Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Are Fighting For Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Lawmakers and public officials are responding to the FCC's decision to gut net neutrality with promises of action. In the hours following the FCC hearing, officials from around the country announced lawsuits and bills intended to counter the FCC's decision. In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that he's leading a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the FCC's vote, though he didn't give further details on the suit or who would be joining him. Calling today's decision an "illegal rollback," he described it as giving "Big Telecom an early Christmas present."
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also announced he would sue alongside Schneiderman and other attorneys general across the country, saying that he held "a strong legal argument" and that it was likely the government had failed to follow the law with this vote. Other officials from Santa Clara, California, including county supervisor Joe Simitian, are also suing the FCC to block the decision. "We believe the depth of your ideas should outweigh the depths of your pockets," Simitian said at a press conference.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) tweeted that he will be submitting net neutrality legislation, saying that this was a decision better left to Congress. Coffman was the first Republican to ask the FCC to delay the vote, citing "unanticipated negative consequences" on Tuesday. Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who had previously announced on Twitter her support for Ajit Pai and the FCC, tweeted a video, saying, "We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling, and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet." We're likely to see many others express their disappointment with the FCC's decision over the next few hours and days.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also announced he would sue alongside Schneiderman and other attorneys general across the country, saying that he held "a strong legal argument" and that it was likely the government had failed to follow the law with this vote. Other officials from Santa Clara, California, including county supervisor Joe Simitian, are also suing the FCC to block the decision. "We believe the depth of your ideas should outweigh the depths of your pockets," Simitian said at a press conference.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) tweeted that he will be submitting net neutrality legislation, saying that this was a decision better left to Congress. Coffman was the first Republican to ask the FCC to delay the vote, citing "unanticipated negative consequences" on Tuesday. Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who had previously announced on Twitter her support for Ajit Pai and the FCC, tweeted a video, saying, "We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling, and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet." We're likely to see many others express their disappointment with the FCC's decision over the next few hours and days.
And sign an a worldwide agreement to never allow AT&T, Verizon, et al to connect to it.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
So the democrats are going to run the midterms on restoring Net Neutrality... Good luck! (You are going to need it.)
Let the demagogues on the issue continue!
Um.. Word of advice, if you care to listen. You need something else other than "Trump Bad, we oppose" and this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is akin to removing anti-monopoly laws, you moron.
It is amazing how free-market loving Republicans are so happy to sign legislation that allows a handful of companies to control a gigantic market. See also: historical stance on debt and the new tax bill.
***Some faith in our system of government restored*** We're not totally left swinging in the breeze on this one, there's some people with some fight in them that aren't willing to just sit back and let the Internet burn.
This isn't about net neutrality mostly.
This is largely about Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
The FCC in 2015 said broadband providers are common carriers under Title 2. This made 400 pages of onerous regulations applicable to all broadband providers, some of the regulations are ridiculous and very subjective. See this link: https://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomworks/2014/09/16/title-ii-regulation-internet-actually-means/
So Title II fosters pointless litigation and excessive regulation.
So, Title II was required for the FCC to implement net neutrality -- otherwise the FCC wouldn't have been able to mandate net neutrality because they can only do that to common carriers under Title II.
With the FCC undoing the Title II requirement, broadband providers will now instead be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC.
So the Federal Trade Commission will be overseeing the business practices of the telecoms, just like before. Like when the FTC got on Comcast's case for throttling bit torrent back in 2009.
Much ado about the wrong thing. This has little to do with Net Neutrality and a lot to do with Title II having hundreds of pages of regulations that didn't previously apply to broadband.
This is the best that can happen actually. If lawmakers pass a law forbidding blocking, throttling, fast lanes, etc, then that's actually better than leaving the internet at the mercy and discretion of the FCC. It's the best thing one could ask for. Let's hope congress actually manages to do something. *fingers crossed*
Yea, that's not how anything works. Regulations are there because if you let them, companies would just dump their waste into rivers and use lead in gas because it makes the engine run smoother.
