Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Introduce 'Save the Internet Act' To Restore Net Neutrality (cnet.com)
As expected, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced the Save the Internet Act, which aims to restore open internet rules that were repealed in 2017. From a report: The Obama-era rules, which lasted from 2015 to 2018, banned broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to the internet or charging companies higher fees for faster access. Democrats in Congress have said the repeal allows for large broadband and wireless companies to "control people's online activities." "86 percent of Americans opposed Trump's assault on net neutrality, including 82 percent of Republicans," said Pelosi during the press conference on Wednesday. "With 'Save The Internet Act,' Democrats are honoring the will of the people." Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey tweeted out a copy of the bill on Wednesday, saying nearly every Democrat in the Senate had joined him to introduce it.
Yeah, let's just ignore the giant legislative loophole that allowed this problem to develop in the first place.
What Obama did with a pen Trump undoes with an eraser.
Here we go again.. They want to have *another* run at net neutrality...
Have at it guys, but we all know what is going to happen. It *may* make it out of the House, but it is dying in committee in the Senate. Nothing but the next election can possibly change that and by the looks of things, that's rapidly slipping into a snowballs chance of surviving in a very hot place....
Maybe if you had a time machine.....Naw, after 3 movies, we all know how that ends...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's only 3 pages long, read it yourself: https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/...
Trump was the one that got rid of net neutrality through his appointments to the FCC. Let's not pretend that he's in favor of it. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't need a bill.
Comcast never stopped running Sandvine, did they? Verizon definitely is man-in-the-middling DNS, I can see that from home - and despite promising to provide alternative DNS servers for the small number of customers able to understand their chicanery, those "alternative" servers are unreachable from my FIOS connection.
I switched to FIOS because Comcast was chopping my SSH sessions after a certain period of time regardless of whether they were active or not. This made it very hard to work from home. Hijacked DNS was a relatively small issue, I just use Google's public DNS servers.
Pelosi's grandstanding is all very well, but it would be nice if there was some way to enforce this sort of legislation, and currently there just isn't. Providers do what they want regardless of laws, and there's currently no way to stop them.
I'm guessing 99.99% of people haven't noticed any difference at all. What about the Internet is Nancy saving again? Someone please explain pros and cons of each side so my little brain can understand it?
The internet is not owned by the United States, therefore we shouldn't have full control of it. No country should.
I hate fat people.
by bringing light to an issue that's being ignored. The hope is you'll see this and turn out in the next election and give them a Democratic Congress (House & Senate) and President so we can pass it in 2 years.
The only question is, what will you do? Me? I'll be there at the primaries voting for Bernie.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
*State control*.
Sadly it gets nearly zero support in Congress because it doesn't increase the power of politicians on either side.
Another big bite of nothingburger...
What is created by "a pen & a phone" dies by "a pen & a phone."
Many tried to warn those on the left the precedent they were happily allowing to be created under Obama... we got called racist instead.
Enjoy your comeuppance.
Maybe it’s time to have a serious discussion about executive overreach... regardless of who is President?
Intentionally I think. It took me a second to realize you were conflating Net Neutrality with Google (YouTube) & Facebook kicking right wing pundits off their platforms for questionable (and let's face it, violent) rhetoric and commentary.
Honestly if you left it at that I think you coulda got a +5 out of your troll post, but that bit about the UN ties in with all sorts of off the rails conspiracy theories. The key to a good shit post is knowing when to stop. It helps to have some honest belief in what you're posting. And you're not gonna convince me or anyone else that you believe that malarkey.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What horseshit. Someone you don't like introduces a bill for what you want. You're so biased (prejudiced) that you cannot even be bothered to decide for yourself that it's not what you want. You just expect someone else to regurgitate the canned response you want to hear.
Do you also complain about biased media? Maybe you should do research for yourself.
that feel when you can't differentiate between a carrier and a content provider because they both offer you a service.
