Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast/Charter Lobby Asks FTC To Preempt State Broadband Regulations (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hands-off-approach dept.

Lobby groups on behalf of Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week, cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that 'there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens,'" reports Ars Technica. "The FTC should let 'market forces' prevent bad behavior and avoid specific net neutrality or privacy regulation for the broadband industry, the lobby group said." From the report: The comments were filed in an FTC proceeding titled "Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century." The FTC is planning to hold hearings on the communications industry, the FTC's enforcement processes, and other competition and consumer protection topics. "The FTC should ensure that the Internet is subject to uniform, consistent federal regulations, including by issuing guidance explicitly setting forth that inconsistent state and local requirements are preempted," the NCTA wrote.

The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued. NCTA's filing focused mostly on potential privacy regulation, saying that the FCC should continue its "technology-neutral approach to privacy and data security." Net neutrality concerns are best addressed by existing antitrust laws, the filing said.

80 comments

  1. charter my DAMN balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and set sail

  2. Whine Whine .. by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But But we paid all that money to get our way with the federal.

    Whine ... Whine ... Whine....

    Please don't let the states take away our cash cow. All these regulation we will now have to keep up with.. its not fair....*stomping feet*

    Whine ,,, Whine ... Whine..

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    1. Re:Whine Whine .. by PPH · · Score: 1

      But But we paid all that money to get our way with the federal.

      Hey. State and local politicians have gotta eat too.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Whine Whine .. by msauve · · Score: 2

      Hey, as long as they're arguing for "market forces," let them eat their cake. If they don't want to be regulated like service neutral common carriers, local governments and private land owners can charge them up the wazoo for "right of way" access. And, they'll have to negotiate with probably hundreds of thousands of entities for that access.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re: Whine Whine .. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't blame them. They have a sympathetic government regulator, so it is logical for them to try to get as much as they can while the kitchen is open. I don't blame them, I just want them to die in a fire.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Whine Whine .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like the way you're thinking. I think they should get a blanket exemption for any kind of government interference. Let the market force take care of people who want to murder them for bad service, of people who want to sell their infrastructure for scrape metal, of people who want to hold their techs for ransom.

    5. Re:Whine Whine .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, market forces. So no more stopping "community broadband" when it outcompetes entrenched players? That kind of free market?

    6. Re: Whine Whine .. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I can't blame them. They have a sympathetic government regulator, so it is logical for them to try to get as much as they can while the kitchen is open. I don't blame them, I just want them to die in a fire.

      They have a paid crony, so it is logical for them to steal as much as possible from The People while the door is unlocked. I do blame them, so I want them to die of ass cancer... in a fire.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Whine Whine .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Late Stage Capitalism, we hardly knew ya.

    8. Re: Whine Whine .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "I paid for this prostitute so I have the right to make her commit armed robberies " position is bullshit

    9. Re: Whine Whine .. by drakaan · · Score: 1

      We can always hope that some telco bigwig in California gets caught up in a wildfire that could have been prevented if they hadn't throttled EMS wireless connections.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    10. Re:Whine Whine .. by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      The base rule is that state law is only preempted only if there is a conflict, but there is a long standing / widely accepted exception conflict can be assumed in highly regulated industries. That is, if it's not forbidden, it's required (or at least fine).

      Factually speaking, cable companies have a decent case that their industry is heavily regulated; they can point to several very large books of federal regs. Whether or not you'd prefer different regulations count as "common carrier" is irrelevant.

    11. Re: Whine Whine .. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We can always hope that some telco bigwig in California gets caught up in a wildfire that could have been prevented if they hadn't throttled EMS wireless connections.