The reason government exists is to protect the masses from whims and desires of monied interests.
This is akin to removing anti-monopoly laws
No it isn't. This is akin to a poorly outdated law being interpreted in 2 ways that are both correct and wrong at the same time.
Congress fixing that poorly outdated law is the proper course of action instead of the FCC overstepping their authority and ignoring the courts.
Bullshit. NN does absofuckinglutely nothing to address the real issue, namely local monopolies. You want to solve the problem, get legislation passed that eliminates anti-last mile legislation, blocks municipal exclusivity agreements, and forces prompt(within 72 hours) shifting of cable on public poles so that competitors can install theirs.
He has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012,[1] and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term.[2]
This entire issue of net neutrality being repealed will end up being much ado about nothing. The mounting legal challenges will make this another failure of the Trump administration. Since net neutrality is now a bi-partisan issue, it will become codified into law and Ajit will shrink back to obscurity.
Yea, that's not how anything works. Regulations are there because if you let them, companies would just dump their waste into rivers and use lead in gas because it makes the engine run smoother.
The reason government exists is to protect the masses from whims and desires of monied interests.
Actually, you're wrong. Government exists so that there is some form of order and civility. Although, I am not sure about the civility anymore. Lawless civilizations usually degrade into violence and we're not quite there yet.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the new FCC rules to say that states can no longer implement their own NN rules? FCC covered their ass to ensure this atrocity can't be overturned by states?
If we as a people decide that it is a good thing to regulate these businesses, then it should be so. If these companies do not want to be in this business, they can all go somewhere else... or so by their logic, they would tell the people.
The comment period was a joke, and the comments that were made were not taken seriously. The entire point of a government is for the people to come to some consensus, and when a leader of an agency blatantly doesn't care, the agency needs to have its feet held to the fire.
There is no doubt that the internet is now a utility that we all use and need. There is no doubt that the cost of getting into the game is so high that most people could never jump in. There has to be some protections.
--
I didn't do it. - B. Simpson
Furthermore, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) are supporting Sen. Ed Markey's (D-MA) plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the FCC vote.
Why don't they introduce a bill allowing the FCC to regulate broadband throttling? The FCC board's (and Patel's) issue with the previous legislation was it was introduced under common carrier requirements.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I read this in Boris Baddenov's voice. Gold.
Don't meme for money, meme for art my friend.
Given the mood of the country (in general, not just about NN), come 2018 a whole lot of congressmen with (R) after their name are going to be out, and more with (D) after their name will be in.
Should any new legislation WRT NN not wait until after 2018 to give it a better chance?
Mmmm. This is a beautiful catch-22 those (R)'s are in now. If they do nothing, they will be pistol whipped with repealing NN, in the midterms.
If they do something, they'll incur Trump's wrath. It's his goon that did the repeal afterall.
And Democrats have no motivation to act right now. Repubs just handed them more winning things to talk about in 2018.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. There's numerous laws regarding how a repeal of a recently passed policy must be carried out, including having good cause and conducting a proper public comment period. Both of those are open to challenge, and the result is far from a foregone conclusion. The principal argument seems to be that proceding with the vote despite widespread organized fraud involving criminal identity theft, without investigating much, and blocking states' efforts to do so, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Somehow I don't think you made your comment after a thorough analysis of that law and the legal precedents surrounding it.
What's that have to do with anything?
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) announced plans to introduce a bill to adopt net neutrality as a requirement in his state. He wrote in a Medium post, "If the FCC won't stand up for a free and open internet, California will."
As I already commented, this can't happen cuz interstate commerce and FCC rules and all that. So to achieve this, there will need to be a separate internet in California.
Now look I'm not saying the sky is falling, but this is the crack in the egg. Maybe nothing comes of it, or maybe internet starts to fragment.
