Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Entire Broadband Industry Will Help FCC Defend Net Neutrality Repeal (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the friends-and-enemies dept.

The biggest lobby groups representing broadband providers will help the FCC defend the repeal of net neutrality rules in court. Ars Technica reports: Yesterday, three trade groups that collectively represent every major home Internet and mobile broadband provider in the U.S. filed motions to intervene in the case on behalf of the FCC. The motions for leave to intervene were filed by NCTA--The Internet & Television Association, CTIA--The Wireless Association, and USTelecom--The Broadband Association. NCTA represents cable companies such as Comcast, Charter, Cox, and Altice. CTIA represents the biggest mobile carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and Sprint. USTelecom represents wireline telcos with copper and fiber networks, such as AT&T and Verizon. All three groups also represent a range of smaller ISPs.

As intervenors in the case, the groups will file briefs in support of the net neutrality repeal order and may play a role in oral arguments. NCTA's motion noted that its members would once again be subject to "common-carriage regulation under Title II of the Communications Act" if the FCC were to lose the case. CTIA said that its members "would be adversely affected if the [net neutrality] Order were set aside and the prior Title II Order classification and rules were reinstated."

88 comments

  1. "... play a role in oral arguments." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You mean Big Telecom will suck the government's D as always.

    1. Re: "... play a role in oral arguments." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They also suck R. Not just D.

  2. Regulatory Capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More proof that MegaCorpInternetInc owns the FCC. Does this seem to bother any of our elected representatives? I think not.

  3. We're all adversely affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... would be adversely affected if the [net neutrality] Order were set aside and the prior Title II Order classification and rules were reinstated.

    Just like we're all adversely affected by laws that prohibit gouging each others eyes out.

    1. Re: We're all adversely affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hope the judge will consider all of that industry support as indicative of the repeal being in favor of the ISPâ(TM)s. Of course, I have no idea if that matters in a court of law

  4. Fry said it best by ancientt · · Score: 1

    I am shocked... https://youtu.be/NUV54XBidzU

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    1. Re:Fry said it best by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm just shocked the EFF hasn't joined them. After all, the telecoms keep telling me its good for me as a consumer and for the Internet as a whole.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Fry said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that EFF would support an agenda of fighting ideas of 'net neutrality'?

      This post of yours sounds like bullshit. There appear to be no point to your post other than being vague and suggestive.

  5. Baksheesh by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the best argument for why we need Net Neutrality rules and campaign finance laws:

    "As intervenors in the case, the groups will file briefs in support of the net neutrality repeal order and may play a role in oral arguments. NCTA's motion noted that its members would once again be subject to "common-carriage regulation under Title II of the Communications Act" if the FCC were to lose the case. CTIA said that its members "would be adversely affected if the [net neutrality] Order were set aside and the prior Title II Order classification and rules were reinstated.""

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Baksheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best argument for why we need Content Neutrality rules and campaign finance laws:
      https://www.recode.net/2018/1/5/16854324/silicon-valley-trump-netflix-free-internet-association-fcc-net-neutrality-lawsuit

      The leading lobbying group for Amazon, Facebook, Google and other tech giants is joining the legal battle to restore net neutrality. The companies will intervene in a coming lawsuit through their trade group, the Internet Association.

      ...

      As an intervener, though, the Internet Association still will play a crucial role, filing legal arguments in the coming case. And in formally participating, tech giants will have the right to appeal a judge’s decision later if Silicon Valley comes out on the losing end.

      https://internetassociation.org/our-members
      Some members:

      Amazon
      Ebay
      Expedia
      Facebook
        Google
      Groupon
      Intuit
      Linkedin
      Microsoft
      Netflix
      Paypal
      Reddit
      Salesforce
      Snap, Inc.
      Spotify
      TripAdvisor
      Twitter
      Uber
      Yelp
        Zwillow

    2. Re: Baksheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually haven't joined the suit thou. They haven't filed any motions yet. Your article is just their plans and intent which they have yet to actually do.

      Even if they do, this isn't related to content neutrality. That's a different fight. Here, they as customers will be adversely impacted without NN, so they intend to join the opposition to repeal.

