not necessarily true... at least theoretically, an independent could have been elected if they were to actually get more votes than either of the two main parties.
The fact that many people in the USA feel that any vote that isn't for one of the big two is a wasted one is irrelevant. If enough people voted for an independent, than an independent would, in fact, be president. Period.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Assuming you are referring to the issue with the FCC ignoring letters, 45,000 emails is not reflective of the will of the public in a country with over 300 million people, especially when it does not amount to doing anything more than basically signing your name on someone else's letter and sending it. It is reflective of the beliefs of a special interest group which has made some relatively small number of people aware enough of the issue to sympathise with their position.
I don't agree with the FCC's decision for a second here, but if you really want to say that the public's will is being ignored, then at the very least you can also say that the public did not do anywhere nearly enough to be really heard as such a voice for the people.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Given that net neutrality regulations haven't taken effect yet, there's nothing to dismantle.
Are you aware of the history of Net Neutrality battles? Because this statement seems to underscore either a complete lack of knowledge or inherent dishonesty. The FCC Open Internet Order went into effect June 2015. So your statement is factually incorrect or a lie.
So the Obama administration SAID they'd implement net neutrality.
And the FCC issued an order which went effect in 2015. Your point?
Does that bind the Trump administration?
As much as any new administration having to follow what a previous administration did. There are rules and procedures in place.
If so, it's going to be interesting to see what your response is when that logic is used to force President Bernie Sanders to build a wall on the US-Mexico border...
What the fuck does that have to with this action? Bringing up unrelated hyperbole about things that may not happen isn't remotely relevant to my point: Undoing something isn't always easy.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You clearly know nothing about the courts, or else you're relying on some sort of left-wing echo chamber for your facts.
For example, the USSC decision in Kelo was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, & Breyer on the side of taking the property vs. O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas on the side of not allowing the government to take it.
Just a reminder, net neutrality has only been in existence for 2 years. The internet of 2015 was not a dystopian hellscape of strangled innovation.
--- There are two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it
Nope, just rolling back the classification change from 2015. If an action was not legal before 2015 it will continue to not be legal. The 2005 example is irrelevant.
--- There are two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it
The government, or the companies that took on the costs of building and maintaining the pipe? It's a businesses business to run it as they see fit. If they run it poorly, then people will go to other places to get the business they want. And, if you want a faster internet, why shouldn't you pay for it? More government interference means poorer service, and less reason to innovate. You think smartphones would be what they are today, had the government not broken up "ma-bell" and deregulated the phone system?
> potential collusion with a foreign government to tip the scales in his favor in an election
This is the kind of bullshit that get a guy like Trump elected. You make yourselves look so bad that even (previously left of center classical liberals start to get the creeps.
You don't win over anyone by insulting the other guy.
Insulting the electorate isn't terribly bright either.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Of course, there's a difference in terms of what *happens* when each packs the courts.
This is the most deranged part of the current liberal narrative. Our "age of aquarius" with Obama occurred under a more balanced judiciary. It happened with people like Scalia and Gorsuch.
You simply don't have to pack the courts with communists.
The fact that the SCOTUS upheld the personal mandate is quite a travesty really. That was the only part of Obamacare I even objected to in the beginning.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> With Democrats, you get Social Security, Healthcare, and voting rights
I'm a chronic cancer patient and the last thing I want from the government is "health care". Social Security is also something I hope to never have to depend on.
The US government is really bad at this "social welfare" thing. If you ever had any experience with it you would know.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The only thing that the SCOTUS has a right to comment on is whether or not the actions of the executive (through the FCC) pass constitutional muster.
Anything beyond that is outside their powers granted under the law.
They are not a 3rd branch of the legislature, nor are they a 2nd executive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Plenty of judges and professors inject their own personal politics into what they choose to advocate.
A ConLaw prof gave us the "personal mandate".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I didn't mean to suggest that it is irrelevant to how people might feel they ought to vote, I suggested only that it is irrelevant to the fact that if enough people voted for an independent candidate, then the USA would, in fact, get an independent president.