      Probably won't happen. Besides, it's more about what happens as a result of PG&E not doing the obviously necessary tree work they've been putting off because they get bigger executive bonuses if they don't spend the money meeting their basic obligations. They got a monopoly on the right-of-way for power lines, and they were supposed to maintain that right-of-way to prevent fires, but that's not what happened. (Cal Fire has not yet released a statement on whether the current fires were started by PG&E's negligence, but it's usually a safe way to bet.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. One can dream... by azuroff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dear NCTA,

    We agree with you 100% that market forces are the best way to prevent bad behavior. Accordingly, we will instruct each city and state that grants one of your member companies a cable franchise to open up those franchises to any company desiring to provide internet service. Once every household in the country has a minimum of 4 different ISPs to choose from, we can discuss the state-level regulations mentioned in your letter.

    Sincerely,
    The FTC

    1. Re: One can dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the Trump administration.

      They're going to apologize for the inconvenience.

    2. Re:One can dream... by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

      Agreed!!! Because 75% of the US can only pick from one ISP and they over charge us because of it.

    3. Re: One can dream... by houghi · · Score: 2

      You kid, but in Belgium by law, three telecom cellphone networks operators are required.
      So when onebought another in a EU deal, they had to sell.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:One can dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once every household in the country has a minimum of 4 different ISPs to choose from, we can discuss the state-level regulations mentioned in your letter.

      Sincerely,
      The FTC

      Internet is a bit like roads and well electricity and all the rest. It isn't practical for everyone to run wires/fiber/etc. I'd like to see a bit of government management or at least regulation on that part, then yes, bring it back to a central office and let people choose. It would be a Win, well except for the people that have been abusing their monopolies, but government is supposed to be for the people, not for the already rich corporations.

      Captcha: Insane

  4. Ok. Charge them lease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cables companies need to pay for using public land for their cables. I'm sure they'll agree to pay the market rate for leasing all that land their cables are on or under. Since they are all in favor of the free market.

  5. Market forces by yorgasor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, but market forces only work when there's competition. They've all lobbied to prevent any real competition. I only have one choice when it comes to any real broadband. Satellite just doesn't count.

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    1. Re:Market forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "lobbying" that prevents competition, but ownership.

      Way back when the networks were first being laid - "the internet" was still a pretty niche thing, 90% of voters were only dimly aware of it and had no conception of how they might use it. City governments had some notion that it might turn out to be big, and they didn't want to be left out; but at the same time, there was zero appetite among electors for tax raises to pay for the infrastructure to be laid.

      Enter the cable companies. "We'll lay the cables at our own expense", they said. "Then we'll provide internet access over them." City governments throughout the country leapt at the offer. Terms were negotiated, contracts signed, and that's how the present monopolies were established. The cable companies are reaping the benefit of their own foresight, while the people they serve - are suffering from buyers' remorse.

      Net neutrality was a reasonably clean and simple way to bypass the "ownership" problem. Others - would require primary legislation, and might well get messy.

    2. Re:Market forces by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      Except every municipal broadband attempt has been challenged and in most places they've been declared illegal. Only a few have ever been successfully deployed, and they had to fight hard to get them.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    3. Re:Market forces by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      This is somewhat, but not altogether true. For one, the cable companies already had infrastructure in place for video, they just needed upgrades to backend equipment and to distribute modems. People were relatively familiar with the internet through AOL and dialup (which only became popular because the government broke up AT&T, another private corporation holding back progress for their own enrichment.) Plus they fought tooth and nail to not be labeled as utilities so the states can't control their prices.

      At the same time, there was real competition as DSL was still competitive, speed wise, with early cable internet, and there were numerous baby Bell's and other 3rd party ISP's offering alternatives.

      Fast forward a bit and AT&T & Verizon have bought up all of the baby bells and chosen to invest in cellular data rather than address DSL which is still languishing around 3.5mbit (if you're lucky), while half-assing fiber deployments. The cable cartels only upgrade their speeds if threatened with a municipal startup or someone like Google Fiber (It was hilarious how within 7 days of Google announcing a fiber install in my town, that TWC managed to go from 100mbit to 300mbit, for free.)

      However, the cable companies do lobby quite a bit to keep the rules favorable to them.

