Slashdot Mirror
AT&T/Verizon Lobbyists To 'Aggressively' Sue States That Enact Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities that try to enforce net neutrality rules. USTelecom, the lobby group, made its intentions clear yesterday in a blog post titled, "All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online." "Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks, and uphold net neutrality protections for all," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter wrote. "To continue this important work, there is no question we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible." The USTelecom board of directors includes AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream, and other telcos. The group's membership "ranges from the nation's largest telecom companies to small rural cooperatives."
"I'd love to see that, Jackie! Wouldn't you love to see that, Jackie?!"
Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks, and uphold net neutrality protections for all," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter wrote. "To continue this important work, there is no question we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible."
We support net neutrality so strongly that we will sue anyone that dares to try to enforce net neutrality.
FCC states that it's up to the states to enact these rulkes. The states go to try to enact these rules and the telecoms try to sue
So wait, Spalter said "Broadband providers have worked hard (to) uphold net neutrality protections..."
That level of lying and double talk just now seg faulted my brain...
Oww....
Oww....
By the title of their own blog post, they are stating that their group should not be allowed to exist. Sounds good to me. This lobby group is null and void, they have stated they are not needed.
To all States, Counties and Cities;
Keep up the good work, looking out for the interests of US citizens when the Federal Government has ZERO interest in doing so.
You know who else talks like that? The Mafia.
I TYPE IN ALL CAPS. I MUST BE CONFUSED.
WTF. They aren't even trying to avoid the possibility plausible deniability that they are against every consumer right they can throw under the bus. Thanks FCC and fucks.
Doublespeak hasn't sounded doubleplusgood in a long time.
You know it's evil by the amount of newspeak being used
Sue the government that granted you your franchise agreement? If you don't like the laws in our state, we'll be happy to revoke that license and replace your terrible overpriced services with municipal fiber.
Or better yet give them a taste of their own medicine and tell them that you won't renew their franchise without a "binding arbitration" clause that says they can't take you to court. Bend them over like they bend over all of us.
If anyone ever asks why political stuff gets a section on Slashdot: It's because this stuff matters.
Technology is shaped by the limits imposed on it.
Your computer can only interact with another computer if there is a connection between you.
Very rich organizations own those connections, and charge eachother large amounts of money for those systems of connections.
They are owned by shareholders that demand more money each year.
Thus, unless there is a constant fight against it, you will pay a higher and higher rate than inflation, an increased amount for each method of communicating with other computers.
Net neutrality is part of that fight. Giving up on net neutrality is very much like giving up your side of that fight, without any meaningful promise of extra services.
Which is especially galling, because those same groups have constantly renegged on actual promises for better service for prices in the past.
Compared to virtually every other modern economy, they offer the US the worst value per dollar. And they will force these trends onto other countries with time.
It's fine if you want to be libertarian - but the libertarian ideal also has to include each side negotiating with full force. Giving up net neutrality is giving up your side of the argument completely, since there is no meaningful competition on the horizon for most of this. You're just agreeing to pay more over time forever, for no real reason, your only option is to pay more at each branching path.
Ryan Fenton
Doublespeak is dead! Long live doublespeak!
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
If the FCC had enough balls (or a lack of glaring personal financial interest) to start collecting back spectrum licenses from AT&T and Verizon.
Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks...
I have 1.5Mbps up and .25Mbps down. It's been that way since 2002 - AT&T.
When I called for tech support one time, the customer-no-service person insisted I had fiber right to the house. Amazing fiber tech! It looks just like the old orange & blue copper I had before! Amazing! They can turn copper into fiber-optics!
$55/month. Xfintiy/Comca$t doesn't offer internet only in my area - only package deals. It's because the equipment doesn't allow it according to their customer-complete-BS-service.
Let them sue the states so the states can win and further assert states' rights. This is something that needs to happen on other levels as well.
Why my internet bill nearly doubled recently. Gotta pay for all those lawyers somehow...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
If there is no Federal Law, how could a state law be in conflict?
As long as the end user and website are in the same state, I guess the telecoms would have to abide by state law as federal law on interstate commerce wouldn't apply. Wouldn't that be fun for telecoms to implement!
Sooner they are shown the door, the better. No fucks would be given if their fibers sudden started getting cut that's for sure. May even give the local governments with insane terms of service / contracts, a way out.
Now if only foreign ownership was truly protected against, lest we end up with some Asian country profiting from a power vacuum.
Look out for rate hikes to fund the suites. lol what they are really doing is suing their own customers and the customer are paying for it..should be a law..
