Slashdot Mirror
Internet Provider Groups Sue Vermont Over Net Neutrality Law (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Five industry groups representing major internet providers and cable companies filed suit on Thursday seeking to block a Vermont law barring companies that do not abide by net neutrality rules from receiving state contracts. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont by groups representing major providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. It followed a lawsuit by four of the groups earlier this month challenging a much broader California law mandating providers abide by net neutrality rules.
The trade associations are also challenging an executive order on the issue signed by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. The Vermont lawsuit was filed by the American Cable Association; CTIA -- The Wireless Association; NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association; USTelecom -- The Broadband Association and the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly."
The trade associations are also challenging an executive order on the issue signed by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. The Vermont lawsuit was filed by the American Cable Association; CTIA -- The Wireless Association; NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association; USTelecom -- The Broadband Association and the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly."
They should sue their lap dog Ajit, or never pay him again. He obviously failed to deliver *every* state, the lying bastard.
Isn't it funny how important States' Rights are to Republicans when they agree with the result, but they invoke the Commerce Clause whenever they don't like it?
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Pretty sure states can set whatever terms they want for the contract. And "Not respecting the privacy of citizens" isn't a protected class yet.
Kinda sucks when you get a contract you don't like and can't do anything about doesn't it?
The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly.
Nor do you want them to. This is constructing new powers not given them from other powers.
Imagine a government restricting contracts from a company whose CEO said he liked Hillary for President.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
states to reconsider what ISP/telecom providers they allow exclusive rights to.
No law, no regulation, just toss them ot of the state.
I'm sure someone else would love to have exclusive rights.
Why is this word salad upvoted?
it's just not funny anymore. The Republicans have long since made it very, very clear that the end justifies the means. That's not a question anymore. The question is, is anyone going to do anything about it? So far the answer has been a resounding, "meh, probably not. I mean, both sides are bad amiright?"...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
both sides seem to favor the Federal government. The difference to me seems that the Dems favor consumers and workers while the Republicans favor businesses and CEOs. Did I say "seems"? Seriously, they GOP isn't even trying anymore. They're actively attacking Medicare and Social Security in an effort to pay for their last round of tax cuts for the rich. And you know what, their poll numbers aren't going down. They're winning.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the ruling class has for centuries tried to goad the working class into violence so they can use it as an excuse to crack down and get "tough on crime". So go ahead. Go nuts. They'll send the National Guard in (or maybe just a militarized police), put you down and then run a bunch more of those tough on crime candidates who incidentally favor everything the aristocracy does.
Seriously though, don't use violence. It doesn't work. The right wing are better at it. Best case scenario you get your teeth kicked in. Worst case you go full circle and become the right wing. How do you think so many "communist" countries turned into fascist dictatorships?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That ship sailed decades ago at the federal level.
all they got out of it was a few decades of violence and change of masters. Things didn't get better until post WWII and that was mostly because of advances in science that made our food supply a lot more reliable.
Yeah, the ruling class sometimes lets things get out of hand and it bites them, but it bites _everyone_. It's the whole "too big to fail" effect. They've set themselves up as a linchpin in the economy. You can't just whack them out willy-nilly. It's got to be done with care, precision and above all without violence.
If things get crazy enough that the aristocracy loses control you'll lose out in the resulting chaos unless your both lucky and fantastically brutal. Mao and Stalin didn't win because they were the best. They won because they were the most violent and sadistic at a time when those traits were the path to victory. Personally I don't want to see those kind of "interesting times".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The only legal restrictions the states have are not to violate the bill of rights or try to overrule federal law (as opposed to act in the absence of it).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You, having never read the constitution (and just astroturfing with your canned talking points), miss that the 10th amendment delegates constitutional authorities, not regulatory authorities to the states. In short, you're an ignorant, lying shill.
You could represent your opinion better and lend an even greater air of credence by not being so abusive and dismissive.
Pai and the FCC had no authority under 47 CFR to declare that data is voice.
The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC does have the authority to decide if the internet is an information service or a telecommunications service. https://techcrunch.com/2017/05... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
IMHO a demonstration of House and Senate abrogating their responsibilities for crafting law, forcing Supreme Court do the work of Congress. On the other hand the current congress would be glad to declare broadband as a private service not requiring government regulation nor should any be permitted.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
The laws were 100% legal. The ISPs were moved to a different class because it was claimed the ISPs were data services, not media companies. However almost every ISP is a media company now, so they should be run back into the same classification.
LOL @ internet tough guy. Wait, I thought taking up arms meant you were a total idiot right winger? And how are you going to take up arms if you're in favor of strict gun control? I think I spotted the flaw in your cunning plan.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
...overspend and watch it all go to shit when the value drops???
they do it all the time... regulate pricing policy by accepting low bids, for instance. it all depends on what is, is. and they certainly can pass new regulations whenever they want. ask any contractor who didn't keep up with the state or local codes.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You say that like it wouldn't be a godsend. If I could kick those assholes out of my state and let muni broadband take over, I could have more for less, and maybe some half-decent support.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What the fuck are you talking about? "completely uncontroversial business regulations" is not the hill to die on over government overreach when direct murder and theft by agents of the state is common, and all of our communications are intercepted by power-hungry spies. Oh, and those same ISPs are bending over backwards to cooperate with them.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Maybe because NOBODY who doesn't suck dicks for ISPs is against net neutrality. The other ACs wonky explanation is unnecessary. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. And that's pretty much par for the course for the GOP's victory. Nobody likes anything they do, the Dems are just fucking morons about politics. They keep trying to play nice with the GOP, which only turns off their base and lets the GOP tout how they "whupped those damned liberuls." Nobody likes them or any of their policies, they just hate a handful of elite liberals more.
If a meteor wiped out the majority of the Dems, and they had to be replaced with regular schmucks instead of idiots who spend their lives talking to rich donors, they'd be significantly to the left of the current Democratic party, and they'd dominate the whole fucking country. Because the GOP doesn't win, the Dems lose.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
A company that's been fucking the people for decades, and whose business is 100% dependent upon eminent domain doesn't get to bitch about not getting contracts.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Or how about remove the fucking local monopolies they have and allow small players to enter the market in the first place instead of bitching that the current provider has shitty service that's expensive. I swear I'm surrounded by the smartest dumb motherfuckers in the world on this site.