    4. Re:Market forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks to be you, but where I am (Vancouver, BC) DSL is competitive with cable. I have the option of up to 150Mb DSL where I am. I only have 50Mb because that's all my family of three needs. I get solid 5.6MB/s download rates and my line (without bonding) supports ~70Mb.
      In the states the carriers have been disassembling their copper as fast as they can because NN rules were never part of wireless. They want to force every customer on to 4G/5G because that where they'll get to rape you.

    5. Re:Market forces by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true. Companies only wanted to lay cable in profitable neighborhoods (cities and rich suburbs).
      The dotcom bubble laid much fiber cross-country too.

      The FTC and FCC had to force the hand and many states provided funds and customers got levied many taxes and fees to make this buildout happen between cities and to rural spaces (which they collected the money but still haven't done).

      Net neutrality has nothing to do with it, the concept that was legalised was another handout to the providers from the government under the guise of fairness and not at all the concept they purport it to be or the one we actually need.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Market forces by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I certainly wasn't given a choice or paid for the right of way forced on me when the cable company came through and ran an underground trough in my backyard a couple of years ago. In fact they took out a section of my fence and I had to fix it at my own expense. I despise Spectrum, they outright lie in their ads, provide a poor service and charge though the a$$ for it. If you complain that it fails to live up to their promise they will reply you can always do without. I really miss the SF bay area where I had multiple selections for a provider so they had to at least make an 'minor' effort or you could jump ship.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    7. Re:Market forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't lay cables at their own expense. A lot of those lines were paid for by state and federal grants or loan guarantees of one form or another.

      In some cases, the telcos (who are no better) took money from the Feds to improve their backbone and just pocketed the money without improving anything.

    8. Re:Market forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not DSL in the traditional sense, what the other poster is probably referring to is the fact that (in many areas) phone companies have not upgraded their equipment in basically forever. I saw, not in a small town mind you, an old style DSLAM while a tech was hooking someone up. We're talking old, as in you have to be practically on top of the thing to get 6Mb/s old. However in that town they haven't rolled out their improved TV service, so there are no truly upgraded equipment. I think they canceled the TV upgrade, but they will be deploying higher speed internet at some point because the cable provider is kicking their arse in speed and they haven't upgraded in years either. I think the cable provider is offering 50Mb/s service as it's top speed. Why upgrade? There is no reason, no competition.

      I got lucky where I live, for whatever reason (probably the ratio of moderately higher income earners working in IT and management), we have gigabit symmetric Fiber service from the telco. I would never, not ever, want to go back to even 300Mb/s asymmetric service. My wife and I both work in IT, often remote from home, and I'm on-call once every 8 weeks. I cannot fathom doing my job, much less hers as she works with large databases, on a slower line now. Heck I couldn't imagine a slower circuit trying to keep up with people in the house doing HD downloads to the TV and streaming to the tablets, while trying to work. I upgraded our AP's to a newer model to handle the throughput.

      I do agree they want to get rid of copper for the reason you stated.

    9. Re:Market forces by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is somewhat, but not altogether true.

      It is altogether true in many markets, where one entrenched provider has a monopoly on the right-of-way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Market forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satellite just doesn't count.

      Especially if you don't have a house; I've only lived in apartments, and now own a condo, and in both scenarios a satellite dish of any kind/size is not allowed. You're mileage may vary depending on the building you live in, but I believe this is pretty common.

    11. Re:Market forces by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Except every municipal broadband attempt has been challenged and in most places they've been declared illegal.

      This isn't exactly accurate. While there have been challenges, they have been through the political system, not through the courts. When they have failed, it's either been because a city council decided not to go forward in the face of political pressure, or because the state has passed laws preemting local governments. But it is not true to say municipal broadband has been declared illegal in most places.