    3. Re: Baksheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time the article was written, the FCC had not published the new rule in the Federal Register. That happened later in Feb, and now there's be a plethora of suits that have been filed including intervening briefs from the internet association trade group.

  6. Yup.. who expected any less.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew???? The piglings are terribly angry because they cannot suckle continuously on the teet of limited ca$h. So the answer.. is to scream at the top of their snouts "we will not agree to this limitation of the milk (from our customers)"

    #Sigh #NetNeutrality #PayYourShare

  7. They'll win too by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Troll

    because the worst that comes out of this for 99% of people is a $200 cable bill. The folks that voted Trump in office already couldn't afford to pay half that. Kinda like if you double the price of a BMW for me. I don't care because I couldn't afford it at half that price. Meanwhile Trump & his party promised them good paying jobs. The other side promised them marginally lower interest rates on student loans for colleges they either didn't attend or dropped out of in their early 20s.

    Seriously. If you care about NN then you need to take care of the American working class. If you keep ignoring them, looking down on them, calling them names because they didn't 'reskill' then they'll abandon you the same as you abandoned them. And that's kind of the point. All us working class slobs are at each other's throats while these guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the F$ck is this about Trump? Why is any issue in the last 1.2 years assigned to him randomly without evidence? You do know that Ajit Pai was introduced into our system under the Obama administration. He was planted like an evil seed long before our current president was elected.

    2. Re:They'll win too by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 0

      " The folks that voted Trump in office already couldn't afford to pay half that. "

      Just gotta get that little jab in there don't we ? :| Never mind the fact that US broadband / data plan costs
      have always been off the damn chart since the inception of such things regardless of which team is in charge.

      Oh. . . pssst. . . . by the way: Not everyone is quite as stupid and poor as you like to believe they are.

      But, if it makes you feel better about yourself, carry on !

    3. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A popularity contest shouldn't be a part of pro or anti -NN arguments. As an outside observer to this debate, the issue that most interest me is the state of US telecom laws. The very existence of this debate seems to suggest that a more profound legislative update should have been done already 20 years ago, but wasn't. And now in the inflamed environment it has become even more difficult an issue. Maybe a constitutional argument of some sort could finally form a reasonable base on which new legislation could be built, instead of these circles of lobbying hell.

    4. Re:They'll win too by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile Trump & his party promised them good paying jobs.

      Eh, not exactly. What I remember is that he was promising them coal mining jobs and not being particular about the pay grade. So all they knew was they were promised jobs that were considered unhealthy/undesirable 100 years ago, and yet they were applauding. Perhaps everybody was thinking "surely the other guys will be going down the mines, I'll be managing from above", or something like that, I don't know, I didn't try to make any sense out of it...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    5. Re:They'll win too by youngone · · Score: 2

      I'm an outside observer also, and from what I can see, the entire US political system is set up so that corporate interests can get what they want.
      None of them want the lobbying hell to end because that's how everyone involved makes their living.

    6. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Trump forcing those same companies coming out against Net Neutrality, from doing business with Comslut or Verizon? No.

      Wake me up when people actually change providers, until then it's all a pony show. Remember, the _current_ administration voted rather unanimously for continued spying, they're all being paid in the end. You don't see even unions coming out against it.

      So again, what the hell does this have to do with Trump?

      Let me put it very simply, there NEVER WAS NET NEUTRALITY, certainly not to the euphoric unicorn land you all seem to believe. Google it. They have always used qos and routing tricks to "manage" traffic. From the FCC to providers, hardware vendors and even so called tech sites there are shills everywhere trying to redefine the very language of what net neutrality IS. But hey, blame Russia, Trump, or whatever boogieman you want.

      Capatcha: Peering. Seriously Slashdot that is some epic level trolling.

    7. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many more people both more intelligent and also "more stupid" than you which are poor, homeless, and/or hungry.

      Believing that, does not make someone feel better. It makes them aware of what the world we live in is actually like.

      However you sir are the loser. Thinking people defending the poor and less fortunate are doing so to make themselves feel better. Essentially what Trump does, not necessarily the people that may have chosen to vote for him based on promises that will not happen or help them.