This is what the repeal bought us. This could happen. Maybe not right away, but as networks become increasing competitive with each other, it's going to start to make sense to shut out your competitors users completely, and to get exclusivity of content on your network.
I can already see the commercials, "Verizon's network offers HBO exclusively!" If you don't think it can happen... without net neutrality, it's a possible future.
Absolutely. Elected officials should be making the rules, not appointed ones. The FCC is there to enforce the laws that congress writes. They can't go around making their own rules. If you want "net neutrality", vote for a congress that will give it to you instead constantly reelecting servants to the industry. The opportunity is ours to squander.
*Sweep the House*
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you would realize that we're not limited to a single legislation, and could have NN and break up local monopolies also. If only people would stop electing terrible legislators.
So what you're saying is that back when the internet was orders of magnitude less complex and carried orders of magnitude less information at an orders of magnitude slower speed and went over POTS copper it was cheaper? REALLY? I never would have guessed.
That would be a better solution, there's no question, but surely you agree that'd take time especially given all the examples of Comcast et al suing to block municipal fiber? In the meantime why not have common-sense rules preventing the worst of the monopolistic excesses?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I can certainly see why you would want to trade your "kingdom" for some brains.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This. Net neutrality is a pretty major deal: reclassifying companies and how they are regulated should not be up to five bureaucrats. It should be up to Congress: let the bureaucrats enforce net neutrality after Congress mandates it.
Besides, I would love to see Ajit Pai squirm as he has to decide between disobeying Congress, disobeying his corporate masters, or doing the one honorable thing for a scumbag like him, resign.
The "Al Gore invented the Internet" meme wasn't even funny to those of us who belong on Slashdot back in the days it was popular. It is especially lame in 2017.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If only people would stop electing terrible legislators.
Can't have that. The voters are helpless little angels and can only do what the TV tells them. Because, you know, like, democracy is hard, and the glittery money dazzles. I mean, they all want laws passed, but they never offer up anybody who will make an honest effort of it. Apparently, it's supposed to happen automagically, even as they reelect the same old crooks into office.
Now watch the magic!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Protip...Congress likes to name bills the OPPOSITE of what they actually do. All this changes does is revert things to the way they were in the long ago time of...2015 while removing ISPs from the same regs that were used to justify the AT&T wiretaps. All those "ZOMFG they are gonna kill the nets!" FUD? Yeah there are already multiple federal laws preventing that already on the books.
But hey don't listen to me or anybody else's opinion on the subject why don't you actually read the bill? Raise your hands how many of you actually read the bill you are screaming to save versus how many of you are just parroting what you heard some talking head say? the same talking heads that I might remind you said HRC wasn't a crook while she smashed her phones with a hammer to destroy evidence and bought the DNC and the superdelegates to make sure Bernie couldn't win, said there was WMDs in Iraq despite there being ample evidence that wasn't the case, and again sang the praises of PATRIOT? Think for yourself people, don't just believe what you are told!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The internet is no more complex than it was 20 years ago, it is just bigger and moves more data per second...more complex absolutely not. Still just alot of ICMP, TCP, UDP on the same old ports Bit less trusting of BGP announcements yes....not complex. Buffers are repetitively the same size, MTU and MSS have not changed one bit. Data is more encrypted stronger and more of it rides on generic port 443 but the internet is no more complex. Honestly it is simpler that routers are not 6000W 300 pound beasts anymore. That carriers demark/hand off on only about 3 media types at this point. Telex and other vendor have meet-me rooms at every major telecomunications hub in the world. You want an alternative software defined network, it is about 4 clicks and a credit card away. The SKU count in my spares bay is 1/100th of what it was 10 years ago. I never see another media converter or a tap with a wall wart power supply. Inside the corporate firewall is complex, with QOS but everything just works if some thought is given to design and automation. Never had the frustration level with todays networks like I had with faxservers, multilink and dialup.
But that doesn't mean we won't prioritize someone else over you.
