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."
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
You know who else talks like that? The Mafia.
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
"All Americans deserve equal rights online."
And you'll get them as long as you're willing to pay through the nose for the privilege.
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.
There is not much more room for utilities (at least in the ground) in most places. Electrictiy, sewer, water, telecom all usually require a certain distance from each other, and municipalities and private citizens don't like to hand out permits/easements for more where they might encroach. so atleast for telco underground, and overhead where they often go joint-use with the electric utility, there is not room for more than a few in my experience. Sometimes, especially with electrictiy for example, there isn't physical/legal room enough for more than one infrastructure...so sometimes "monopolies" are necessary, and they need to be regulated.
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/
No, the RIGHT solution is to ban companies that own cables in the ground from charging for the services provided across them.
Why should the same company provide both the connection and the content? Separating the two works for electricity, for physical deliveries, heck even for telephones. It's the easiest and cheapest option for internet.