Jack of all trades,master of none
Is yoyr mentql avtocorrect deficjent?
... sometimes I want to believe.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
What the voting public has said is that "Net Neutrality" is overshadowed by other issues. NN just doesn't overshadow things like Pro-Life/Choice, Gun Control/Rights, Immigration - issues that already engage the vast majority of single issue voters.
IMO - The Republicans are looking at this particular issue incorrectly. Ensuring a level playing field that promotes competition is the sort of regulation that IS appropriate by government in a capitalist society. Net Neutrality should be a stance of the right.
Sadly both parties are peopled by follow-the-leader/opposite-of-them idiots.
--- Mercutio was right.
Instead, go after the monopolies. It is long past time for states to de-monopolize these utilities that want to be de-regulated, and at the same time, allow municipals to compete.
This would be far more effective than trying to regulate them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is constitutional for states to pass net neutrality laws, so instead of complaining, pass those laws!
and this is why you should QUIT trying to regulate them.
Instead, push for de-monopolization, along with allowing all municipals and even states to do their own broadband utility.
THAT would change the industry and bring back REAL competition.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To me this reads the same as "to uphold flu protections for all. "
To them, Net Neutrality apparently is like the flu, that Broadband providers have protected against.
The answer is NOT to regulate these idiots. It will not help
The RIGHT solution is to remove their monopoly, AND allow municipals and even states to set up competitive fiber utilities. Once a state de-monopolizes or at least forces open the ability for competition, then they will have no choice but to go after each other's area and compete on performance, and $.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The States should counter-sue demanding folks like AT&T be forced to break up into smaller companies.
They posses an unfair advantage when they are delivering both content and control the pipes that supply it at the same time. It's a classic conflict of interest.
Watch how fast the big Telcos go quiet about all this " sue everyone " nonsense if their Monopoly status gets threatened.
Would "lobby group" have legal standing in this situation?
A simple solution: put language in the state's net neutrality rules that allows the state to remove all protections, tax exemptions, government business deals, local monopoly powers, etc. if some company brings a lawsuit against the state. Sure they can sue, but if they lose, they lose all rights to do business as usual in that state.
ALL major corporations come to a point where all there deciders (directors, CEO, etc) are all sociopaths. Why ? Selection, pure and simple. A CEO that never bothers himself with things like morals or ethics will ALWAYS have an advantage over one that does, producing more profit for the company.
Remember, all corporations turn into completely amoral entities because WE want them that way.
The only reason net neutrality / non neutrality is an issue is because the 1984 divestiture of the Bell System was done incorrectly.
Rather than making it about local vs. long distance, followed by reversal of those rules based on some nonsense about unbundled elements, the only regulation that needs to be in place is this: a carrier can operate a central office and provide last mile connectivity, but cannot provide any services over those wires.
By doing this, the carriers who operate the last-mile monopoly or duopoly cannot be the same carriers who operate voice, data, or video services over those wires. At this point you end up with the same diversity of Internet providers that you currently have over "long distance carriers" (if that's still even a thing).
It's the only regulation needed, because it would eliminate the need for all of the others. You would almost immediately have aggregators who provide central office connectivity to smaller network operators. You would have large network operators going directly into the central offices to save money. And if a network operator got stupid and decided to prioritize or restrict traffic, subscribers would have dozens of other network operators to choose from.
This is the principle of placing reglations ONLY where a natural monopoly exists. When you regulate higher up the value chain, you get inefficiencies and politics and corruption and all of the other crap.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
that if government would just get out of the way competition would happen. And we've seen this over and over again in large scale networks. Just look at the rail road industry... wait scratch that. Well there's the telephone industry... no, scratch that one too. Look, deregulation work this time. No monopolies. We promise.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
before the telecoms parachute in lawyers and lobbyists and shut it down. Most states already have laws banning it. The trouble with municipal governments it they're too small to fight off a mega corp. It's the same reason we don't let cities run their own branch of the national defense. China would pick 'em off one by one until we were a vassal state.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You people are blithering morons of the highest order.
Disturbing.
You think you're smart. We're headed directly toward idiocracy.
fun.
Except she had a legitimate case. These fuckers just don't like the law.
Net neutrality is just government (obumma and libtards) speak for government control.
Found the libtard.
> "the voting public has said is that Net Neutrality is overshadowed by other issues"
Wrong. The voting public voted for the ENTIRE platform. Sure some folks might be single issue voters, but most of us are driven by a deep desire to see the constitution and capitalism and only ONE party stands behind those things as a whole.