    12. Re: Market forces by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say your first premise is entirely true. Case in point: Beverly Hills, CA is an extremely rich city. The only entity to attempt fiber installation is the city which is building it now. You'd think that of all places, the ISPs would be drooling to install fiber as they could charge almost whatever they wanted. But no.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Net neutrality is a bad solution to big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason we "need" net neutrality now is because big government (cities) granted monopolies in the past to cable companies. Once a cable company establishes a government granted monopoly for a set period in a given area it provides a first mover like advantage that destroys any hope for free market competition long term. In a normal free market scenario companies would compete in new markets and while there is a first mover advantage there is at least competition amongst the early-entrants long term (generally speaking). How do you get back that level playing field after 40 years??? Now I would argue that an ISP not being neutral is committing fraud as it is not really providing internet access. You might be able to argue you are selling an intranet or internet-like subscription not unlike AOL at one time. However for this to be trust you certainly can't advertise yourself as an internet service provider.

  7. I wish... by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could convince all the pro NN folks to drop that pursuit and instead pursue taking the monopolies themselves away from the ISP's entirely. The poles, wires, and buried cable all become publicly funded just like roads and managed by contract bid out to whoever wants to run and maintain them so long as it is never one of the carriers, where the businesses now pay for the % of bandwidth their customers use with the price set by a commission, where anyone willing to start a new ISP can easily move into the marketspace and offer broadband to their neighbors without Comcast, Verizon, Cox, or whoever from blocking them in court or BS laws!

    AND also removing all local municipalities from being able to sign exclusive deals with ISP's entirely!

    Prices would drop like dying flies and every carrier would be advertising how they don't track you, keep your data private, and would never throttle your connection to netflix over comcast!

    1. Re:I wish... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      So basically your idea is to drop all attempts at meaningful regulations aimed at preventing monopoly abuse, and instead focus exclusively on something that will never happen? Sometimes I think people who talk like you do are anti-NN... you know ending ISP monopolies isn't something that has any realistic chance of happening any time soon, so the net result of your plan is just abandoning NN period. It seems like a really dishonest way to argue against it. There's simply no valid reason why both shouldn't be done: implement strong NN regulation now, while working towards ending the monopolies.
      Not to mention even if we had the strong competition from the public ownership of the last mile, there's still no good reason why net neutrality shouldn't still be on the books. I could easily envision a situation where we had 10 different ISP choices but each offered some different internet a la carte options.

    2. Re: I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sherman anti trust act. DoJ could enforce it in Telecom, health care, banking, many different areas would benefit from healthy open market competition.

    3. Re:I wish... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Have a government run company own and operate the wires and cell towers. Let companies compete to make use of that network. It's what we do with roads.

    4. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even when it could, in theory, benefit the local phone or cable company they fight because monopolies are better for them. They bribe states to kill projects as quickly as they crop up.

      Can't remember the town, but they were sick of the crappy internet/cable/phone options. They already had a cooperative (CLEC) because the phone company didn't give a crap about them. One of the locals makes good, does a successful business, and of course the town is practically worships him because he creates high tech jobs. He had donated to upgrade the schools with better computers. He donated to update the volunteer fire department trucks. He got tired of the crappy connection, the fact it his workers couldn't remote easily due to speeds, and comes up with an idea:

      The local municipality (with his help funding it) would build a moderate (but expandable) data center. In return for paying for a big chunk of the DC, it would be located near his company so he would have a short-range hook-up. Fiber to every home and business, using existing city easements. Now this is the important part: The city would own all of the stuff on the back-end to connect to the internet, but would not be selling internet/cable/phone service at all. They would simply be providing the links. They would melt the cooperative phone company into the back-end, and (nearly) anyone who could pay for space would be able to lease a spot there to put their equipment and hook up to the city. The rates for hookup would have to be publicly listed so anyone would know the generic terms. Room was left to grow since it was hoped that with even higher speeds more high-tech businesses would want to relocate their because: the land was cheap, the scenery beautiful, the schools were among the best in the state, the local airport had just been improved plus gotten two more carriers, and so on.