>_>
Partly correct, but the UN is a shitty choice. And insofar a it is partially controlled by non-free countries, you are flat out wrong.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
This vote is every bit as meaningful as all those votes to defund Obamacare prior to 2016, when the Republicans ran the House - in other words, not meaningful at all. It's very easy to take a stand when you know the bill will never pass the Senate, or survive the President's veto. It gets much, much harder when the vote actually stands a chance of passing. Note how quickly the support to defund Obamacare evaporated the moment the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.
Now the Democrats are playing the same game. No one cares about meaningless symbolic gestures. But if the Democrats had control of the Senate, suddenly a great many of them would be getting visits from lobbyists for major telecom companies, reminding our elected representatives just who is calling the shots, and net neutrality would suddenly be taken off the table.
Regardless, ceding control of it was a very stupid move.
You are confusing content providers with service providers. Intentionally, I suspect.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It's only 3 pages long, read it yourself: https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/...
You're begging the question, here. What you've linked to just says "put it back the way it was under Obama." The guy you're replying to said "Trump asked congress to introduce such a bill to codify NN into law, not executive policy."
So in the end, this is still executive policy, but it's even worse than that--because the legislature (who is supposed to make laws) is not doing their job, they're telling the executive what their rules are supposed to be. It's not supposed to work that way.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Facebook and Amazon are big supporters of this bill. For that reason alone I'm skeptical.
That needs to happen - I'm sick of the techno-fascists in san Francisco.
I think it’s fine if you have a special extension of the executive branch make policy suggestions to Congress. Congress is free to ignore them, but it’s not the job of the executive branch (or more specifically the bureaucratic aspects of it) to create the rules. Congress has been irresponsible in abdicating their authority and the judicial branch is perhaps worse for allowing this folly to persist.
One of the problems of this bill is that is doesn't even define net neutrality. Because of this it doesn't even specifically say which changed rules should be changed back, or why those changed rules have any effect whatsoever on net neutrality.
Besides real net neutrality is neutrality of content, not of service levels and speeds for different types of uses.
All this bill does is restore the corporate written FCC regulations that existed previously, that did NOTHING to support real network neutrality.
Give us one example of a problem since that was repealed. One.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You probably have epic problems.
It works that way all the time, in every sector of regulation. Regulators aren't always running 100% on strictly legislated waypoints, they have policies that evolve over time that Congress doesn't step in to regulate more finely.
This is how it is in every bureau from the EPA to the CIA and everything in between. Legislation isn't even the final word, the courts are. The executive is taking an outsized role in the SPECIFIC decisions for PERSONAL reasons though, like for example the ATT situation where he doesn't get good coverage and then tries to intervene in their merger directly... but as far as the FCC having the power to regulate communications, it does. Congress is however not doing their job of oversight generally in terms of the day to day evaluation of the FCC, as Ajit Pai lying to investigators about chatbot comments and hired PR firms come to light there needs to be a very hot spotlight on that kind of mismangement. Still, as long as the idiot is in the seat, he does have that power.
Did the Founding Fathers consider all these digital details? Of course not. The laws are interpreted to kind of suss out where the FF would have intended there be regulations for common sense (Paine...) reasons.
And there's no question interfering with interstate commerce like throttling internet access willy-nilly for competitors, that would have ended up in court and lost on the basis of common good faith contract law.
If people want to privately rent out subnetworks on their OWN LINES that doesn't touch the public right of way, that's their business, but privatizing the commons should not be allowed (and therefore NN or similar law must be the policy to prevent it) because the public internet wasn't built by AT&T, it was built by the US government and CAL University system and heavily invested by a bunch of different groups since then to make it what it is. It'd be like Tesla buying roads up and telling non-electric cars they had to go around. Byzantine fiefdoms and toll roads would eventually replace what is now open to anybody for any legal reason.
Those corporate masters would be risking some Belgian pistol duels if they tried this crap in the 1770's. Rant over.
Long story short, NN keeps the floor level.
Google and Facebook are not ISPs (except for Google Fiber, which is subject to NN).
