Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T/Verizon Lobbyists To 'Aggressively' Sue States That Enact Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the plan-of-action dept.

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."

70 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Bradmont · · Score: 1

      Honestly their talking points make it sound like they'll sue anyone who doesn't enact net neutrality rules...

    2. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They want you to believe that they are defending our rights but what they are really saying is that they will fight to defend the repeal of net neutrality and sue anyone who doesn't abide by it.

    3. Re:Makes sense by hawguy · · Score: 2

      It's the headline that says that the telcos will sue states that enact Net Neutrality. That's not what the telcos are saying, it's the flamebait headline... and you fell hook, line, sinker.

      Then what did they mean by "we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts..."?

    4. Re:Makes sense by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's the headline that says that the telcos will sue states that enact Net Neutrality. That's not what the telcos are saying, it's the flamebait headline... and you fell hook, line, sinker.

      Then what did they mean by "we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts..."?

      He meant: "Mmmmm, AT&T your shit tastes extra good today. Great texture too. I love the corn."

    5. Re:Makes sense by suutar · · Score: 2

      what they _mean_ is "we will sue anyone who wants more than the feds do, now that we've got them doing only what we're willing to support, but we'll claim to be supporting the principles we no longer have to actually implement."

    6. Re:Makes sense by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Powerful federal net neutrality rules keep community broadband efforts away from finding an ISP.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Makes sense by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      We support net neutrality so strongly that we will sue anyone that dares to try to enforce net neutrality. [paraphrased]

      Per "1984" book, their statement is corporate double-speak at its finest.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. Re: Makes sense by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      Doublespeak is not a term used in 1984, and predates its publication.

    9. Re:Makes sense by fedos · · Score: 1

      Not sure if credulous idiot or PR hack.

  2. Such fucking bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. TL;DR by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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....

    1. Re:TL;DR by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Oh sheesh, who core dumped all over the carpet?

  4. Corporate thugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know who else talks like that? The Mafia.

    1. Re:Corporate thugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Government.

    2. Re:Corporate thugs. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Big difference. With the mafia, you don't get to choose between the two biggest crooks for the position of the don.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. newspeak by elcor · · Score: 2

    You know it's evil by the amount of newspeak being used

  6. Bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Bastards by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Biting the hand that feeds them in the hopes that they can continue to squeeze more money out of their customers. It's a bold move Cotton. Lets see how it works for them.

  7. This is why it matters. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:This is why it matters. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      What do you think it will look like when I try to pass Net Neutrality legislation? Will Verizon try to sue me? Maybe they'll donate to my campaign at some point, and then try to sue me because they want their money back. \o/

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  8. It would be a shame by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:It would be a shame by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The FCC has huge balls. To roll over so brazenly without even trying to hide the fact that they are a sock puppet for the industry and fuck the American public over to the extent they did takes balls.

      What they don't have is integrity.

    2. Re:It would be a shame by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I feel like testing their structural integrity.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. This explains by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    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.
  10. Re:All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  11. More rate hikes coming soon by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:More rate hikes coming soon by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      suing their own customers and the customer are paying for it

      We've already paid for it. Twice. During the Clinton administration, $200 billion of taxpayer dollars were handed over to broadband providers who promised us 45 Mbps, both ways, within a decade.

      Since that time, over $1 trillion in direct payments, tax breaks and other inducements, all of it taxpayer money, has been given to broadband companies who are now fighting tooth and nail not to provide the service they claim to do.

      Considering it was the government (i.e. taxpayers) who created the internet, that it is government (i.e. taxpayers) who continues to foot the bill, it's very disingenuous for companies to claim they shouldn't have to do what the government tells them to do.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  12. There is no such thing as hell, but by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    ... sometimes I want to believe.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  13. Re:Good for them. by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

    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.
  14. Great. Quit trying to regulate by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. yes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:yes by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The walled community could have its own community broadband.
      A nice suburb could bring in new community broadband.
      A city can place new community broadband in for its business district.
      Let a city and state see what networks that are not paper insulated wireline can really do to bring in new digital products and services.
      Open your city and state up to internet innovation.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  16. "to uphold net neutrality protections for all." by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. u have it backwards by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:u have it backwards by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Get Ajit Pai to say it, then I'll believe it... no wait, I won't. Get him to do it... then I'll believe it.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:u have it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:u have it backwards by suutar · · Score: 1

      you're forgetting the option to collude. Sure, they're not supposed to, but that doesn't mean they don't/won't if they can profit from it.

