Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government United States

FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015 127

Posted by Soulskill from the for-extra-lame-duckiness dept.
blottsie writes: The Federal Communications Commission will abandon its earlier promise to make a decision on new net neutrality rules this year. Instead, FCC Press Secretary Kim Hart said, "there will not be a vote on open internet rules on the December meeting agenda. That would mean rules would now be finalized in 2015." The FCC's confirmation of the delay came just as President Barack Obama launched a campaign to persuade the agency to reclassify broadband Internet service as a public utility. Opensource.com is also running an interview with a legal advisor at the FCC. He says, "There will be a burden on providers. The question is, 'Is that burden justified?' And I think our answer is 'Yes.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015 More

FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015

Comments Filter:

  • Welp, what ever we do will be legislated out of existence next year. Tough luck, come on boys shut the lights off and turn off the computers, we aren't wanted anymore.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There is no legislation necessary. The FCC simply classifies Internet access as a utility, and existing legislation provides net neutrality.

      • I was referencing to the very real possibility that while a law may not be passed to disband the fcc, they may zero it's budget which is effectively the same to prevent any sort of net neutrality. utility or otherwise.

        • I don't think Congress could zero out the FCC's budget without severe repercussions.

          This isn't to say that Congress WOULDN'T do this. Many politicians seem to be of the opinion "we will oppose the other party's efforts even if it means destroying the government and people's lives in the process." I almost would like to see them try this only to have it massively blow up in their face.

          • The FCC will will never go away. Who else can protect us from seeing Janet's titties again?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Jawnn ( 445279 )

            I don't think Congress could zero out the FCC's budget without severe repercussions.

            This isn't to say that Congress WOULDN'T do this. Many politicians seem to be of the opinion "we will oppose the other party's efforts even if it means destroying the government and people's lives in the process." I almost would like to see them try this only to have it massively blow up in their face.

            It hasn't yet. Indeed, it clearly has not harmed the party whose leaders clearly stated that obstructionism would be SOP for them. You go with what works. Right?

        • Re:In other words. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @10:38PM (#48365529)

          I was referencing to the very real possibility that while a law may not be passed to disband the fcc, they may zero it's budget which is effectively the same to prevent any sort of net neutrality. utility or otherwise.

          Pure fantasy.

          The FCC is under pressure from EVERYBODY to reclassify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. And the reason is simple: it is what should have been done in the very beginning.

          It is the obvious and RIGHT thing to do, and so much is clear to just about everyone. Even the ISPs know that, they just don't want it to happen.

          The GOP really, really, really needs to get it through their heads that their ideology is NOT why they were overwhelmingly elected this year. In fact that had little if anything to do with it. What the voters did was throw the other bums out. If the new Congress behaves badly, it will just be their turn in 2016.

          Seriously. People are fed up. And it's Obama's guy, Wheeler, who has been pushing for Internet "Slow Lanes" on behalf of the ISPs. So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.

          • No, they've got more than 2 years. At least 8 or more if they don't pass a steaming pile of horseshit like the PPACA. Much more if they successfully repeal it and pass meaningful reforms.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The FCC is under pressure from EVERYBODY to reclassify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers. And the reason is simple: it is what should have been done in the very beginning.

            FWIW, up until about 10 years ago they were classified under Title II. It was only a ridiculously stupid decision within the FCC that declassified them in the first place. [PDF] [law.edu] A decision so stupid that a little ISP, called Brand X, litigated it all the way to the supreme court and lost [zdnet.com] because guys like Clarence Thomas are ideologues with no grasp of reality.

          • They are not under pressure from everybody to do that. There are some who believe rightly that it is nonsensical to apply a law written in 1934 for telephone/telegraph to internet providers. The only way that would work is if you ignore approximately 70% of the existing law and make up a different one in your head to fill in the gaps (these are commonly called Executive Orders and Signing Statements, depending on circumstance). The correct thing to do would be for Congress to pass actual laws, rather tha

            • They are not under pressure from everybody to do that. There are some who believe rightly that it is nonsensical to apply a law written in 1934 for telephone/telegraph to internet providers.

              Yeah, well, your right to free speech was written into the Constitution more than 200 years ago. So what?

              It's a matter of relativity. It's a hell of a lot MORE right than the current situation, and it's vastly better than what Wheeler was proposing.

              • That's fair to say. However, the 1934 Communications Act is a great deal more narrow in construction than the First Amendment, while simultaneously being much more wordy. Simplicity is _powerful_. As an aside (and not directly to your point), I do not have my right to speech because the Constitution provided it. The Constitution merely acknowledged a human right which already existed. The Constitution prohibits the U.S. government (which was formed upon condition of accepting this right) from abridging

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dywolf ( 2673597 )

              i wasnt aware the POTUS was also personally responsible for programming a website.

