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
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
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
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 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!