    4. Re:u have it backwards by hypertex · · Score: 1

      then there will be no AT&T or Verizon

    5. Re: u have it backwards by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hence the Muni/state networks.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:u have it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:u have it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Usually I'd agree that heavy-handed regulation isn't the answer, but public utilities (which the internet undoubtedly now is) are natural monopolies. Unless you want 600 different firms digging up every street to lay redundant fibre, water, electric and gas lines to their customers, and then having to come back two weeks later to add/remove a customer, then you have to have a single provider for the "last mile".

      The way we do it this side of the pond is that one firm has responsibility for the physical connection layer. One set of engineers, one set of cables/pipes/whatever. Then anyone who wants to put gear at the exchange, or set up a utility trading business, can. I can buy my internet from a hundred different suppliers, and it comes into my house through the same cables. They all have different pricing structures, policies and SLAs, so I can pay for what I want, from who I want. If my ISP decides to start throttling traffic it doesn't like or some other bullshit, I can make a phone call and be on a new ISP in less than a week, with maybe a day's loss of service. FWIW, we pay about $35 USD/mo for 40/15 down/up, actually unlimited transfer, and somehow all our ISPs make a tidy profit.

      My friend works at the company that looks after the power lines. Nobody ever sees their name on an invoice; they bill the companies that sell customers power by the kWh that moves through their bit of the grid, and those companies buy generation capacity, transmission costs, advertising, billing and support staff etc, and bill end-users. The grid guys are a heavily regulated private company that makes a small profit and keeps the lights on for everyone in a vast area, and nobody even knows they exist.

      Compare those examples with cell service, where there theoretically are a lot of operators, but in reality there are three conglomerates, and they don't cooperate other than for emergency calls. I can drive 10 minutes from here and find areas for each where only 1/3 of those conglomerates have signal, but their competitors do. There's no technical reason for it; if all the towers were owned by a third party who just sold bandwidth at the same rate to the consumer-facing entities, we'd have near-100% coverage and likely cheaper prices, because the barrier to entry for being that middle man would be so low. Instead we have them throwing up 3x more cell towers than are needed and still having deadspots all over.

    8. Re:u have it backwards by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it would take a sociopath to actually do this.

      Catch 22 at its finest.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:u have it backwards by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I enjoy the solution our government over here came up with (as did many others in Europe).

      Our cables were originally put into the ground by a government monopoly. In other words, we (taxpayers) paid for them. When it was time to privatize the cables, what they did was to privatize the former government monopolist and handed over the cables BUT at the same time created a law (and a regulatory body that watches over it) that those cables have to be rented to everyone competing with them at the same rates and conditions that they themselves have for their ISP.

      Of course it ain't perfect, and of course they tried to circumvent the regulations repeatedly. But it did work out in the end, we're a small country in Europe with 3 national ISPs competing with a sizable number of small, local providers (and I mean SMALL, with customer numbers in the hundreds or thousands), and with 3 national mobile providers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unless Comcast is the only provider in your area. If that's the case, you'll pay through the nose while you scream like a little bitch and then they'll ignore you and/or laugh at you since they know you have no other option.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  19. Simple Fix by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  20. IANAL, but by DaveM753 · · Score: 1

    Would "lobby group" have legal standing in this situation?

  21. There's a simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. Sociopathic filth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re: Sociopathic filth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not because we WANT them that way, but because capitalism is geared that way. It's powered by everyone acting in their own self interest, and those who do that best are those who never care about the interests (or rights) of others.
      There are laws designed to keep capitalism from going full psycho, but since money and politics are intertwined, the forces of capitalism are able to subvert those too (or more concretely, the most powerful capitalists are highly motivated to use the power of their money to subvert them).

      We need a system where power and money is separated and independent, and where empathy, which is invaluable for any functioning society, is rewarded instead of discouraged.

      Democracy has a similar flaw; because we punish politicians who change their opinions, the system encourages pig-headedness instead of being intelligent and well-informed.