              Did you go to school stupid, or just come out that way?

              • No, he's not personally responsible. He's supposed to be ultimately responsible. But in the future as in the present, we no longer will hold Presidents responsible for the execution of the Federal Government. Right? Good.
              • It's actually very difficult to determine what the President is personally responsible for. Very _difficult_, indeed. I will leave it at that. BTW, I didn't say programming. I said building, as in approving project timelines, setting functional requirements, determining and accepting liability for known defects. The President's public appearances led me and many others to believe he was deeply involved, up to the point it became clear that it was a mess, which was after the go-live. Then I read news r

          • And when they are reclassified as title 2?
            Then congress and the senate will start, and then continue to try to pass legislation to remove that and possibly defund the FCC. To the point of shutting down the government like how they did with their attempt to repeal the ACA.

            • Explain precisely how Republicans shut down the government. Wouldn't that be something the executive branch does?

              • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

                by Jawnn ( 445279 )

                Explain precisely how Republicans shut down the government. Wouldn't that be something the executive branch does?

                They did it by refusing to pay the bills. Literally. Wake the fuck up and pay attention to how your country is being governed. Or were you just being deliberately disingenuous?

                • No, you're being silly. Republicans passed many bills that funded the Federal government. The Democratic Senate refused. You are the one being deliberately disingenuous. And still to be precise, it was the executive branch that actually shut down various functions.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Jawnn ( 445279 )
                    I'm sure that's how you remember it being presented on Fox News. The reality is rather different.
                    • Hah. You're suddenly out of factual rebuttals and have to resort to attacking Fox News. Facts really get in the way of your understanding of the world, don't they?

          • What the voters did was throw the other bums out.

            No, they did not... 95% reelection rate by the most conservative estimates. If people are 'fed up', they have a weird way of showing it.

            • One interesting thing about the election is that the Presidents party lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than is typical in a mid-term election. The Senate was difficult for the D's this year since more of them were up for reelection than the R's and many of the D's were first elected in the of 2008.

          • Re:In other words. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by guises ( 2423402 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @08:32AM (#48367301)

            And it's Obama's guy, Wheeler, who has been pushing for Internet "Slow Lanes" on behalf of the ISPs. So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.

            ...
            Wheeler, plus the two republican commissioners on the FCC you mean? That's what you meant, right? This whole thing started because Wheeler broke rank with the Democrats and said that he was going to vote with the Republicans on the fast lanes thing, so I assume that's what you meant.

            While you're pointing your finger at Obama you might consider that his rhetoric is all that he can actually do about this. Obama nominated Wheeler, that's true, but that's the extent of his influence over the FCC. That's the whole point of having independent agencies - so that one person doesn't have all the power.

            • That's what you meant, right?

              I meant exactly what I wrote. Are you denying that Obama put Wheeler there? An ex- lobbyist for cable company interests? Are you denying that just about any reasonable person would think a guy who lobbied for the cable industry would take the cable industry view when proposing rulings?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by guises ( 2423402 )
                I am denying none of those things. I am pointing out that the FCC has five commissioners, not one, and your explicit insistence that this is entirely Wheeler's fault, and therefore Obama's fault, is wrong on two counts: one, it is not entirely Wheeler's fault, he wouldn't be getting anywhere without GOP support. Two, even if it was Wheeler's fault, he and Obama are two separate people.

                You can say, quite correctly, that a lobbyist should never have been given that position in the first place. That's fine,

                • I am denying none of those things. I am pointing out that the FCC has five commissioners, not one, and your explicit insistence that this is entirely Wheeler's fault, and therefore Obama's fault, is wrong on two counts: one, it is not entirely Wheeler's fault, he wouldn't be getting anywhere without GOP support. Two, even if it was Wheeler's fault, he and Obama are two separate people.

                  Uh... read the news, pal. Obama appointed ALL FIVE of the current FCC commissioners. Yes, even the Republican ones.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by guises ( 2423402 )
                    So... what? Your claim is that Obama appointed two republican commissioners out of... a sense of collegial non-partisanship? Because he was trying to reach across the isle? He did that a lot of the start of his presidency.

                    No. The trouble here is with the word "appointment." FCC commissioners aren't really appointed by the president, though that is the common term, they are nominated. There are two Republican commissioners because those are the commissioners that the Republicans in congress were willing to
                    • Sure. "Nominated" in pretty much the same sense judges are. President nominates them, Senate approves them. People still refer to that as "appointments".