I could care less if they don't block and don't throttle, but they will still prioritize those that pay ahead of all others. That's part of the problem. Paid prioritization is just as bad as throttling the other guys. If someone searches a video and it's glitchy because the version on YouTube is faster, then they accomplish the same goal.
The *ONLY* exception to prioritization should be life saving services. E911 calls should be given priority on all networks that carry VoIP. Telemedicine should also be given priority. As should traffic from first responders in an emergency situation.
However, that's where it should end. There shouldn't be a reason that HBO can deliver 4k content without buffering from time to time, yet Showtime can't. There's no reason I should be able to watch an NFL game on Amazon and have it look, sound, seem better than the same game on Twitter (unless of course they have insufficient bandwidth on their end, then that's up to them to fix as a part of doing business).
In what way did the FCC ignore the courts?
Eh. Market consolidation will naturally lead to a handful of providers - or just one - in a market. Any market. Thus the bargain of exclusivity for the company in return from regulation from the municipality.
The only alternatives are heavy-handed regulation or making the internet a utility owned by the public. Both of which tend to be opposed by the short of people who complain about exclusivity agreements.
Sorry, but that's like saying the human genome isn't complex because it's just four nucleic acids, like in the old days. Maybe at the layer you worry about it's just like always, but there are quite a few complex optimizations, translations, and application-layer standards, that if they do what they're meant to do, are transparent to most. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
The courts shut down the FCC regulating ISP's around 2005, claiming they did not have the authority to do so. In response, the FCC attempted to change the legal definition of what an ISP is until they could regulate. They failed in 2008 but succeeded in 2012. Then three years later Obama encouraged the FCC to go around congressional authority to impose new legal doctrine and voila! the Net Neutrality regulations that were just repealed. The vote was put to table within the FCC on the same grounds that caused the 2005 court ruling.
All these events that are recent history which have been conveniently ignored in the discussion of Net Neutrality. The FCC never had authority to do what they did but the gears of government are very slow.
We already have enough conservative trolls devaluing this site. Wouldn't you be happier over at Breitbart, where your nonsense is accepted uncritically?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
how all lawmakers are exactly the same on every issue.
Go on, say it.
I dare you.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Your mistake is to think that regulations are anything other than law and order to ensure civility.
That's exactly what they are, so by your own definition, this IS part of government's job. Just because the particular type of laws are specialized to deal some unique circumstances that don't really exist with individuals doesn't make them any less about maintaining order and civility.
You can poison somebody, maybe a few if you are very good at getting away with it. A corporation can poison millions of people in a day for about a penny each and consider it well worth while, all while shielded by limited liability laws (which to be fair, may actually have some merit and could indeed be as claimed much more good than bad). That's a unique circumstance - so we make specialized laws for that circumstance.
If I have a complaint about regulation it's that it tends to go in the opposite direction of where it should: we shouldn't have less regulation, we should make the punishment for violating existing regulations much, much harsher.
The principle of equality before the law demands that, if a company does anything bad, it's CEO should face the same punishment I would face for doing the same thing - multiplied by the much larger number of victims.
When every CEO who dumps toxic waste in a river gets the same death penalty (or life in prison) I would get if I poisoned you - nobody will dump toxins in a river.
The problem with regulation is that it, all too often, allows the CEO to get away with a fine for crimes that you and I would get a lifetime in prison or even executed for.
That problem however cannot be fixed with deregulation - it can only be fixed by making the punishment for violating regulations much, much harder so it's in line with criminal law.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Taxpayers paid for most of that shit numnuts
Maybe that works in Fairyland where there's no corruption in government, but in America there's no such thing as a free market.
The law was written so that it would stay current. The mechanism by which it accomplishes this is the empowerment of a panel of experts to evaluate each situation as it comes along and create rules which will uphold the law in that situation. Sometimes they get this wrong, as the FCC did in 2010, and the court will void their rules for failing to uphold the law as required. Sometimes they get it right, as the FCC did in 2015, and the court will validate their rules for successfully upholding the law.