      The "local" Bell practically carpet-bombed them, taking it to the legislature bypassing the town, killing the whole project.

    5. Re:I wish... by MoralCharacter · · Score: 2

      Honestly breaking their monopolies is probably the key here. Net Neutrality is a solution to a symptom. In order for their 'market forces' excuse to work, they would need to either be broken up or barred from interfering/driving out startups. Seeing as no one has had the balls to hit them with an anti-trust suit. I think the best thing local governments could do is pass laws protecting startup/small ISPs - any time I hear about someone trying to start their own, it's always in a news article about how Comcast or whoever stomped them into the ground using lawyers, or by demolishing the little guys infrastructure to drive away their customers.

    6. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works for me, as taxpayers have payed for much of telecom and internet infrastructure. I saw an article a couple of years ago that said the average cost for cable companies to provide broadband Internet service was less than $5 per month per household, and for cable TV less than $10 per month per household. I was never able to find that article again, and any similar articles seem to be taken down quickly. I am sure it is because the ISP/Cable companies do not want people to know how much they are being price gouged for these services that should be dirt cheap!

  8. "let 'market forces' prevent bad behavior.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would mean ALLOWING (and not fighting against) municipal wifi and fiber projects, google fiber, and other competitors.. because they are part of the "market forces"

    oh, you don't want that.. accept and abide by stronger regulations to curb your bad behavior, then.

  9. No Comcast and Charter! by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    They are just freaking out because many states do NOT agree with the FTC. The people have spoken out we want fair pricing, non-blocked and unfiltered Internet. States are passing their own laws to put that back in place and the cable companies are freaking out. They want to over charge us and block streaming to force us to go back to the days of TV. No one has TV anymore that died years ago. The cable companies did not get it when we the "customer" were telling them we don't want phone, I have a cell phone, we don't want TV, I have Netflix, we just need fast internet at good price. The cable companies should have setup a NetFlix like service on their network and everyone would have dropped TV and picked that up, but they just did not get it. You would have thought they would have remembered the lesson learned by the phone companies; the "land line" in your home, we kept telling the phone company we like wireless phones that is what we will pay for but they did not get it and most of them closed their doors when everyone turned off the land line.

  10. States Rights!!!... by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...only matter to Republicans when the states are Republican controlled and don't fight the Republican agenda of giving to the rich and screwing everyone else, otherwise it's Federal Tyranny all the way!

    1. Re:States Rights!!!... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      So, more like Democrats then.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  11. No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as Comcast, AT&T, Charter, Cox, Mediacom, Verizon, and all the others are all competing across every market in the country, I'm happy to have a conversation with them about letting market forces regulate the industry.

  12. I wish I had mod points to mod this up! by nhtshot · · Score: 2

    You've absolutely hit the nail on the head. Get rid of the monopolies.. give them the same deregulation we gave to the telecom world with CLECs. Suddenly, prices will drop like hail from a thunderstorm.. just like long distance did in the 90s.

    1. Re: I wish I had mod points to mod this up! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not just prices....It will solve the problem of net neutrality. If one ISP is blocking Facebook (that might make the world a better place but free speech is bettet) you can go to another one that supports net neutrality.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  13. It wouldn't do much good by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google manged to win the rights to the poles in several markets and didn't do anything with it. They couldn't make it profitable. The problem is the investment is too high. You can't compete. Comcast and cost pay somewhere between $9-$15/mo to get you internet and charge $70+ for it (based on SEC filings). That gives them a _lot_ of room to drop their pants and kill any competitor who enters the market, making competing way, way too risky.

    If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less. The current market is too far gone. To be honest it was always going to be. The problem with telecom is it's really expensive to build all that wire. That's why they were granted monopolies in the first place. Though if you ask me we should have just built a national public network like we did the the roads. As it stands we paid for it in the form of tax breaks and subsidies and just let a private company profit from it. Not very smart.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It wouldn't do much good by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Screw the poles - bury the cables instead. A lot less maintenance even though it's more expensive.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:It wouldn't do much good by faedle · · Score: 1

      It's more expensive. Do you have any idea HOW expensive? In some cases, burying costs 10x the cost of hanging on poles. Plus, you can't imagine the headaches involved when you have to cross a highway.