                      Whether you want to call it nomination or appointment, the process is the same. You are making a distinction without a difference.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by guises ( 2423402 )
                      Are you deliberately ignoring the substance of what I'm saying here?

                      Appointment: "I'm declaring that these people will be FCC commissioners and there's nothing that you can do about it."

                      Nomination: "I'm submitting these people as candidates to be FCC commissioners subject to your approval. As we agreed, in order to secure that approval two of them are members of your party and will vote the way you want them to."

                      I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest by continually denying this. If Obama were in s

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dywolf ( 2673597 )

            So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.

            Yeah, all the GOPs voiced opposition to net neutrality, we should just ignore that.
            And we should ignore all the lies they're telling about it, calling black white, and white black.

            The same way you're ignoring the concept of an "Independent Agency".

            BTW, there's 3 FCC commissioners, not one.
            The other two are just as involved, and are GOP appointees.
            And they're just as supportive of the fast lanes as Wheeler.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • What makes you think this would survive a veto? Unlike the executive branch, the legislative branch cannot rule by decree.

      • And that should scare the crap out of everyone whether they support net neutrity or not.

        Seriously, a regulatory board just changing law or the implimentation of it with absolutely no constitutional process at all or involving any elected official. This should not be possible and we need to make it impossible. There are other ways to enact net neutrality.

        • Re:In other words. (Score:5, Informative)

          by harperska ( 1376103 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @11:09PM (#48365643)

          The FCC was established by an act of congress (Communications Act of 1934), and therefore mandated by congress to do exactly what it does. And constitutionally the executive branch, of which the FCC is a part, is tasked with defining the implementation of law. The system is working exactly as designed.

          As far as other ways to enact net neutrality, the only other constitutionally acceptable way of enacting any sort of regulations is for congress to do it directly. And there is so much partisan infighting that no regulations would ever get made and those that would would be so politically driven that they would be worthless and generally undone after two to four years anyway. Plus, even if congress was populated solely by reasonable and intelligent people who truly had the American public's best interest at heart, they simply wouldn't have time to debate and formalize every conceivable necessary regulation in every sector of public existence. So instead congress creates agencies which are (theoretically supposed to be) free of party affiliation to come up with the regulations themselves. Thus the FCC, FAA, FDA, etc.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by sumdumass ( 711423 )

            First, the FCC is not under the executive branch. It was set up and remains separate. Second, i challenge you to show where the law allows the FCC to change its mind and all the sudden start regulating something more strictly than it previously has. The constitution has no provisions for congress to ingore its responsibility to create law and pass that to regulatory agencies to dictate defacto law outside the constitutional process.

            Finally, i do not really care if congress is disfunctional or not. That is o

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Seriously, a regulatory board just changing law or the implimentation of it with absolutely no constitutional process at all or involving any elected official.

          Just four fucking million public comments sent by American citizens to the FCC- but they're not corrupt politicians, so screw 'em.

          • Four million assuming one comment per person out of three hundred and sixteen million million people? And comments leading to unelected groups dictating law instead of legislation as described by the constitution?

            Yeah, you really put that into perspective of democracy.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by mog007 ( 677810 )

              The rules that the FCC implemented that prevents someone from saying "fuck you" on the radio, or broadcast television, came about from a single complaint back in the 70's.

              Thirty years later, and four million times more complaints were filed about net neutrality, and they're still dragging their feet.

              THAT should put some perspective of democracy into this.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Jawnn ( 445279 )

                The rules that the FCC implemented that prevents someone from saying "fuck you" on the radio, or broadcast television, came about from a single complaint back in the 70's.

                Thirty years later, and four million times more complaints were filed about net neutrality, and they're still dragging their feet.

                THAT should put some perspective of democracy into this.

                Yeah, as in "Fuck you, citizens. We don't work for you."

              • The rules that the FCC implemented that prevents someone from saying "fuck you" on the radio, or broadcast television, came about from a single complaint back in the 70's.

                The rules may have, but the law concerning it- that's right, I said law- was passed by congress and signed into law back in 1948. look it up, title 18 section 1464.

                So lets not pretend that the FCC just made this up. It was the enforcement of laws already on the books.

                Thirty years later, and four million times more complaints were filed abo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by suutar ( 1860506 )

          Unfortunately that's also business as usual pretty much anywhere. The legislature passes a law saying "the people gotta adhere to these regulations" and the regulations are maintained and added to over time by a bureaucracy, with no need for the legislature to approve the changes before they go into effect.