When Google or Facebook hosts your content, they are paying to host that content. When I pay for an Internet connection, I am paying for that Internet connection, and it better fucking give me the content I request at the fucking rate I paid for.
now I know you're trolling. Joe Rogan? And what do pronouns have to do with literally _anything_. Come on, I expect better bait.
/.? We're old men. We saw this crap on Usenet.
Throwing in the part about being a former Bernie bro was a smart move though. It'll throw some of the progressives off your scent. Again though, you really need to step up your game if you're shooting for even a +3 around here. That shit might fly on reddit but
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You didn't suggest an alternative, shitty choice wins until it commits treason and dies in prison.
Just because you're too lazy and uneducated to read about and understand any of this doesn't mean it's anyone else's job to un-retard you. Google and educate yourself you lazy illiterate nazi propagandist.
https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/outrage-over-verizon-throttling-service-to-firefighters-during-wildfire/1390190474 - Related directly.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.pdf - Related directly.
Hobbling the delivery of all video across the board isn’t a worst-case scenario for the end of net neutrality, since it doesn’t necessarily give one video provider an advantage over any other. But selling internet plans with slow lanes for specific types of content might have violated the old FCC rules, which specified that “if a broadband provider degraded the delivery of a particular application,” it would “violate the bright-line no-throttling rule.” Likewise, California’s law, if it goes into effect, will forbid broadband providers from degrading entire classes of applications.
Besides, data collected by researchers at Northeastern University from volunteers using apps that test connection speeds show that the carriers don't always apply these video speed limits evenly. David Choffnes, who leads the Northeastern University research, says Verizon throttles YouTube but doesn't throttle the video service Vimeo. It’s not clear if the different treatment between video providers is deliberate or if carriers are simply not identifying some video traffic. The carriers didn’t comment on how they handle video.
Educate yourself, then spout moron.
TRUMP is the "pen and phone" president. Congress said he couldn't have money, he tried to invent a BS "emergency" to go around them. He's a traitor
Try again, Ivan. People are dying right and left from drug overdoses and the mexican drug cartels are bringing in tons of the stuff. There is a real emergency and Trump is the only legit president we've had in a long time.
hairyfeet is correct(Watch the interview) and your misinformed about whos being deplatformed. Quite the contrary violent left wing actors are not being thrown off but conservatives are for speech...
Time for a law to force freedom of speech to exist across any public platform over a given size.
Federal rules and laws that protected NN approved wireline.
Less innovation.
Less ability for gentrified communities to get new networks.
If your telco likes your wireline plan, they can keep you on your NN approved wireline plan.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Tell us how you really feel...
The alternative would be for the USA to get on with more of the internet. With its freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
Let communities bring in their own community broadband free of new federal NN rules, laws and regulations.
Gentrified communities can then get the most advanced and innovative new networks without having to wait for federal NN approval.
Lots of great new network creation all over the USA to get past the federal NN rule protected monopoly telco.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"crazy" being the operative word.
Medicare for All? The rest of the world does it. Ending the 8 wars? They're pushing 20 years. Green New Deal? It's a jobs program, like we did in the 30s when wealth income equality got as bad as it is today.
It won't help the Dems chances. It pisses off wealthy donors. They'd do better to keep their heads low. They're taking a stand for something. Much like Bernie does with all his policy. That's what leaders are supposed to do.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe it’s time to have a serious discussion about executive overreach... regardless of who is President?
There was no executive overreach, by either Obama or Trump. If there is no law that says otherwise, them the president can set FCC policy as he pleases. This legislation is an attempt to fix that.
Unfortunately, the probability of it becoming law is 0%.
it gave exemption's to companies like google and Facebook which did exactly what they are claiming their rules are preventing.
Google and Facebook are not ISPs. Net Neutrality never applied to them in the past, and would not apply to them in the future.
Net Neutrality requires ISPs treat all similar packets similarly, regardless of origin or destination. That's it.