    8. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      (a) Pai was appointed by Obama because he was recommended by McConnell; the FCC board has been a a 3-2 split between the party that controls the white house and the opposition party essentially for as long as it has existed. If Obama had tried to stack the board with 5 Democrats when he got elected, people like you would have been screaming "Tyrant!"
      (b) Trump could have appointed entirely different people to the board, could have appointed a different chairman, could have explicitly appointed people who would support net neutrality. Democrats, by contrast, could not have done anything to improve the current situation.
      (c) The board of the FCC serves at the pleasure of the president; Trump could easily have replaced Pai or the entire board if he wanted to. He has chosen to happily allow Pai to push this idiocy.

      Sorry, dipshit, but this is, in fact, one hundred fucking percent Trump's fault.

      CAPTCHA: congress

    9. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. If you care about NN then you need to take care of the American working class. If you keep ignoring them, looking down on them, calling them names because they didn't 'reskill' then they'll abandon you the same as you abandoned them. And that's kind of the point. All us working class slobs are at each other's throats while these guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

      I'm sorry but those "working class" people that voted for Trump need to pull their heads out of their asses. One side had a plan and policies to go with that plan, policies that over time probably would improve working class conditions. The other side had "MAGA", "Only I can fix it.", "Everything they did, do, or want to do is the worst thing in the world, and everything I will do is the best."

      In short you had realistic policies vs bullshit. Bullshit won.

      People that don't want to retrain need to, well, grow the hell up. Buggy whips are a thing of the past and people have to prepare for the jobs that are, not the jobs they wish their were. Even there, one side is likely to retraining options, while the other is not.

      When people vote for bullshit, they shouldn't be surprised when they get buried in it, and, as for as broadband goes, well the only real way to get high quality networks everywhere is to subsidize it in some fashion. While ending net neutrality may make it slightly more profitable to lay fiber, there will still be limits.

      Most likely the end of NN will mostly just increase profit, without really benefiting the consumer save around the edges where broadband coverage may increase. At the same time it will hose consumers since they will have to deal with the same crap that made cable a nightmare..

    10. Re:They'll win too by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      Assuming I need a connection to the internet. When my only providers are Comcast or Verizon, what is one to do when they are working together as one? We've tried new companies and even a city provided internet. The city is sued, the company has so many hurdles that no small company can do it. Would love your help.

      --
      "It's blue" - Jeremy Briggs

    11. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people who say "you, sir," only to drop an insult are fucking pretentious assholes more guilty of what they are espousing than their intended target.

    12. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lol
      gotta mod down the guy who explained how the government actually works to protect daddy trump

    13. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The working class is over. There are those who will do automation, engineering, or research and those who will serve the rich because they can't do those others. The rest will be left to die by people like Trump who promised everyone would get a pony or a tesla.

    14. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what have you tried and are you talking residential or business internet because that would depend on a lot of things including where you live. My point above was despite the rhetoric few people are willing to even _try_ let alone businesses creating their own infrastructure. Two specific alternatives - Ham Radio and private mesh networks. If you're in a condo or apartment building (aka MDU), have you approached the building owners? If you're a business, what about other businesses around you? Are you on a farm? Expected data use case?

      Funny you ask since I do provide internet to neighbours. We split the bill for two redundant backhauls with failover options (wireless vs fiber for example). So yes, there are options.

    15. Re:They'll win too by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* "We have a winner!" (From someone on the inside watching this mess.)

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    16. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Cowards who try to make issue of pretentiousness are vastly more culpable of the offense of which they attempt to present aggrievement than those whom they purport to find to be more egregious than themselves.

    17. Re: They'll win too by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Wow $200/month seams steap, menwhile here in norway you jan get 100Mbps/100Mbs and basic tv pacage for $132/month if you are in an area with ftth, less if you dump tv

    18. Re:They'll win too by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      "Im with her!" is not a policy..

    19. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NN is a blip from the viewpoint of most Trump voters. Mostly of note to the more IT oriented individuals (who may legitimately hate Ajit and what he is doing)

      They are not going to 'wake up' into voting for off-the-deep-end liberal alternatives like we keep being presented.