    2. Re: Sociopathic filth by Terwin · · Score: 1

      There are laws designed to keep capitalism from going full psycho, but since money and politics are intertwined, the forces of capitalism are able to subvert those too (or more concretely, the most powerful capitalists are highly motivated to use the power of their money to subvert them).

      We need a system where power and money is separated and independent, and where empathy, which is invaluable for any functioning society, is rewarded instead of discouraged.

      Any time authority(aka power) and resource distribution(aka money) are separated, authority is used to adjust resource distribution so that it is primarily directed towards those with authority.

      or if you prefer: any time power wants more money, it goes and gets it, therefore separating them never lasts.

  23. Divestiture gone wrong. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5

    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!
    1. Re:Divestiture gone wrong. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Look at how the EU is doing this.

      By law, all companies (so also the subsidiary of the telco that owns/maintains/operates the cables and other local infrastructure) have to get access to the same cables at the same price.

      Works great. Lots of ISPs to choose from where-ever you live; excellent prices and service quality.

  24. The Libertarian counter argument is by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:The Libertarian counter argument is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If government gets out of the way, the end result is monopolies.

      And that is even worse.

    2. Re:The Libertarian counter argument is by coofercat · · Score: 1

      If your government gets out of the way, you'll probably burn your hand in the fire.

  25. Muni broadband will last about 3/10ths of a second by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    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/
  26. Re:All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online by suutar · · Score: 1

    no, no, all Americans deserve equal rights. 0 == 0. Money gets you _perks_.

  27. Big telecom/cable has no other choice... by Quake1v1 · · Score: 1

    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)

  28. Re:Good for them. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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.
  29. Sovereign immunity by mysidia · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. Re: Except THAT is wrong too. by Megol · · Score: 1

    700 lawsuits != 700 cases of burns

  31. Re: Except THAT is wrong too. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    What part of this sounds perfectly legal to you? "McDonald's had known the risk of serious burns for 10 years and ignored it.

    Because that's the temperature that to-go coffee should be served at. Coffee cools quickly.
    Now you can only get tepid, lukewarm coffee.

  32. Re:Except THAT is wrong too. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Actually, in Japan it would have earned the CEO a trip to prison, as in Deliberately exposing customers to unwarranted dangers like coffee at 240 F.
    Unlike the U.S. the rest of the world knows a profit is not guaranteed, it must be earned by providing BENEFIT, not just market magic.
    O.K., China is a throwback.
    But you recall how they dealt with the plastic infused cat food? BULLET IN THE HEAD.
    Seems a good idea to me.

  33. Re:Except THAT is wrong too. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    "Unlike the U.S. the rest of the world knows a profit is not guaranteed, it must be earned by providing BENEFIT, not just market magic."

    How's that working for the Takata airbag scandal?
    How about Sony root kits?
    What about VW emission's?

    There are tons of examples, so take your US sucks agenda and cram it.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  34. What Do We Do Now? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    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
  35. Re:Except THAT is wrong too. by WorBlux · · Score: 1

    Serving coffee so hot, that you have to serve it in a pressure vessel? That's some hot shit right there.

  36. Re:Except THAT is wrong too. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, no question, U.S. criminal enterprise has been expanding.
    When JAL lost an airliner thanks to cheap maintenance, the CEO bankrupted himself and his family to pay the survivors. Then he gutted himself like a fish
    Amazing how they adopted American ways since, isn't it?
    Meanwhile, in Iceland, the bank frauds of the 2007 crash ARE STILL IN PRISON, instead of getting a 1 trillion dollar handout by Bush.
    Yep, the rest of the world thinks those who cheat should pay, and America thinks those who cheat (EC vs winning the votes) should prosper

  37. Re:Except THAT is wrong too. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    No, coffee boils above the point of water boiling just like antifreeze coolant does.
    As demonstrated at trial, the drip output from the McD's tap was above 230 and below 245 F

  38. Re:Except THAT is wrong too. by WorBlux · · Score: 1

    Coffee is 0.5% -1.5% dissolved solids. Nowhere near what is needed to elevate boiling temp by 10 deg C at sea level.

    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.ph... Didn't observe 1/2 that in extract concentrates that were 30-40% disolved solids.

    180-190 F is what McDonald's served coffee at, which is still hot enough to cause nearly immediate burns.