Yea, why didn't I think of this switching to a competitor idea? I have Comcast but there is a second competitor here, xfinity. I'll call up Comcast and tell them they better straighten up or I'm going to switch.
It's funny how just now people are starting to care about bogus comments to NPMs. It's not new and both sides do it. The thing of it is though it doesn't really matter. While the APA requires public comment to be solicited it does not require the agency to weigh it.
It's not like voting for American Idol where the agency has to count how many people are for and against something and proceed accordingly. So long as the agency summarizes the distinct arguments (of which there might only be 10 or 12 among 100,000 comments) and somehow considers them it has more or less fulfilled its obligation under the APA. Assuming the APA is otherwise complied with one must prove abuse of discretion which is a pretty high bar.
If it were a popularity contest the ATF never would have gotten rule 41 put in place a few years ago. The comments were significantly weighed against the proposal and the final rule only gave scant consideration to the points raised in the comments.
But hey, give the current administration credit. At least they're seeking public comment on rulemakings rather than simply issuing "guidance" that more or less acts like a rule without going through the rulemaking process.
Good thing corporations are legally people these days.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
We brought the Republicans in with a wave election and a mandate to repeal regulations, which is exactly what's happening. There should be dancing in the streets. Shady!!!!
Trump has no mandate because he lost the popular vote, because around a third of Americans approve of the job he is doing, and because 75%-80% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.
If you agree with Lincoln that the American government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people" then you must reject the actions of Ajit Pai and Trump.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Can't have that. The voters are helpless little angels and can only do what the TV tells them. Because, you know, like, democracy is hard, and the glittery money dazzles. I mean, they all want laws passed, but they never offer up anybody who will make an honest effort of it. Apparently, it's supposed to happen automagically, even as they reelect the same old crooks into office.
It would help if 94% of the congressional districts weren't rigged to favour one of the candidates. Gerrymandering is a cancer on American democracy.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Capitalism works, this law was nothing more than Liberals wanting to control free speech.
You had a point up until you blamed Liberals, at which point you showed your true colors as a blinder-wearing Conservative.
The phrase that applies to this issue (and most any other issue) is this: Follow The Money. In other words, blame the assholes that will make money hand over fist due to the issue.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Oh, it is so much worse than you might imagine. For decades the interstate commerce clause has been abused in some absurd contortions of the law. If I remember correctly, there was actually a case where the Feds successfully argued in court that the commerce clause allowed them to regulate a farmer who grew wheat for feeding his own livestock. The Fed argued that because the farmer grew extra wheat he then participated less in the marketplace which would include wheat from out of state, thus his farming activities had an affect on interstate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But hey, give the current administration credit. At least they're seeking public comment on rulemakings rather than simply issuing "guidance" that more or less acts like a rule without going through the rulemaking process.
Um, it's pretty clear they weren't seeking public comment, but merely going through the motions to make it look like they are. And they pretty much had to do that, because they couldn't issue "guidance" that contradicts the classification system, and really I think the whole point is to make sure that customers do not have standing to sue Comcast and Verizon when they start violating the network neutrality rules.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
What the fuck are you quoting and what the fuck with the dates? 5 years is up. Oh, Wikipedia. Well, maybe this is what you should have quoted, In January 2017, President Donald Trump designated Pai as FCC Chairman.[3][4] In March 2017, Trump announced that he would renominate Pai to serve another five-year term (remaining Chairman of the FCC).[5] Pai was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for an additional five-year term on October 2, 2017.[6] Before his appointment to the FCC, Pai held positions with the Department of Justice, the United States Senate, the FCC's Office of General Counsel, and Verizon Communications. Jesus Christ, so many jobs is such little time? Reminds me of the Curb your Enthusiasm where everyone hands off their shitty assistant to some unsuspecting mark. Mitch McConnell you asshole!