I read a while back Montana passed a law that basically says any ISP that wants to do business with the state of Montana has to abide by these rules and they also have to be applied to the companies other in-state customers.
No one is forcing an ISP to do business with the state of Montana but I'm quite certain the ISP doesn't want the state going to the competition.
Sadly both parties are peopled by follow-the-leader/opposite-of-them idiots.
LOL, love it when the libtards try to play the "both sides are just as bad" game. Sorry, fuckface, but YOUR side is the one that is trying to push big goverment on our economy and stifling innovation. Suck it up snowflake.
To be equally discriminated against online. I agree wholeheartedly, go ahead.
Treating you all equally with the sarcasm you deserve. Heres hoping everybody else doesn't copy america as per usual.
fucks.
Can the States pass a tax on the ISPs to pay for the State's legal expenses? I mean, the only reason the States will be incurring these legal expenses is because of some actions by the ISPs. The ISPs suing the States is not illegal per say, but the expense borne by the State is a direct result of the ISP's action. The State should be able to recover that expense.
Your corporate masters appreciate your efforts on their behalf. You shall receive your reward in heaven.
Translation: You're the big, bad (state/municipal) gubbermint and we're the victim.
This lovely bit of name-calling omits the facts that the regulations making "all this progress possible", were recently deleted and federal oversight is *now*, "fractured".
Translation: Lil' ole me was just doing the right thing ...
Translation: ... and keeping everyone safe, as good (corporate) people do.
For what: Demanding conformity and fairness from their vendor? It's going to be difficult to prove that is 'unfair'.
Interesting, how THIS jas now become the popular meme du jour. The latest in the snobbery arms race.
I'm on-upping you: She *still* did not have a legitimate case. Because you are making insane assumptions regarding the stupidity we "should" expect people to be entitled to.
That shit would still never fly outside of US "the customer is GOD" culture.
You slack off, expect US to do YOUR work, and then bitch (and usually call us Nazis) when we do not do YOUR WORK for you??
Go fuck yourself! With a cactus.
If you want to be listened to, "learn to English!".
By that, I don't mean this to be a good thing, but they know that cord cutting will become the norm. They knew this a long time ago (see: "data" caps). The only way the cable cash cow can survive cord cutting is by concentrating on the ISP side and having the ability to charge you for internet "packages", the same way they package cable channels today. This WILL become the norm for EVERY ISP in the future, unless we find a way to stop it. (Source: works in the cable industry)
https://slashdot.org/story/04/03/28/1730220/bush-says-americans-ought-to-have-broadband-and-a-pony-by-2007
Lobby Your Local Planning Commissioners now!
They have the power to stop any expansion of cell towers.
Make nice with your local Planning Commissioners and have them put the hurt on those inhuman bastards.
The voters voted against this crap by over 3 million votes.
What public? The public that has already been shown to be comprised mostly of telco sock puppets?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. Long have we consolidated government to the extent that a central government as had quite a few snotty shit nosed kids (major corporations). These companies are more powerful than the states. That should not have ever happened. The state supersedes the corporation, and much like the federal government, if Verizon wants to sue the state, they have to get the state's permission (like everyone else) and the state shouldn't ever be compelled to do so, even by the federal government.
That should fix a lot of bullshit going around. All around it has long been time for the states to exercise their powers.
A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities....
Because states can Only be sued on matters they've consent to be sued about, and we KNOW Telcos are bound to abuse the court system to try and stall and delay anything they don't like; How about passing the Network neutrality rule Together with a preemptive removal of the exceptions carved into their sovereign immunity -- in other words, restriction or removal of privilege to sue from the Telcos, then put language in the bill that in case of federal regulation, Telecom companies operating in their state shall be bound to adhere to BOTH sets of regulations, and the state courts shall have jurisdiction over any disputes related to the state regulations, Therefore any lawsuit by the Telcos shall be referred to the state court who will then dismiss the matter with prejudice if it is a suit seeking to "negate" or "reduce" network neutrality requirements.
How does this USTelecom CEO avoid bursting into flames when he spouts such drivel?
Really, there is so much irony in his statement, he is at risk of sparking a thermite reaction. Safety first, Mr. Spalter! Safety first!
I've had plenty of conversations with people who only knew what they heard on their favorite news channel. But, I think what we need is our own list of talking points. How do you describe, in layman's terms, why net neutrality is good? We should all be able to clearly state these points if we're ever going to turn this around.
Just another day in Paradise