      TRUMP is a populist who has aligned with the right out of convenience. The left. instead of taking advantage of that, acts like he's some kind of right wing nutter, which is just blind partisanship.

      He's as right as he is because the right will, more or less, work with him and the left just sits there and spittles at him all day long from CNN/MSNBC/NYT/etc.

    20. Re:They'll win too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an outside observer also, and from what I can see, the entire US political system is set up so that corporate interests can get what they want.

      None of them want the lobbying hell to end because that's how everyone involved makes their living.

      It's called capitalism. Fucking everyone over for a buck is what the country is all about.

  8. Adversely affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CTIA said that its members "would be adversely affected if the [net neutrality] Order were set aside and the prior Title II Order classification and rules were reinstated."

    The FCC vote was to enrich the big ISPs. They admit as much themselves, and if NN gets reinstated it'll hit the big ISPs in the pocketbook.

    I don't think this will come as a surprise to anyone. The whole point of Pai's vote was to serve Comcast and the like over the interests of the public.

    1. Re:Adversely affected? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The whole Obama "Net Neutrality" was also to enrich the corporations. We haven't had true net neutrality in the US yet, the things they're talking about is about regulations and letting companies merge and become monopolies or not.

      When Obama implemented the new rules, it took away a lot of protections against monopolization and made running a smallish ISP very costly so they all got gobbled up into 2 or 3 large networks across the US which was approved because 'regulations are costly'. Now that they're "back together" they want the regulations gone so they lose the cost and make it harder to start up new ISPs.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Adversely affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of a regulatory body isn't to destroy the economy. Repealing rules which hurt people's pocketbook isn't generally considered a bad thing.

      There's no evidence the rules actually helped anyone, all they did was cost people time and resources in compliance. Of course the people affected prefer them to be repealed.

      If some bureaucrat decided you needed to fill out a toilet paper usage form every time you used the restroom and then submit them weekly to the EPA, you'd quickly want the regulation repealed as well. That's not nefarious. The regulation is stupid.

    3. Re: Adversely affected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy living in beautiful North Africa.

  9. The Industry by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    wants to hold the USA back on its NN paper insulated wireline monopoly networks.
    Time to consider what a town city, state could build without federal NN rules keeping monopoly networks safe from innovative new networks.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is what my ISP has to say about net neutrality:

    "DSLExtreme supports a free and open internet through Net Neutrality. Although a repeal of Net Neutrality is heavily in the favor of ISP’s like us, we will not alter, filter, throttle or otherwise mess with our customer’s internet access. This has always been and continues to be our policy. We do not anticipate any change in service to our customers. We do believe that freedom of choice is a foundation of our country, and we encourage all customers to make their voices heard on this topic by writing to their state representatives."

    And that is just one of the reasons that I fucking love them and will never use another ISP.

    1. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But we WILL offer paid prioritization because fuck yeah, money!"

      Altering, filtering and throttling is small potatoes, because the ISPs know they can't do it without serious risk of regulation being imposed on them. They say they won't do it because it's wrong, but when it comes down to it they're not doing it because they fear getting caught. Meanwhile they're salivating at charging extra for paid prioritization, because fractions of seconds count when it comes to user satisfaction with a web page.

      Repealing NN was never about altering or filtering content. It's not about throttling content, as they'll just throttle everything "for QoS" except that content they own or that has paid for prioritization. It's always, always been about the paid prioritization, and no ISP is claiming they won't do that. Because as long as it's legal, it's their easiest route to more profits.

    2. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you are talking about. DSL Extreme is totally different from the major ISPs. They uphold their principles and have very good *in-house* tech support and customer service. I've been with them for 10 years and I can't complain about a single thing. They bend over backward to make sure their customers are happy.

    3. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Super, vote with your wallet and support this kind of provider.

    4. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little ISPs have UPSTREAM ISPs and those ISPs are getting consolidated. Your ISP cannot protect you from what's coming -- they will be just as victimized as you.