Sanders has changed the discourse of an entire nation. We're seriously talking about universal healthcare for the first time since the mid 90s.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but what am I?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/live-updates/trump-white-house/live-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-president-trumps-immigration-speech/most-imported-heroin-comes-through-legal-points-of-entry/
You are a fountain that shoots bullshit into the air.
The same people who have spent years trying to censor the internet with insane conspiracy theories about Russians will not save the internet, and I do not trust them to do anything with it when they already abuse he powers they obtained by controlling monopolistic companies.
Now that was funny.
It's only 3 pages long, read it yourself: https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/...
The amazing thing is that they took three pages to basically write "The FCC's reversal of its existing policy in [declaration number] is hereby reversed."
This bill stinks on ice. It doesn't actually enact net neutrality, but rather weakly allows Internet services to be regulated under a section of FCC code that would allow the FCC to regulate net neutrality if it so desires through rulemaking. The bill makes no attempt at defining net neutrality, nor any attempt at defining what constitutes reasonable rulemaking, leaving it entirely up to an unelected body (the FCC) to make those decisions.
To be fair, I'm not saying that they shouldn't pass this. It's an okay stopgap measure, except insofar as Pai's FCC is unlikely to actually issue any meaningful rulemaking to protect net neutrality, which makes this bill largely an empty gesture. But this isn't the end of the story. It is barely even a beginning.
What we actually need is an Internet Users' Bill of Rights that lays out what is and is not acceptable behavior by ISPs in concrete terms. Until we have that fundamental framework, merely having the authority to regulate ISPs over net neutrality concerns still doesn't buy us a whole lot.
Trump was the one that got rid of net neutrality through his appointments to the FCC. Let's not pretend that he's in favor of it. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't need a bill.
Pai wasn't his appointment. President Trump just promoted him to the top spot.
If President Trump even has a position on Net Neutrality, I would expect it to be extremely superficial, limited strictly to what his advisors have told him is the best policy. After all, even fairly tech-savvy people consistently misunderstand what net neutrality means and/or deliberately try to coopt it to suit their own desires. There's essentially zero chance that President Trump understands it at all, even superficially, because almost nobody does.
That said, I very much doubt that he has any position on Net Neutrality whatsoever. He probably doesn't even know that the controversy exists. After all, it doesn't have anything to do with his reputation and it doesn't benefit his business ventures, so why would he care about it? Just saying.
But I guarantee if we could create a really well thought-out bill and name it the Donald J. Trump Net Neutrality Bill Of Rights, he would not only sign it, but would insist that Congress pass it. :-) Just saying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"The vast majority of censorship we seen" LOL UNEDUCATED REDNECK FAGGOT GOP WHINER I love the fact that your nazi faggot friends are getting kicked out of facebook and twitter, lol. YOU DESERVE PAINFUL DEATHS THOUGH!
Why is this modded to troll? So much anti-trump has turned out to be bull manure.
Pai wasn't his appointment. President Trump just promoted him to the top spot.
They both appointed him to different positions. That doesn't make him not Trump's appointment, it makes him a shared evil decision.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Obama's puppets classified the internet ad a voice service to impose CALEA on the internet. That is most certainly overreach. You idiots supported it.
The mainstream Democratic Party regulars have spent too many years doing 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' to the far left. Their principles have been hollowed out by years of tolerating far left rhetoric.
They're in trouble, now.
What else need be said?
OMGZDRUMPFLITERALLYHITLER! Sure, everyone else is prejudiced.
So woke. So edgy. Make haste, there's another article requiring your virtue.
The internet is doing just fine, and deregulation is what allowed it to become an amazing miracle that has benefited everybody on the globe. And yes, for all of the misgivings about the spooky, corporation$, I trust them more than I trust the government.
about what Team Red or Team Blue promises they will do, you should take a deep breath and come to a simple realization. ... ..
.
Regardless of which team we're talking about and regardless who is in power, they both have one thing in common:
*** What they say and / or promise they will do and what they actually get done are rarely in harmony with one another. ***
Every few years they play the public like a well trained orchestra. Every few years the public falls for it, again and again.