      ---
      Disclaimer: feedle works for one of the aformentioned bastards

    3. Re:It wouldn't do much good by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      "If you want things to improve you're going to need more regulation, not less."

      I'd say it's the exact opposite. For example, my local cable provider loves to claim it's not a monopoly b/c anyone can enter the market, and they are technically correct. The city, however, requires that those new entrants provide service to everyone. That is, you can't start with a few neighborhood and build out. It's all or nothing. And that makes it practically impossible to enter.

  14. States ARE market forces by asackett · · Score: 1

    And that's all there is to it.

    The county government to which I pay my property taxes is a market force, too, and that's why I've got Gigabit fiber on our municipal broadband network for $75/month.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

  15. Live by the sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the FTC has the authority to preempt the state and local regulations the telcos don't like, they also have the authority to preempt the ones they like.
    Bye-bye, locally-granted monopoly!

  16. Principled support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see Republicans make a principled support of state's rights on state broadband regulations.

    1. Re:Principled support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans. Principles.

      I'm sorry, but matter, anti-matter reactions are not the solution to the energy crisis.

  17. Re:Net neutrality is a bad solution to big governm by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    One way to at least ensure that customers aren't completely tied into one supplier is to use a layered approach so that the cabling is separated from the service provider which in turn is separated from the content provider.

    Right now the goal is to control the customers by making sure that cables, content and connection service is through one single provider and you as a customer have no choice.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  18. Fuck you, Comcast. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, Comcast. You're just waiting for your chance to screw everyone, aren't you?

    1. Re:Fuck you, Comcast. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Same with Charter! Argh!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Fuck you, Comcast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why you continue to pay for services is beyond me with comments like that. If you don't like a product don't buy it. Speak with your wallet not your mouth.

    3. Re:Fuck you, Comcast. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      When there's more choices in my area other than Comcast (which kinda sucks) or AT&T U-verse (which really sucks) or 3rd-party companies that just piggyback on Comcast or AT&T (which means they'll suck, too) then I'll be thrilled to switch. Until then it's 'The Devil I Know'.

  19. Skip the red tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just execute them. All of the execs and lobbyists involved in this debacle. Just bodies upon bodies until their attempts to dismantle freedom, to dismember the concept of an informed populace and to massacre the wallets of millions with their monopolies all stop.
    Nothing of value would be lost, and in our current political and legislative climate, nothing else would ever work to stop this anyways.

  20. We're number one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens,"

    How about being number one in customer complaints?

  21. The states should amend the constitution by shaitand · · Score: 2

    Per Article 5 of the Constitution, 34 states are required to convene a convention and 37 to pass the amendment. Yes, the internet and network neutrality is that important.

    But they could take the opportunity to fix a few other overreaches of federal power as well, reign in the commerce clause, clarify the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, force the federal government to shrink and limit strongarming states with strings attached funding by diverting income tax to the states, put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.

    1. Re:The states should amend the constitution by mysidia · · Score: 1

      put limits on time in position for top brass military and congress, etc.

      That would be ideal..... Lifetime term limit for running for either house of congress: 6 Terms maximum. No more than 2 terms can be consecutive terms, the 2nd or later cumulative term can only be followed by a 2-year or longer period not working as an appointee or federal or state employee, lobbyist, contractor, consultant, or person working in Washington DC or other state or federal buildings, and no more than 3 terms can be within the same house of congress.

    2. Re:The states should amend the constitution by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a lot of reform that everybody agrees needs fixed and a lot the courts have assumed over the years. Pretending amending the Constitution is some insurmountable barrier and spreading the myth that it requires congress is something all those unlimited term congressmen want you to believe, it helps boost federal power and especially that of congress beyond what the Constitution gives it, pretending their laws are the highest in the land.

