Slashdot Mirror
Judge Won't Let FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal Stop Lawsuit Alleging Charter Throttled Netflix (hollywoodreporter.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hollywood Reporter: [I]n the first significant decision referring to the repeal [of net neutrality] since FCC chairman Ajit Pai got his way, a New York judge on Friday ruled that the rescinding of net neutrality rules wasn't relevant to an ongoing lawsuit against Charter Communications. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed the lawsuit almost exactly a year ago today. It's alleged that Charter's Spectrum-TWC service promised internet speeds it knew it couldn't deliver and that Spectrum-TWC also misled subscribers by promising reliable access to Netflix, online content and online games. According to the complaint, the ISP intentionally failed to deliver reliable service in a bid to extract fees from backbone and content providers. When Netflix wouldn't pay, this "resulted in subscribers getting poorer quality streams during the very hours when they were most likely to access Netflix," and after Netflix agreed to pay demands, service "improved dramatically." This arguably is the kind of thing that net neutrality was supposed to prevent. And Charter itself pointed to the net neutrality repeal in a bid to block Schneiderman's claims that Charter had engaged in false advertising and deceptive business practices. New York Supreme Court Justice O. Peter Sherwood isn't sold.
He writes in an opinion that the FCC's order "which promulgates a new deregulatory policy effectively undoing network neutrality, includes no language purporting to create, extend or modify the preemptive reach of the Transparency Rule," referring to how ISPs have to disclose "actual network performance." And although Charter attempted to argue that the FCC clarified its intent to stop state and local governments from imposing disclosure obligations on broadband providers that were inconsistent with FCC's rules, Sherwood notes other language from the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" how states will "continue to play their vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, enforcing fair business practices... and generally responding to consumer inquiries and complaints."
He writes in an opinion that the FCC's order "which promulgates a new deregulatory policy effectively undoing network neutrality, includes no language purporting to create, extend or modify the preemptive reach of the Transparency Rule," referring to how ISPs have to disclose "actual network performance." And although Charter attempted to argue that the FCC clarified its intent to stop state and local governments from imposing disclosure obligations on broadband providers that were inconsistent with FCC's rules, Sherwood notes other language from the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order" how states will "continue to play their vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, enforcing fair business practices... and generally responding to consumer inquiries and complaints."
"Dammit, Pai! Why did you put that note into the order? What the hell do you think we're paying you for?"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Should be next for throttleing everyone with their shitty service.
whats a arab bizx?
Arabs purchased Slashdot about two years ago as some sort of "investment" and threw the site under the bus. It is being actively neglected and has lost most of its user base. They hired two or three monkeys who push about half a dozen topics from "Russia" to "Net Neutrality" to "AI" and little more. It looks as though the site was either purchased to be run into the ground in a big portfolio (look at the SEC filings), or they are taking big bucks from someone to do some SEO black hat magic.
HTH
we give people the right to opt-out of having data collected on sites and apps off Facebook being used for ads.”
And Tesla and SpaceX. I hardly every see anything Blue Origin or any of the other private space firms.
no, fuckhead, nothing about the never in force net neutrality regulations affect this at all. False advertising is still against the law.
As explained in the complaint, there are two primary allegations:
1. That "Spectrum-TWC promised Internet speeds that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."
2. That "Spectrum-TWC promised reliable access to online content that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."
The specific legal theories are fraudulent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and false advertising.
It's completely unsurprising that the judge would conclude Net Neutrality or the lack thereof has no bearing on this case.
Actually shitforbrains maybe you didn't notice somehow but Russia got themselves into the news quite significantly on the tech side of things... and you seem to cry and pout on every other article no matter what it's about. Nice rant. Nobody cares though, go whine on Fox News with Hannity about how the Russia thing won't go away. Or just go work for Trump, he needs whiners to play the plausible victim also. Anything to distract from prison.
Meanwhile I guess you can bow to your unnamed "arab" overlords stupid cunt lol.
Being paid, what, 30 cents per post now? Keeping you on retainer for the next DNC "election" cycle?
Don't let facts cloud the issue here. Net neutrality regulations said fuck all about peering agreements. The simple fact is that if you have dedicated bandwidth to a network which there is incentive for both parties to upgrade at the first sign of high utilization, the traffic across that path will on average have better performance than if it had to compete with other traffic flows across a shared path like a transit provider. Comcast and TWC and other MSOs won't freely peer with content providers because they see free peering as a missed opportunity in revenue and they have captive eyeballs... given a lack of competition they have no fear of their subscribers leaving for another ISP because of poor performance. But I'll say it again, the net neutrality regulations DID NOTHING about this issue... the best you can argue is that they called for ISPs to be more transparent about points of congestion in their network. That doesn't solve much of anything given a lack of a competitive marketplace.