    5. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ISP isn't getting consolidated. They have a contract with AT&T to use their equipment. if AT&T tries to restrict them, they're going to get their asses sued into oblivion for breach of contract.

    6. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the small ISP's will be purchased by large ISP's eventually. Also, a few big companies already own all the backbone. I am not knocking your ISP. But net neutrality still matters.

    7. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the small ISP's will be purchased by large ISP's eventually.

      Bullshit.

    8. Re:My ISP by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, you're already using other ISPs..... Your ISP, DSLExtreme is just the conduit from your house the back bone of the intenet. When you watch Netflix at home, the IP path is not NETFFLIX --> DLSExtreme ---> your house, but rather ....
      NETFLIX --> Amazon --> Verizon --> AT&T --> COX ---> Comcast --> DSLExtreme --> Your house...
      So throttling is already happening upstream of your provider if ANY upstream oligarchy want's Netflix payola to let the traffic through unmolested. This is exactly why Municipal ISP's are BS because people do not understand how the dataflow works.
      Here's just an example of 2 ISP back bone providers finger pointing resulting in any down stream customer getting screwed.
      https://www.fiercetelecom.com/...

    9. Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dude, you're already using other ISPs

      Sorry dude, but you haven't got a clue how the ISP supply chain works. My ISP goes through AT&T, with whom they have a CONTRACT that provisions them a set amount of resources that they can do anything that want with. If AT&T does anything to affect those resources, my ISP can sue the shit out of them.

      You really ought to learn about how things work before you make yourself look like an ignorant fool.

    10. Re:My ISP by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      Good idea. That'll work great in areas with only one provider.

  11. Data Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the US has a GDPR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation), Net Neutrality is mainly about who gets the biggest share of the pie.

  12. ~Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DSL ..... yuk!

    1. Re:~Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get the greatest speeds (75Mbps down/8Mbps up) but I also don't get monitored, filtered, throttled, capped or restricted from running servers. It is a true internet connection, unlike the crippled junk that the kids today are familiar with.

    2. Re:~Re:My ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but I just couldn't live without all the promised bandwidth Comcast doesn't give me.

  13. Re:Who DEFENCE FBI? by youngone · · Score: 1

    Thanks Ivan. You should brush up on your english before posting here.

  14. Clear path forward by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    It is obvious how to proceed, get an actual law passed by Congress. Stop screwing around with unelected bodies. Yes, the same entities will lobby congress heavily, but right now the matter will always be subject to the whims of the FCC.

  15. Re:Who DEFENCE FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT#ru/en/%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B1%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BA

  16. The operative statement from TFS... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...is this: "would be adversely affected if the [net neutrality] Order were set aside and the prior Title II Order classification and rules were reinstated." i.e. "We can't fuck our customers with as large and sandy a dildo as we would really like to in order to maximize our ROI so that my paycheck is even more Bigly!!(TM) Waaahhhh! Waaaaahhhhh!!!!"

    1. Re: The operative statement from TFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're objecting to having to pay for the wiretapping infrastructure mandated by CALEA. Basically, it doubles the infrastructure hardware costs and licensing is expensive. And no, Obamas "network neutrality" doesn't do what you want it to, but it certainly protects Google and Facebooks tracking from competition by smaller companies.

    2. Re: The operative statement from TFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love reading these little tete-a-tetes, because nobody ever substantiates anything. They just name a big, evil company or two and tell us that they will benefit from whatever "the other guy" is telling you. And even when they link you to something else, it's always similarly devoid of any actual substance. At that point I might as well just go with whatever will screw over the people who are most directly screwing me over, which in this case has always been the ISPs and/or other telcos. After all, it's not like Google and Facebook are going to be hurt by the repeal of net neutrality either, so I might as well stick it to the bigger assholes.

    3. Re:The operative statement from TFS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that these "legal persons" have a physical presence on our world; they have HQs, they have living breathing CEOs controlling them...

      They *can* be killed. Revolution's always technically-illegal anyways.

  17. the 'industry' already had it's say in court.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's what resulted in the title ii in the first place, tyvm, verizon, for fighting wheeler's fcc, and winning, resulting in exactly what the court said was required for network neutrality enforcement.. reclassification.

    they should stay the fuck out of it this time.

