Verizon Sues FCC Over Net Neutrality Rules 275
The Washington Post reports that Verizon has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission over the net neutrality rules they adopted last month. Quoting:
"Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks. A legal challenge was widely expected, and the FCC has said it thinks Congress enabled the agency to pursue its rules under several interpretations of telecommunications laws. The FCC's rules are supported by consumer groups and Web giants such as Google and Facebook. Verizon filed its case in the same federal court — the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — that ruled last April that the FCC overstepped its authority in trying to sanction Comcast for blocking Web traffic. 'We are deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,' said Michael E. Glover, Verizon's senior vice president and deputy general counsel. 'We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
Of course they did (Score:2, Insightful)
Verizon asked (nay, demanded!) they get their way. They didn't, so they're crying like little babies. Hmm...the rules are applauded by websites, and pissed on by ISPs. I am jack's complete lack of surprise.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
We, as consumers, wholeheartedly support the FCC and net neutrality.
We pay for our bandwidth. We are tired of the shyster games that the ISP's play.
We are tired of being told that it's "in our interest" that 90% or more of us can get only one ISP because decades ago our county or city sold the area off to one fucking cable company as a monopoly.
We are tired of being told that this is "the free market at work" when there is no fucking competition for service.
We are tired of the content cartels playing stupid fucking games like wanting to block or reduce speeds to competing services (youtube, hulu, etc) and then telling us "but it's ok, you can pay $EXTORTION each month for our shitty-quality, pixelated as hell 'on-demand video' service if you also buy our cable package at $MONOPOLYEXTORTION/month prices."
And we heartily invite Verizon, and the rest of the companies like them, to GO FUCK THEMSELVES.
Re: (Score:3)
/signed
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Weren't we all 'against' this version of FCC's net neutrality??? It wasn't exactly what most people wanted, and it only passed because it appeased to cable lobbyists (ie. ATT, Level 3, etc.).
As the net neutrality rules were about to be passed, this was posted on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/21/1510232/Obama-FCC-Caves-On-Net-Neutrality [slashdot.org] which pointed to this article -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html [huffingtonpost.com] . Sorry I don't know HTML....
What I don't get here is that a lot are praising the net neutrality and are against Verizon, but if you read through that earlier slashdot post, a lot of people were against this version of Net Neutrality because it really didn't give that freedom we wanted, not all of it, and nowhere near it..... I wonder what changed since the rules by FCC have not changed...
Just thought I'd point out this old slashdot article out..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I looked too, and it was a pretty hard slam on the passed version of the law.
Car Analogy Time!
Still, the answer to your question is that it is possible to both be upset that anything over Pi axles gets a tax, and be glad that they didn't outright ban anything with a diesel engine.
I had forgotten that it was even possible to sue the government. It just has an odd feel to it. Why do citizens "just have to lump votes for change" while Corp$ can just sue to reverse a rule they don't like?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh that's right, it's a CORPORATION that's suing, not an PERSON.
Maybe we need to get the Supreme Court to declare that people are corporations, that way we can have the same rights.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a civil tort. It is something completely different.
Re: (Score:3)
Weren't we all 'against' this version of FCC's net neutrality???
No, we weren't all against it. Slashdot isn't a hive mind.
It wasn't exactly what most people wanted, and it only passed because it appeased to cable lobbyists (ie. ATT, Level 3, etc.).
Well, no. Cable lobbyists lobbied against it, and the people on the FCC that have been traditionally against net neutrality regulations voted against it, and the members of the FCC that have supported the concept of net neutrality regulations voted for it.
It wasn't everything some people wanted, but its a lot more than nothing. It essentially follows the Google-Verizon proposed framework except:
1. While it applies looser rules to mobile broadband ope
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing here in Canada, only replace Verizon with Rogers, and it's word-for-word applicable.
Fuck them, you're absolutely right. /signed.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in Canada, you get Rogered?
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pixelated (Score:2)
Charge per pixel!
"Vanna, can I buy yellow?"
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, feel free to send a note of complaint to your municipality. They are usually the ones to issue exclusive contracts for service.
And your existing utilies, either electric or phone, are usually the ones renting pole space, though big cities do that too.