DECADES of this bullshit has brought us to where we stand today.
Do make it a point to remember this when the time comes.
In the words of Public Enemy - " Don't believe the hype "
That's still conflating NN with site moderation. NN is regarding bits travelling over tranmission lines. Forum and site content moderation has nothing to do with that. That is intra-site data and is under the purview of the site's owner(s).
But you already knew that. Don't forget we don't forget who user "hairyfeet" is just because we logged off and went to bed. You have a history.
TRUMP's administration doesn't like it because HIS corporate masters do NOT like it! Got it, asshole?!
HAHAHAHAHA! Lolz... Trump has corporate masters? HAHAHAHAHA!!! The dude is independently wealthy. That's why we voted him into office - he has no "corporate masters" to answer to. The guy answers to no one, no one except perhaps the voters who might re-elect him in 2020.
So listen up, Asshole, the Republicans have done NOTHING - EVER - for us little people and it's obvious that they serve no one but their big money backers because they are lying corrupt assholes.
As one of the "little people," I was quite relieved when Trump and the Republicans repealed Obamacare's individual mandate.
Seriously they say they will pursuit legislation to address NN and save the Internet. Yet they go and pull this shit?
Democrats appear to be too lazy to even bother writing a real bill that cleanly addresses the issues of NN. They couldn't be bothered to peel anyone away from the war effort against orange clowns?
All this does is reinstates the same bullshit regime in place earlier with it's hodgepodge of arbitrary forbearances, looming threat of POTS style regressive USF taxes and pointless POTS era regulatory burdens on small providers.
What a pathetic cop out.
Trump was the one that got rid of net neutrality through his appointments to the FCC. Let's not pretend that he's in favor of it. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't need a bill.
I disagree with the premise.
Even our hero at FCC Tom Wheeler didn't want what went down regarding Title II reclassification. His hand was forced into it as a last resort either reclassification or nothing after losing Verizon lawsuit.
Best possible outcome was always a legislative fix imposing meaningful NN and competition without all the ancient POTS era title II bullshit.
When faced with an opportunity to address a problem the democrats elected to sit on their asses and squander it by creating an act that simply reverses Ajit Pai's bullshit.
ya.... I read this, it feels weird. It isn't what it says it is and is not legislating net neutrality which is what should have been done. Instead it's a repeal of an FCC rule, it forbids adding the rule back, and it puts the earlier rule in its place. It's a cheesy way of legislating something.
I think they could have created a law that required net neutrality. That would have been a sign that the legislators for FOR something. Instead it's a dig directly at the executive and ordering that the executive take a particular action. Ie, a sign that the legislators are AGAINST the executive. So they felt that had to stick some hand slapping in the bill which is totally unnecessary to achieve the goal of net neutrality and is just low level politics.
I very much prefer legislators when they can be positive and for something, but am disappointed that today's politics is all about being negative and against something.
Human trafficking doesn't go through ports of entry, and it's a big problem that few pay attention to.
There has to be a legal basis for the courts to do that.
It is just a wishy washy way of not doing any work.
NN is basically pitting us the customer against one of two 'evils' either the evil ISP or the evil data providers.
They are both a set of asses looking to rip us off through monopolistic practices, lock in, double charging, scraping our data to sell to advertisers, and locking out competitors. Notice nothing I said their only applies to one or the other? Because they are both doing the same things. Just in different levels of degree and shenanigans. They are then asking us to choose which side to be on.
The NN that was enacted was a love letter pretzeling of the law to the data providers. The current rule ripping away is a love letter to the ISPs. Honestly at this point I am boderline thinking the ISPs are better. The FAANG group is showing they can not be trusted with any of our freedoms. They will sell us for a buck faster than a crack whore would sell their ass for a rock. The ISPs at least have to pretend they are beholden to title II.
Can I pick neither?
awesome.. I've been labelled a troll for supporting freedom of speech. Slashdot you really have sunk too low.