      • Correct - just move the broadband providers and hell include the cell providers too as they're nothing but data pipe conduits now too. Make them both regulated under Title II Common Carrier rules.,
    • It doesn't have to be legislated. In our new era of all-powerful Presidents who can rule by executive order, all the next President has to do is order the FCC to reverse itself.

    • Actually, this is very intentional. This means that there is no way to have net neutrality at all until probably 2018 or later, because we can't even begin lawsuits to confirm how it should work/how it exists until after the FCC even tries.

      This confirms that wheeler has been in the pocket of vested interests the entire time.

    • It just means he got a postdated cheque. Once it clears, it is full speed ahead with deregulation of the telecommunications industry.

  • Here's hoping this means that Wheeler's plan to split the baby in half is dead, and we'll get some real action in terms of Title II classification.

  • It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.

    Say what you will about the guy, but he didn't exactly swear a blood-oath there.

  • No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists. https://www.opensecrets.org/lo... [opensecrets.org]
    • The Internet is now composed of companies that together, large and small, form a far greater economic power than the ancient and dying cable companies pushing this. Consequently, if the rules passed are harmful then the vote will be followed by a torrent of lawsuits. Cable shills in government think that because online companies don't capture regulation at an equal rate, that they're weak. But those companies will not go quietly into that good night either, so I think that ancient, dying industry may be

    • No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists. https://www.opensecrets.org/lo... [opensecrets.org]

      Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 [fcc.gov] , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?
      So. No new regulations. No new laws. Nothing needs to "pass."

  • The FCC is waiting for a new president (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm willing to bet money the FCC has been bought off to the point they won't make a decision until after the next election and this is just the first of many stall tactics.

    • mod parent up.

    • FCC meetings are planned in advance to give people time to comment. It looks like they'll have this next year because it's too early to make the call this year. Come on, we're a month and a half away from 2015.

    • I'm willing to bet that anything the FCC does will be part of a brokered arranagement involving a bundle of entirely unrelated topics about H1B visas, oil pipelines, obamacare, and no doubt things I care even less about. I won't bet a dollar on how the deck is going to be split, only that it will be split.

      The standoff can't continue: if the republicans keep doing nothing they're going to hurt in 2016. If Obama veto's everything the democrats will hurt in 2016. Something will happen in the next 2 years, I'm

      • I don't think Obama needs to worry about the veto hurting the Democrats in 2016. His veto count so far is 2, a lower count than any president since James Garfield in 1881. [senate.gov] (In comparison GWB vetoed 12 bills, Clinton 39, GHWB 29, Reagan 39.) This is mostly a consequence of the filibuster used to cut off the flow of legislation that reaches him- which effectively raised the required vote count from 50 to 60 during his term. But now, more stuff is now going to percolate through Congress and reach his desk, inc

        • Of course the Democrats in the Senate still have enough seats to filibuster anything the R's propose. The R's may get a dose of their own medicine although I don't expect the D's to use it as much as the R's did.

  • Good news? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @08:52PM (#48365009) Journal

    This is probably good news. Obama makes a public statement urging the FCC to step in and enforce net neutrality, and the FCC suddenly delays a decision they were about to make. That means the decision had already been made and it was that the FCC was not going to intervene. Now they are reconsidering and thus they want more time to figure out what all Obama's request entails.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )
      That could be it. Or maybe they heard Congress tell them not to make up laws on their own. Most likely it's some combination of the two.

    • This is probably good news. Obama makes a public statement urging the FCC to step in and enforce net neutrality, and the FCC suddenly delays a decision they were about to make. That means the decision had already been made and it was that the FCC was not going to intervene. Now they are reconsidering and thus they want more time to figure out what all Obama's request entails.

      Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 [fcc.gov] , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?

      So. No new regulations. No new laws.

      This is not a new issue, nor is on that requires "further study." The FCC's owners (the cable/media corporations) are just giving their lobbyists and owne

  • is desperately trying to come up with a Free Market solution to Net Neutrality. E.g. some way he can get Net Neutrality (which he wants) w/o the government stepping in and requiring it (which he doesn't want).

    His only solution is to let Net Neutrality go away. Then when ISPs raise rates through the roof competition becomes viable again. Sorta like how we started researching fracking and Shale Oil after gas hit $4/gallon.

    I don't really see it as viable. For one thing gas is only dropping temporarily

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shados ( 741919 )

      Ok, so ISP ABC signs a 20 years exclusivity deal with Small Town XYZ.

      ISP raises rate through the roof, blocks streaming services, etc.