It's not the FCC that dictates monopolies in the cities. It's the cities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For goodness sake, read the whole post and/or stop trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
No one said anything about free. We are completely willing to pay for service, good service. Service that is on par with the service that modern civilized countries outside the US get. We pay over $50/month on average for less than 30mbit/s lines on average. Other countries pay a lot less for a lot more. The difference is the lack of competition between ISPs and possibly public infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but the Government should be setting the ground rules, and then playing referee. Ensuring a level playing field, and all that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The FCC should let them have their way.
And then revoke their common carrier status.
And then prosecute them for piracy and every other illegal thing that passes through their links.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We seriously need a write-in mod field.
Underrated = this is +1 Funny but in that heartbreaking way it shouldn't have to be.
Re: (Score:2)
With the power to mod, the posts should be read and re-read, not skimmed.
I'm always afraid to accidentally mis-mod someone, like what happened here.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I rarely (almost never) use negative mods.
I don't trust my objectivity so choose to boost posts rather than to try to crush them.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the sweet justice of your proposal.
I do not like the precedent it sets for having a government agency (especially non-elected officials) run roughshod over those they regulate unilaterally. Much of the developed world has adverserial justice for a reason: to ensure both sides get heard, allowing an arbiter (judge, justice, jury, or lay arbiter) to decide which side has merit/credibility/the law on their side in the dispute.
Nor would I be in favour of the regulatees running roughshod over the regulat
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
What common carrier status?!
ISPs are NOT common carriers. Currently, they get most of the advantages, but none of the disadvantages. This is what the argument over net neutrality is all about -- forcing ISPs to abide by some of the restrictions that common carriers have.
The ISPs have been fighting like hell to make sure they aren't common carriers, so that they can discriminate in level of service provided.
I wish we could re-word this debate, and not make it about "net neutrality", but about "common carrier status". I say, force 'em to be common carriers.
Verizon is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Abolish the FCC (Score:3, Informative)
I've done a 180 on this recently and this just solidifies it. The FCC is out of control. I used to think my radio hobbyist friends were a little overboard with it when they were saying the same thing a few years ago.
The FCC is outside of its charter, one that needs to be revoked anyway and recast into something very limited, if at all.
Re: (Score:3)
This is how an essentially political administrative agency works.
We've seen it other places (see: FDA with nicotine delivery, EPA with carbon emissions).
Verizon will win this case, but the politicians in charge of the FCC probably still won't the the message. They certainly didn't the last time they lost in court.
And Congress could have fixed it, but they didn't. It's not at the top of the list of things they failed to do, but it's up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for reminding me I want the EPA abolished too!
Re:Abolish the FCC (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for reminding me I want the EPA abolished too!
Anyone who says this has a very short memory. As late as the 1980s there was a dense orange-yellow smog cloud pretty much permenantly hanging over Los Angeles and many other metropolitan areas, unsurprisingly much like there are today over places like Beijing. The EPA and the Clean Air Act--along with even more aggressive regulation here in CA due to Los Angeles's unique geography--got rid of all those smog clouds, saving us billions in costs from increased health care and lowered lifespans.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has a role, and despite sucking in a lot of ways and doing a lot of stupid things I disagree with, they do keep regulated monopolies and virtual monopolies from destroying competition with anti-competitive practices.
In this case, it is a virtual monopoly, Verizon (Verizon owns most of the east coast phone businesses making it a virtual but not absolute monopoly there), wanting to be able to prioritize its net traffic above others, which is, of course, in their best interest because they can then str
Re: (Score:3)
Nice wordplay. The last communications monopoly, virtual or not, in the USA was the Bell system. It was a monopoly because the government made it one. The "break up" was because they asked really nice to get out and compete.
When localities have only one phone and/or cable provider, it is usually due to the same thing, government only letting one play.
The FCC kills competition and the rent-seeking firms who want a monopoly enforced through the police power of the government use them to that end.
Re: (Score:3)
That was the last national communication monopoly. There are still plenty of regional and local monopolies.
No, it was a monopoly because any market with significant barriers to entry tends toward monopoly. The government chose to allow it in exchange for regulating it.
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Informative)
Private cables owned by private companies used by private homeowners...you mean phone lines right? The FCC definitely has authority over phone lines.
Oh, you were talking about internet infrastructure. What was the difference again? If the FCC has the authority to regulate telecommunications and enforce the common carrier laws with phone lines, they they have the authority to impose net neutrality. It's illogical for it to be otherwise. Whether the legal system will be logical is a different situation altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:4, Informative)
If they're privately owned, why do they bitch at the government for money? Here's just one example. [techdirt.com]
I'm aware that article covers multiple countries, but it's rare nowadays for an ISP to be truly considered 100% privately owned...or at the very least, privately funded.