      There are already 22 states coming together and passing things through their legislature to fight net neutrality, letting the rest know they'd have a chance at a say in these other matters as well could very easily bring together enough to have the convention. I'd love for them to fix things, but even having the convention without ratifying anything would still send a powerful message and remind them they CAN.

  22. Corporate Death Sentence required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to shut these assholes down. Either nationalize, or seize and hand-off to less shady outfits, I don't care which, but these fuckers need to be put out of business forthwith.

  23. Sit, u ate I on ethics by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "We value the inteterstate commerce clause and the value of enforced uniformity to help companies not have to deal with 50 different regulatory burdens and stop them from getting away wi..."

    "We're on the other side now."

    "Oh. We value giving the states the freedom to be 50 different experiments to see what works best."

    And opposite with the other party.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  24. Outside FCC Authority by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week

    Sorry.... The FTC is not congress nor the judiciary and doesn't have the authority to get to decide when state laws and regulations more-restrictive than the federal rules may be pre-empted and negated by the federal authority.
     

    In general states can pass more restrictive rules on any things built and commerce conducted inside their state.

    Requiring Network Neutrality regarding services sold inside the state from cable systems installed on the state/municipal rights of way does not interferer with interstate commerce, therefore, even Congress itself has limited
      ability to pre-empt extra state rules.

    1. Re:Outside FCC Authority by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      Actually they do....there is a long standing / widely accepted rule that federal regulators of highly regulated industries "occupy the field." That is, we don't require them to explicitly preempt state laws.

      Your "In general" statement is also too broad see e.g., dormant commerce clause.

  25. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seize the means of production, comrade! Done like a good little Bullshit-vik.

  26. Market Forces == Bad ISP Behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Market Forces" can't prevent bad behavior among giga-corporate ISPs. Rather, they guarantee it. When ISPs are as big as Comcast, only regulation can prevent bad behavior. Unfortunately, FTC is not the agency that can provide that, and FCC has decided that it won't. States, therefore, MUST regulate local rovision of internet service to at least moderate bad behavior. The ISPs of course want to behave badly, since customers usually have no other choice and have to keep paying regardless; it's only natural, and it's what monopoly and near-monopoly markets both allow and encourage.

  27. Consistent Federal Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep hearing from left leaning people that "leaving things to the states" is dumb and we should have consistent federal regulations. So this should be something they can get behind.

    1. Re: Consistent Federal Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing from....

      You are a fucking idiot that's why. Instead of listening to other people why not read for yourself and apply logic.

      Besides, who gives a shit. The states should have the ability to control services offered in their state. That's the way our government is setup.

      Why do you trumptards hate the government so much? Is it because it prevents you from raping people?

  28. Forget crossing a highway by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    imagine the mess of property rights. That's another reason we have monopolies. The cable companies get special dispensations for forcing property owners to let them work on their property in exchange for providing service. It's similar to eminent domain.

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

      Called an easement. There is a right of way granted to public utilities, e.g. power, telephone, cable, gas, water, etc. As a kid, I asked why they didn't just make a big pipe in the ground so that anyone wanting to run wire could do it. A little naive then, but not far off.

  29. Existing antitrust laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which are currently not being enforced, or due to natural monopoly, unenforceable.

  30. And there it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason they are pushing to have the FCC in charge of 'nn' so hard.

    Because the FTC isn't going to fuck around and change on a whim the way the FCC does...

    Net lobbys are shitting a big brick right now. FTC has big brass ones and won't cave in to them.

  31. Oh yes because screwing and stealing from your by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    customers is good business. Lets see, Microsoft steals your data & tells you how you can and can't use your computer (Think Windows store and Advertising ID along w/forced data theft), google tracking you against your will, Roomba stealing your house plans.

    Today, every company wants to fuck the consumer for their own gain. Why not the ISPs?