      It is now profitable to compete with ISP ABC...but...you have to wait 20 years. 20 years is basically 1/4th of my expected lifespan. I could move I guess, but...

      Now, the 20 years runs out, I'm a decade away from retiring at that point....a bunch of ISPs just can't wait until they can compete again...but ISP ABC made a truckton of money from the exclusivity deal...and can make

  • A CDN (Content Delivery Network) is a series of servers placed at or near ISPs in order to get content closer to the user connections. What Net Neutrality means is you can't block or limit any CDN and favor another.

    The early days of online surfing had solid walls called Prodigy, AOL, and CompuServe. The WWW was the end of that, but now we've got HTTP sites that don't serve the whole world the same content.

  • Delay means no action...EVER (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KaLeVR1 ( 34637 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @09:28PM (#48365219)

    This has been a hot issue for a couple years now and there is no doubt the FCC has been studying this for some time. Obama has allowed the agency to be filled with Telecom industry cronies and lobbyists who stand to get sizable golden parachutes from the likes of Comcast and Time Warner if they hold the line. Obama's only card to play if they stonewall is to fire Director Wheeler and replace him with a pro-neutrality director, who will staff the agency with members who will vote the way he wants. If they can delay until the new Congressional session begins in January, then Republicans can block any pro-neutrality nominee. So firing Wheeler after the new session begins is very risky and will likely fail.

    The only way Obama can affect the change he wants is to move on the director now. As long as this issue has been discussed, why should we wait another year for the FCC to rule on this? They clearly already know what they want to do. They are just stalling. I hope Obama can see that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JWW ( 79176 )

      They are just stalling. I hope Obama can see that.

      Except that the they that might be stalling could actually also include Obama himself.

  • It is the vast popular opinion of the people that they want Network Neutrality. The monopolistic corporations however feel that extortion of websites to pay up or get slowed down should be legal. The question isn't whether campaign contributions corrupt a democracy because we're all finding it that bribing politicians shouldn't be legal like it is. The question is,"Just how far do the people with all the money want to screw things up?"

    • Re:This is a people vs monopolitic corporations is (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shados ( 741919 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @12:32AM (#48365945)

      Net neutrality isn't necessarily what people want, but its the closest thing to what people want that they can get right now in the US.

      Think about it. If we had actual competition, and I could go and pick from one of 10 ISPs...none of them would dare, let say, throttle netflix, as they would basically bankrupt themselves. Prices would go down, services would go up (you may have a package that gives videostreaming priority...which is not net neutral, but if its a CHOICE, and you can go to the competitor that gives gaming traffic priority...it may not be a bad thing for you as a customer. Sucks a bit for providers, but still).

      The problem is we don't have that. If you're on Comcast, and they throttle netflix, and you want netflix, well, TOUGH. Yay, Netflix makes a deal, and thats cool..but I want Crunchyroll and Funimation. Well, too bad. Its netflix or eat up the throttling! Net neutrality helps that, but it still doesn't give me choice.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Actually you do. That's what the UK did 10 years ago and their ISP market took off.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by neminem ( 561346 )

        I would mod you up, but I don't have mod points, but I will instead state my agreement:

        Ideally, the government wouldn't *have* to get involved in this discussion, because the free market would have fixed it already. Unfortunately for us, the handful of broadband providers have lobbied themselves into the position of somehow-legal almost-monopoly status, so now we need *some* way of fixing it so they can't take that almost-monopoly status and use it to completely screw us over. I mean even more than they alr

        • If internet service was a free market, it wouldn't exist. All it would take is one douchebag with the right lot to say "fuck no, you can't put that [junction point/wiring box/exchange] on my property" and that's an entire neighborhood possibly off the grid. And most neighborhood have no shortage of those types.

  • Delay is to mitigate Obama's demand for payback (Score:3)

    by gregor-e ( 136142 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#48365339) Homepage
    By taking a public stance diametrically opposed to the desires of the communication companies whose lapdogs Obama appointed as FCC commissioners, Obama is reminding the loyal opposition that when these lapdogs ultimately capitulate to the communications monopolies' desires, they are doing so at great political cost. Delaying the capitulation will reduce the value of Obama's obvious posturing, reducing the magnitude of the quid pro quo that would otherwise be expected in the face of such seemingly insubordinate behavior. Of course, this formula of attempting to leverage any sort of return from favors hasn't exactly paid off for Obama so far, but it seems to be the only tactic he knows.

    • All I want for Christmas is merit-based politics instead of partisan scorekeeping. Is that too much to ask?

      Unfortunately, yes :(

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close