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, a better way to look at that article would be "spreading the wealth around"...only with private companies instead of private citizens.
SOCIALISM, OH NOES
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't know, but obviously the government should say "NO" every time a private company begs for money. The company has no right to raid the taxpayer (our) wallets for cash. I consider that theft.
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
That's our point, CPU...they HAVEN'T told the ISPs no, and, at least in the USA, ISPs have received billions in direct and indirect subsidies. Arguing that the FCC has no authority here became meaningless the instant ISPs benefited at the expense of taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing that the same standards should be applied to people and corporations. That's the standard, but it's not a given.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you accept money from the government (example: scholarship, unemployment, subsidy for a hybrid,diesel,electric,or other green car) should not mean the government automatically gains authority to regulate everything: your person, your property, your home. And yet: That's what you just argued.
No he didn't. For example, if the government gives you subsidies/grants to go to school and you decide to smoke pot with it they will cut off your funding. If a agency that receives government funding or benefits tries to not hire a black person because of their race, the government steps in. The point is Verizon doesn't own the airwaves, doesn't own most of the land their cables go under or above, and doesn't completely own their own network because it was built with government money with the purpose of n
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Informative)
They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners.
Yes they do, because those same cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land, and in some cases were built with public subsidies, and are considered a public resource. The FCC also has authority over land-line phones for similar reasons.
Nor do they have the authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are proposing no such thing. Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
And further, this is an example of the government doing exactly what it's meant to - stopping private companies walking all over everyone in the pursuit of profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do, because those same cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land, and in some cases were built with public subsidies, and are considered a public resource. The FCC also has authority over land-line phones for similar reasons.
The FCC rule makes no such distinctions regarding networks that use public land or easements. The rule is a blanket rule that would apply to all networks. Also, the poles are typically owned by the power or telephone companies.
They are proposing no such thing. Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
If the government has the authority to tell private companies what their networks must carry, they also have the authority to tell them what they cannot carry. Or soon will.
Re: (Score:2)
They are proposing no such thing. Net neutrality takes away the power of private cable companies to censor content, but it does not give the government authority to do so.
If the government has the authority to tell private companies what their networks must carry, they also have the authority to tell them what they cannot carry. Or soon will.
Then wake me when that happens. In the mean time, I'm going to be protesting against the people who currently are censoring content, and not the people who might at some point in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the government hires you to plow snow from public roads with your truck does not give them title to your truck.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but it DOES give them the authority to dictate what equipment you use and how you use it, in the form of vehicle requirements, safety requirements, and manufacturing requirements based on the previously mentioned vehicle/safety stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the government hires you to plow snow from public roads with your truck does not give them title to your truck.
Right, but it is fair for them to tell you not to shake down every restaurant along the way to avoid piling the snow in their driveways.
Re: (Score:2)
private cables rely on poles and underground tunnels on public land
Yes but that public land is owned by the STATE not the FCC. The commission (and the us congress) has zero authority to regulate lands owned by the Member State Government/legislature.
FCC are proposing no such thing as censoring.
Well you're right and I'm wrong. That's true. But the Congress has introduced bills to give the FCC authority to regulate what can/cannot be said on *private* cable channels and private news websites. That shouldn't be allowed (violates amendments 5, 14, 9, and most importantly: 10). But you're right: Has no relevance
Re: (Score:2)
Care to cite the bills you're talking about? I'd love to see how they can phrase that without stepping over the amendments you named plus the first on it's face.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see his citation too.
Re: (Score:2)
How much, if any, of that "public land" is federal land? The Federal government does not have an
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering it was the FCC who allowed broadband providers to not be subject to the same rules and regulations that phone providers are, it would seem that the FCC does have the authority. If you tell someone they aren't subject to X rules, then obviously you do have the power to dictate what they can or can't do or you wouldn't be able to tell them what they can or can't do.
Re: (Score:2)
I will allow you to keep posting on slashdot and to eat cookies if the you have the desire.
I can now dictate that you can and can't do in the future right?
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you mean "private" cables bought with public money as part of public improvements. Except in those areas where the ISPs basically told the cities that they were only allowed to have one ISP's cables in the city, and that ISP was it.