Wow, so unaware of the irony. Corporations cannot make you do anything. Governments can and do, thus restricting freedom.
No, no, no. That's just wrong. Corporations can, in fact, force you do to anything but they are not legally allowed to do so. And it's the government that makes the rules that say they aren't allowed to force you to do things, unless you sign a contract and unless you are given compensation for the things you are then required to do. Without the government the corporation would be making it's own rules about what it's allowed to do, and if you think a democratic government which has to actually run elections is oppressive, you should get the chance to live under corporate rule where the corporation only has a duty to a majority of it's share holders. I doubt you'd prefer it.
Government regulations can protect your freedoms or they take them away. This should be self-evident. Laws against murder, for example, create more freedom than they remove. Government regulation is always a trade off between freedoms.
It's important to always look at the rules and try and figure whether the trade off is a good one. In this case, I think it is. Net Neutrality is trading away Comcast's freedom to monitor, intercept, modify, or destroy your communications, for your freedom to communicate on the internet without interference from your service provider. The government is taking away a freedom from the corporations to make a similar freedom available to the people.
Regulation, any regulation, just hampers competition.
I'm afraid not. The most obvious example that this claim is false is every regulation that curbs anti-competitive practices. Those regulations increase competition by disallowing behaviour that undermines competition.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yes, totally the same. OS updates didn't get bigger and more frequent, no streaming services come out, no p2p bit torrent like protocol, no higher quality songs, and definitely no billions of fuckbook daily visitors, higher encryption standards, record setting DDoS attacks, etc. And we still use basic CPUs that pass 5Mbps of 802.11b in hardware, and no, nothing like 40-100 Gbps hardware. Nope, nothing changed. Shit should be cheaper, right? I mean, things only get easier, right?
The internet is a private network. Just because people want to use it to watch TV doesn't change that fact. The entire NN movement is about seizing private property so someone else who didn't pay for it can benefit. It would be better to leave the network free, and just pay the deadbeats who can't afford their TV the gap price.
Who didn't pay for it? I pay an ISP to carry my data to and from the internet. If I go over a limit, they even charge me more for the additional data. So I pay them to route my information to the internet and the information I requested back to me. Everything else is misdirection because I already paid them for the service they are providing.
Comcast and Verizon, however, want to get paid more than once to do that job. Wouldn't we all like that? Wouldn't you like to get two or three pay checks for the work you're doing without having to do anything extra? But we don't get to do that and neither should they. And if we let them do it, we will all end up paying for it, because that extra cost is going to get passed on to you in the form of higher prices and reduced competition.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
This is nothing more that lip service trying to appease public rage, knowing full well citizens have less attention span than a 2 year old. They know Humpty-Trumpty will perform some even more egregious act, diverting attention and none of them will have to give back the $101 Million our "representatives" pocketed from the communications cabal.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Bottom line is the leaches and oligarchy want NN dead, it will stay dead because we the people no longer matter.
If they could make the internet better they have had plenty of networks they could do it with. They still could make ISPnetPremium but they don't.
The existence of an open internet defeats the price collusion schemes that make these networks profitable.
No private entity should have any control over services that are public infrastructure-supporting.
Not electricity.
Not roadways.
And not telecommunications or internet.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you would realize that we're not limited to a single legislation, and could have NN and break up local monopolies also.
Yes, we can. But I have a fundamental issue with NN: it infringes on the property rights of the network owner. If I build a network, small or large, and I pay for the routers, switches, transmission and operations, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. My network, my rules. And my customers can vote with their feet.
Which if course, is the part where the breakup of monopolies comes in.
If only people would stop electing terrible legislators.
That, we totally agree on. Just look at our Supreme Leader (and yes, I know he is the head of the EB, but still signs laws so he is also part of the LB).
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Just like an SJW, all you can do is insult and cry...should I call you a wahmbulance? You mad bro? I provide the federal statutes, what do YOU provide? Oh yeah "wah his reality is breaking "my truth" he isn't respecting my political narrative, waah!"