It may certainly be true that much of the USA population is so far led by the notion that any independent vote is a wasted one that they may be unwilling to cast such a vote, but it doesn't change the underlying truth. And I can't help but find it ironic that a country that was once upon a time looked upon by many as an almost exemplary model of democracy has so little of its citizenry actually believing that democracy might actually work.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
70%
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
All you need to know about the distaste for Hillary is that she is a multi-millionaire entirely because she sells influence. Sure, she was a talented lawyer and would be well-off one way or another... but there is something very galling about becoming dirty stinking rich simply by being well-connected. Not that there's anything particularly special about the way Donald Trump took a small fortune and slightly underperformed the S&P to make a large fortune (maybe?), but inherited wealth is something people are accustomed to. If you want someone who epitomizes "the Washington establishment", it's Hillary - and people were in an anti-establishment mood.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
one sheep voting to gut, stuff and mount two wolves and the wolves somehow inexplicably going along with it. See, I can use silly anthologies too.
You know, there is such a thing as solutions to problems, right? You want the smaller states to have a say but I don't want them getting a disproportionate (and therefor un-democratic) amount of power since. It's staring you in the face you know. It's called a parliamentary system (minus the UK's house of lords because why the _hell_ would you do that if you weren't daft).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Those aren't very interesting criticisms, since you picked the ones that weren't true. Here are some that are more interesting: She charged an extremely high speaking fee at a charity dinner (IIRC it was around half of what the event brought in) instead of making a donation herself. She made contradictory campaign promises to different groups of people. She's unlikeable--and please don't attribute that to her being a woman. Nobody says that about the majority of female politicians. She entered politics by marriage instead of by election. She got special privileges from the DNC which were designed to prevent her opponents from having a fair chance.
Sure, she was qualified for the job. She would have made a decent president. But she didn't play by the rules, and didn't really show any significant redeeming qualities (as a person) which would have let people look past her shortcomings.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Once daily, an insane person is not wrong if they spend all day insisting it's midnight. It doesn't make them qualified to be POTUS
Right? An unelected regulatory body that oversees Comcast and Verizon and yet is beholden to Verizon and Comcast is sooooo much better than stupid libtard democracy. Suck Putin's cum from Trump's ass much?
I'm actually fairly sure that the number of people who did NOT vote for her because she's a woman is about on par with the number of people who voted for her exclusively for that reason.
Her gender should make no difference, and it makes no difference for me. She's a despicable human being. About as much as Trump. To quote my grandpa (he said that in 1942, so apologies for the language), "what really matters in the end is not whether you're Aryan or not, but whether you're an asshole or not".
Sadly, an asshole understood what he meant.
As long as we cling to superficial, irrelevant matters, we will not get better outcomes from elections. We care about whether someone prays to the "right" imaginary friend instead of asking what plans they have to balance the budget. We make their gender, skin color or sexual preference an issue instead of wondering what they have planned to give our kids a better education and return the US to the top of scientific research.
A friend of mine once said it, and I can only agree: The US will be a democracy once a Jewish, lesbian, black woman becomes president, but only if she wins because she's got the better program and not because she's a Jewish, lesbian, black woman.
Sadly, we're further from this than ever.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So I can decide what corporate shill will eventually run against the corporate shill the other side of The Party managed to field?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You know, the last time this actually happened, it took 4 years of civil war to beat some sense into people.
It's already been a century, too, since anyone who wasn't part of The Party to come in second.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is no equivalence. There's a huge difference between a bitch and a jackass.
There is also a huge difference in shooting and hanging. But I still want neither.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'll accept that corporations are people when I can hang them for their crimes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, but they EITHER have to be on topic OR about Trump. Or at least Hillary. But not about any has-beens.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If Net Neutrality is repealed, your ISP may charge you more to simply unblock any of the above -- you're not guaranteed access, because they will no longer be required to treat all bytes the same way. They may also charge the site (not you) money just to allow them onto the ISP's network. Once they're allowed, the ISP may charge you yet again to make one site -- but not other sites -- go faster for you so you can effectively use it. This is on top of the subscription fees you may already pay to the ISP and the service... Don't like it? Get another ISP that offers a different package. (haha, you only have one ISP to choose from.),
Well in fact, I have several ISPs to choose from, and if my current ISP decided to pull shenanigans like you describe, I would quickly switch to a competitor.