Public is public, and monopolies are (supposed to be) illegal. So what is their standing again?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the solution is to use the Sherman Antitrust Act to break-up the local Cable/ISP monopolies. Also the public lands belong to the MEMBER STATES not the Central Union government or the FCC. The FCC has zero authority to regulate lands owned by State Legislatures. Only the local state politicians have that authority.
(Cmon people - this isn't hard. It's called separation of powers between States and the federal.)
Re:Anti-Trust (Score:2)
That's a tricky suggestion. If you break up the monopolies, do we get any chances of "ISP-trolls" grabbing weird little chunks of backbone and operating like the patent trolls are now, by putting tolls everywhere?
P.S. I glanced at your sig-article. The net def. makes people smarter. I'd call it an Ultra Flynn Effect. Any 7 related slashdot items plus the comments gets you past newbie on any subject.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out "public" != "Federal". The States may be able to impose net neutrality on the carriers since it is State land that the easements use, but the Feds can take a hike. I'd much prefer net-neutrality, but this really does raise issues of Federal authority creep. (Not that that's stopped the Feds before, but it is another instance of Federal overreach.)
- Jasen.
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of those times when the interstate commerce clause actually applies. The internet isn't just interstate, it's international. Clearly this brings it within the purview of the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Monopolies are not illegal. Abusing your monopoly to harm (or prevent) competition is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Name a monopoly that is not harmful or preventing competition.
I'll give you situations where competition is impractical, but ISPs are not in such a situation.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are empowered by the Executive Branch whose jurisdiction covers all of the US and it's territories. Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some would argue that the Interstate Commerce clause does not give the Federal government the authority to do this, that is not my argument. I am arguing that while the Interstate Commerce clause can c
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are empowered by the Executive Branch whose jurisdiction covers all of the US and it's territories. Get over yourself.
The Executive branch doesn't have those powers. It would be up to Congress to add those powers to those it has already given the FCC. The Executive cannot legislate and/or create new powers and laws.
Then again, the Executive branch (both 'R' and 'D') of late has had a nasty habit of bypassing Congress completely through Executive Orders and regulation-creep whenever those pesky People and their representatives get in the way. And all three branches have had a real problem with granting themselves powers not
Re:Verizon is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Those cables run over and under public property and cross state boundaries, they also enter the private properties of citizens whose rights must always be protected.
Net Neutrality, us a neutral digital communications system, no censorship, no prejudicial traffic bias, no communications disruptions to suit profit or political goals, basically it is all about treating the internet as an extension of the private telephone system, exchanging analogue voice communication for digital communications but maintaining the same principles of not monitoring, no censorship, no traffic blocking, no purposeful disruptions of service.
Laws of the land are created by the government based upon the constitution, corporations regardless of their psychopathic greed are bound by those laws. If you want to communications companies the laws will govern how you operate, don't like the laws, well simple go into some other industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws of the land are created by the government based upon the constitution, corporations regardless of their psychopathic greed are bound by those laws.
Except the FCC is not a law making body. In the U.S., only Congress may make a law. The question is, what law gives the FCC the authority to do this? When the judge in the Comcast case asked them that question, the FCC did not have an answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon runs their network service over public airwaves if you have a phone.
They run their network "land line" setups on owned/purchased lines but under grants of local monopoly that put them under the purview of the FCC as government-licensed and government-controlled.
The FCC's authority also covers "interstate telecommunications"; this covers fax, data transmission, and voice phone, whether ip-phone (which is what FiOS is tied to) or old-style landline.
Have they always been perfect? Of course not. Are the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
Actually, their current charter is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
So yes, it is within their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
And from U.S.C. 47 S151...
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you go back and actually read the Telecommunications acts of 1934 and 1996.
Re: (Score:2)
The control issues surrounding net neutrality don't occur on private lines owned by homeowners. They occur on the internet backbone in NOCs. That being said, whether or not the FCC has jurisdiction right now over this is a big question mark. The legislative branch can write legislation that authorizes the FCC to make the rules if a judge says the current laws don't grant the FCC the necessary authorization. Verizon is testing this in court. I'm not sure what the point of the test is, because laws can simply
Uncertainty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So there's some uncertainty in what you'll do?
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if that joke's funny, or not
Just a sign of a big battle to come (Score:3)
FUD (Score:3)
creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.'"