    1. Re:the 'industry' already had it's say in court.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already had its say.

  18. More proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More proof that government is not here to benefit the public majority but corporations.

  19. Reminds me of "Citizens United" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Citizens United decision allows corporations and unions to pump money into federal elections.
    And nobody seems to be complaining about that.
    Now the other shoe is about to fall.
    Face it America, you have been fucked.
    And there is no way to get un-fucked.

  20. Title II Order classification by psergiu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If ISPs win and will no longer have a Title II Order classification - will this mean they are no longer a public utility so their easement for the cables crossing my property is no longer "en gross" so i can charge them a rent fee for private land use - right ?

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Title II Order classification by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Should be modded up "funny". We all know that costs are socialized and only corporate profits are privatized.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Title II Order classification by tgeek · · Score: 1

      If ISPs win and will no longer have a Title II Order classification - will this mean they are no longer a public utility so their easement for the cables crossing my property is no longer "en gross" so i can charge them a rent fee for private land use - right ?

      Tread lightly there. With SCOTUS ruling that eminent domain can be applied for private endeavors, some weird shit could happen if you dared exercise your legal rights.

    3. Re:Title II Order classification by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Is that how it worked before they were classified under Title II a couple of years ago? No?

      Then no, it's not how it will work now that we're back to that.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re:Title II Order classification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Title II is taken away from the monopolistic ISPs, Google, my city, and every other potential broadband competitor should have access to the poles. When...

    5. Re:Title II Order classification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cable project must have gone through some lawful process during which you were already compensated? I don't know how things are done in the US, but if the nature or quantity of land use is not changed in some meaningful way, leading to another municipal process where you have your saying and rights as a relevant party, I suspect there is not much to be gained here.

    6. Re:Title II Order classification by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Too bad that from Big Business' perspective, it's always 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  21. I love you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know.

  22. Quick by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Post something to slashdot instead of writing to a politician.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Quick by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The whole idea of sharing the idea on slashdot is so that others can consider it, value it worth and apply it in what ever way they want. So instead of one action the potential for tens of thousands and in viral terms ten of millions of actions based around the theme presented by the idea. Things seem to have a way of spreading from slashdot, sort of like 4Chan with a silencer, far more subtle ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  23. Please stop fighting the repeal by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, stop it. Instead focus on removing the monopolies, along with allowing muni broadband a. Competition solves this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re: Please stop fighting the repeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freeeeeedumbs!

      They can do anything!

    2. Re:Please stop fighting the repeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Competiiton is dead. Welcome to the new era where all companies are united to get the most of the money from you with the minimum effort. Monopoly is not needed when you can have a deal with your adversaries to milk all the money they can extract from users like you.

      And nobody can stop this anymore. Since they have bought all required politicians to do whatever they want.

    3. Re:Please stop fighting the repeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, stop it. Instead focus on removing the monopolies, along with allowing muni broadband a. Competition solves this.

      Magic Fairies solve a lot of problems, why aren't you suggesting that clear and obvious option?

  24. Time to milk this cash cow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And milk it good to! You're gonna long for the days of cable by they time they are through with you.

  25. Dig your own grave in one easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The insane part of all of this is they knew with 100% certainty this would happen in advance yet they still couldn't help themselves.

    Now not only do they have to live with NN they get to deal with different laws everywhere while explaining to their customers why they keep taking positions and supporting shit their customers universally despise.

    Way to go geniuses.

  26. essentially have tiered connections already?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dictated by the interweb interlinks capacity of the isp ... for example big wide links to netflix as dictated by customer demand..isn't that enough?

  27. Could we try freedom maybe? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Stop telling people what to do with their networks.
    Stop telling people that they can't build competing networks.

    Oh, but which crapitalists will get paid undeserved rents if the government permits a free market?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Could we try freedom maybe? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Stop telling people what to do with their networks.

      No problem. Now get your network off of our public right-of-way.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Could we try freedom maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stock-holders in the few large ISPs, that's who.

      And - the cables in the ground will never be a "market", competitive or otherwise.

  28. Be careful by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.