Democrats must be destroyed along with everything they do. They've been taken over by Marxists, and have as their agenda the shredding of the US Constitution and creation of an anti-Christian, anti-semitic communist dictatorship. The communists have taken over most of the mainstream media, most of the colleges and universities, and seek a take-over of 1/6th of the US economy with "Medicare for all," aka socialized medicine.
If Democrats win the White House and Congress, expect the US to look like Venezuela within 3 years.
Obamas biggest flaw was that he tried to be bi-partisan in cases he shouldn't.
Pai was picked by Mitch McConnell. Obama just signed him through.
The vast majority of censorship we seen on the internet happened while NN was in place from said companies.
Please read up on what censorship is and what NN is so that in the future you won't ever put these completely different things in the same sentence.
That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. The president should not be making laws to begin with. Executive orders suck. Ever hear of COBRA? FMLA? FCRA? HIPAA? Are you starting to see a trend here? If any of those were an executive order they would ebb and flow from one president to the next, constantly changing or disappearing entirely. It was congress’ goddamn job to pass this thing to begin with. They need to stop fucking blaming the president when it was their fucking failure to get it done in the first place. They had total control of both the House and the Senate., and if it is as popular as this article suggests that should not matter. However, they seem to think we’re electing a fucking king not a president. It takes a lot of nerve to cover up dropping the ball, and then turn around and spin it as if theyre some kind a fucking hero for doing the job they should’ve done in the first fucking place. I said the exact same thing about the deffered deportation policy. When something becomes a law it takes a body of people to overturn or change it. When it’s an executive order the whims of a single person can change anything at will. This is citizenship fundamentals 101.
With NN, they can charge higher fees for slower access?
You mean I had eight ISP to choose from under Obama. How the hell did I miss that?
>Obamacare was passed by the GOP
Wut? I think one GOP in the house voted for it? I would exactly call that 'passed by the GOP'. Gicen 39 dems voted against it there... are you also going to say it was opposed by the dems?
"Any other rule that was repealed..." That could include anything from bonuses to stations owned by women or minorities, for example, or pretty much anything else. So, those 3 pages can refer to hundreds of pages of other stuff.
It is just a wishy washy way of not doing any work.
Pretty much.
NN is basically pitting us the customer against one of two 'evils' either the evil ISP or the evil data providers.
Not remotely. Net neutrality actually favors both consumers and small content providers. If an ISP decided to throttle Netflix, YouTube, or some other big content provider, they would get death threats. It has happened, and because those companies are big enough, they got enough consumer complaints to get a lawsuit on Sherman anti-trust grounds.
The main companies NN protects are startups — companies where consumers would never be able to know for sure if the problem was throttling by the ISP or the content provider simply not being able to keep up with traffic. By throttling those companies, ISPs can prevent new, interesting tech from ever happening while the ISPs decide how they're going to respond (e.g. by providing a similar service in-house), or kill it entirely to protect one of their other businesses, or give special "fast lane" access to Netflix in exchange for a kickback, while throttling every new service that's trying to start up and compete with it.
For example, suppose someone comes out with 3D video chat. The ISPs don't have that ability currently, but they could add a camera to their own cable boxes that, when attached to 3D TVs, provides 3D video chat. But they can't do that if somebody else beats them to market too badly. Of course, if that third-party service never takes off because of throttling, they can say that they decided to build their own service because the third-party service wasn't good enough, and consumers might never even know what was happening.
So the anti-NN folks are actually doing a favor for those big companies like Netflix, Google, Hulu, etc. It's unclear why so many of those companies support NN, given that it hurts them. Maybe it's a sense of altruism — the whole "if the Internet hadn't been neutral in the beginning, we wouldn't be here today" thing. Or maybe they're concerned that the "not big enough to look like throttling" problem might apply on a per-service basis, rather than a per-company basis, and might hurt some theoretical future plan. Either way, NN definitely risks increasing their exposure to competition in their existing businesses.
There is absolutely no way that NN favors any big corporation over smaller ones. That's completely implausible at a fairly fundamental level.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.