Because a simple, straightforward, clear and strict rule is less certain than a jungle of individual, impenetrable, constantly changing ISP "innovations" ?
Suuuure...
If the FCC can't save us, how bout the DOJ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States vs. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner has a nice ring to it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sickening that their stance is "The FCC has no right to get between us and our customers' sweet, tight anuses". Maybe they'd prefer the Deparment of Justice. They've been allowed to abuse their monopoly/duopoly in every one of their markets for far too long.
If you don't like what Verizon does, then don't buy their service. Remember there are other competitors than just the "monopoly/duopoly". The FCC is not a replacement for your neglect in protecting your interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Your an idiot, these telecommunications providers have monopolies, THERE IS NO ONE ELSE TO BUY FROM.
Free market wont work here.
They use private and public land without paying for it, and they receive subsides from the tax payers.
Fine, lets nationalize all the wires (we paid for them anyways) and then rent them back to the ISPs. This would allow for other companies to provide service, and bingo free market can start to work again.
Re: (Score:3)
Your an idiot, these telecommunications providers have monopolies
Cable and DirectTV are competitors to these "monopolies".
Re: (Score:2)
Remember there are other competitors than just the "monopoly/duopoly".
Wow. Just... wow.
Remember there are competitors other than the only company that's providing service in your area!
If there is a monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly, then by definition there are no competitors. (I suppose technically in the cases of a duopoly/oligopoly there are "competitors," but they're acting in concert). The vast majority of Americans don't have the choice you're preaching.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it means losing their office by being voted out. The problem is that voter apathy to this issue will cause it to not even be a platform issue.
To continue getting paid off you need to get re-elected. If you don't like how a politician is handling this issue, and it's important to you, vote against them.
An out of work politician can't get paid off ;-)
Wish I could afford to sue (Score:2)
Verizon should be careful what they wish for (Score:2)
If FCC rules dont force net neutrality then Department of Justice might begin Antitrust investigations and
force pipeholders to lease their lines in areas where there is only 1 broadband provider including to municipalities. Also the FTC
could prohibit broadband providers from using terms like "high speed" for 768k connections and "unlimited"
for bandwidth caps and throttled providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it would ever happen, but doesn't the FCC have the power to revoke licenses from evil-doers?
Aaaaaah have a dreeeeeeeam!
What's funny (Score:2)
ORLY (Score:2)
"Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks.
Well, then I think Verizon should have to pay every time they have to use public lands to access their network cables and cell towers, and they should have to buy all the property their cables run underneath, or they must pay for its use, and they should pay each and every one of us a yearly stipend for using our airwaves.
NET (Score:2)
Verizon has a net income of upwards of $10 billion per year. Upgrade the damn lines already and stop trying to squeeze usage.
I celebrate this lawsuit! (Score:3)
This lawsuit is exactly what is needed to put Congress and the FCC in their place. They really think that they can regulate anything in their pompous way. Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does. Just like Congress does not own your house, or your car, or you, they should not be able to infringe on private property at their whim. Of course Google and Facebook don't like Verizon or any other ISP being able to discriminate traffic. So why doesn't Google and/or Facebook open their own ISP operation and compete with Verizon and prove to them that the better business model might be to not discriminate traffic? Please, government is not the answer! It very rarely is. Politicians do not represent us nor do they have god-like knowledge of the best way to do things.
Re: (Score:2)
This gives me hope... (Score:2)
"Verizon argues that the FCC does not have the legal authority to mandate how Internet service providers treat content on their networks".
When you put it that way, Verizon is right. Their networks are their networks.
Now, when I get Internet service from Verizon, I expect to get the Internet, unless they say otherwise in my contract, and disclaimers like network management or not impacting other users are just weasel-speak.
But this gives me hope. It is the ONLY reason I've had in a decade to get back into
Capitalism means.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then with their newly acquired purview betray the open internet groups by implementing draconian regulations that will inevitably consolidate control even further.
This could manifest itself as sanctioning mergers between content producers and content providers. Maybe someday you might even see them sanction the merger of Comcast and NBC....
...oh... wait....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to believe the opposite. In other words, this is a bait and switch tactic wherein the FCC invokes the valid concerns of net neutrality advocates to seize regulatory control. And then with their newly acquired purview betray the open internet groups by implementing draconian regulations that will inevitably consolidate control even further.
To what end?