If everyone had several ISPs to choose from, would you trust the free market (rather than a regulatory bureaucracy) to prevent such shenanigans?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
When it comes to business the courts have a poor track record.
Look at cases like the DOJ vs. M$, the whole antitrust trial and the penalty was a joke with M$ getting off with a slap on the wrist.
How much does it actually cost to buy a judge anyway?
We're not yet at the Hillary is a has-been phase yet? Is there a countdown timer somewhere that can help out?
Okay, so she took a speaking fee for speaking at a charitable event. Presumably the people setting up the event knew what they were signing her up for. and what they were paying, and I'd assume that wasn't one of Clinton's favorite charities. You want to cite a good charity record for Trump?
EVERYBODY makes contradictory campaign promises to different groups of people. Clinton was unusually honest in the campaign. Trump was the opposite.
She's unlikeable - okay, I can buy that one. Definitely low charisma.
She got elected to the Senate. What was Trump's previous political experience?
She won the Democratic primaries, as a general rule. In situations that might be more easily rigged, such as caucuses, Sanders tended to do better. Even without superdelgates, she would have won the nomination.
So, almost everything people say bad about Clinton is either false or not as bad as what Trump said or did. Trump may be considered more likeable than Clinton, and that's about it.
Clinton didn't lose because of bad things she did. That's obvious.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I've seen lots of accusations against her. Typically, when I look into them, they wind up being lies, gross exaggerations, or not that bad. To put this another way, nobody has been able to supply good evidence for her being despicable, so the "despicable" part comes first and then people try to fake up reasons to believe it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We know that Trump and associates had a lot of business ties with Russia. We know that they lied about them. We know that Russia interfered with the US election process. We know that Trump pushed some seriously pro-Russia policies.
Based on that, there is potential collusion with a foreign government to tip the scales in his favor in an election. I'm not saying that it happened, I'm saying that it might have and it's worth investigating. What ulterior motives do you have in saying that reasonable speculation on sound evidence makes us look bad?
Trump's campaign was very, very heavy on the insults. He hasn't stopped. It appears that you do win over people by insulting the other guy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Gorsuch was nominated by Trump after the Republicans completely stonewalled Obama's moderate nominee. He was not on the Supreme Court while Obama was President.
Can you name one Communist judge in the US Federal Court system, past or present? Every President has gone along with that 100%.
The personal mandate is essential to have a functioning health care system. Other than that, people wait until they have a serious medical condition and then buy a policy that covers it. This means that insurance companies exclude pre-existing conditions, and that kills people.
The Supreme Court has made what I consider mistakes, but very few travesties.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on laws other than the Constitution a lot of the time. One thing they do sometimes is take up different interpretations of Federal statutes in different circuits and decide which interpretation will be consistently followed.
In this case, there may be legal restrictions on what processes the FCC has to follow. Obviously they have the legal ability to change the 2015 decision, and the courts aren't going to stop that, but they may have to provide some sort of evidence it would be a good idea.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah, I agree that nothing she did was that bad, unless she was complicit in rigging primaries/caucuses, and I'm too far removed from the scene (literally and figuratively) to know anything except how it looked.
Clinton didn't lose because of bad things she did. That's obvious.
Like I said, it's a double whammy of the relatively minor bad stuff she's done (and the stories about her which seem to be by and large untrue), and the fact that people don't like her. Trump is a despicable human being, but damn does he have charisma. Well, I didn't watch his speeches, but from based on articles about his campaign, he's in touch with his audience like a professional comedian or storyteller. He was so in touch with the emotion of his audience that he talked shit, not even paying attention to the truth or falsity of his words. It's as if he started a state of collective flow and had no focus left to think about wtf he was actually saying. But why that was enough to make him win--or why Clinton's shortcomings were enough to make her lose--is an analysis I can't make. But it is an absolute certainty that there was more at play than her sex.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Well, you never know, she might want to try again in 2020.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.