Maybe this is more to your liking?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Nope. People in the new districts can still vote for anybody on the ballot. It is still their choice to stay with the devil they know. No more excuses!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I didn't say it had to be weighed like a vote, just that it had to be conducted. You should let the NY AG know that you're such an expert on whether massive uninvestigated criminal fraud matters in the commenting and he's filing a frivolous suit without merit.
And while abuse of discretion is absolutely a high bar, if there's ever an action that meets it this is it. If this doesn't qualify then the concept is meaningless.
Finally, they weren't really seeking public comment at all. Pai made it crystal clear the decision was made and was final before commenting even started. All the "novel legal arguments" in the world wouldn't have changed his mind no matter how valid they were. He made a mockery of the public commenting just like he laughs at and dismisses everyone and every argument against repeal.
Yes, we can. But I have a fundamental issue with NN: it infringes on the property rights of the network owner. If I build a network, small or large, and I pay for the routers, switches, transmission and operations, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. My network, my rules. And my customers can vote with their feet.
No, you don't.
Your local monopoly awarded by some politician does not give you the right to say that I can no longer stream video unless I pay another $10 per month just because you own the router.
I pay for an internet connection, and that's what I expect. Especially if there is little to no alternative beside you.
If by voting with my feet you mean to sell my house and move to another neighborhood just so you can acquire the ISP there and impose your will on me again, well that doesn't fly for me. Your free market is an illusion.
I refuse to sign
It's not an excuse, it's an observation.
As long as the political environment is this partisan and this entrenched, it will not change. In first past the post voting, voting for a candidate who likely won't win is effectively the same as voting for your least preferred candidate who does have a chance to win. Given there are actually differences between the parties that do impact the lives of many people, you will have trouble convincing people to consistently vote for a party that seems guaranteed to lose.
Ending gerrymandering would at least ensure that candidates need to appeal to a majority of the electorate rather than just a majority of the people likely to vote in the primary.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's all still a matter of the voters' personal choice. There is no outside "system" to blame for that. Either they take their own initiative, or they don't. What they have now is their own making, even if by simply allowing it to happen and not lifting a finger, on the contrary, they are actively supporting it with their vote for Quid Pro Quo, yet endlessly whining about it.
Question: Who is going to end gerrymandering for you? The judges that owe favors? Or are people going to elect somebody to change the law? Of course if the latter were to happen, "Mission Accomplished", right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No, you don't. Your local monopoly awarded by some politician does not give you the right to say that I can no longer stream video unless I pay another $10 per month just because you own the router.
Right, so you are going to tell me how I can configure my router that I pay for on my network that I pay for.
That's now how private property works. My property, my rules.
I pay for an internet connection, and that's what I expect.
If you don't get what you pay for, you are free to sue for breach of contract. Everything after that is just contract law.
Especially if there is little to no alternative beside you. If by voting with my feet you mean to sell my house and move to another neighborhood just so you can acquire the ISP there and impose your will on me again, well that doesn't fly for me. Your free market is an illusion.
And this is the part that I agree with. And this is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Your obsession with "net neutrality" makes you look away from the real problem: lack of competition in the consumer broadband market.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
The courts shut down the FCC regulating ISP's around 2005, claiming they did not have the authority to do so. In response, the FCC attempted to change the legal definition of what an ISP is until they could regulate. They failed in 2008 but succeeded in 2012. Then three years later Obama encouraged the FCC to go around congressional authority to impose new legal doctrine and voila! the Net Neutrality regulations that were just repealed. The vote was put to table within the FCC on the same grounds that caused the 2005 court ruling.
All these events that are recent history which have been conveniently ignored in the discussion of Net Neutrality. The FCC never had authority to do what they did but the gears of government are very slow.
Interesting, but your argument was rendered moot when the courts affirmed the Net Neutrality regulations in 2015.