As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies 234
tedlistens writes: On Thursday, before it voted in favor of "net neutrality," the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to override state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that have barred local governments and public utilities from offering broadband outside the areas where they have traditionally sold electricity. Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance said the move was as important for internet competition as net neutrality: "Preventing big Internet Service Providers from unfairly discriminating against content online is a victory, but allowing communities to be the owners and stewards of their own broadband networks is a watershed moment that will serve as a check against the worst abuses of the cable monopoly for decades to come." The laws, like those in over a dozen other states, are often created under pressure from large private Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon, who consequently control monopolies or duopolies over high-speed internet in these places.
Well done FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
Good on you FCC!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I absolutely agree.
This might just be coincidence but since the net neutrality decision, my night time speed has gotten way better. Ever since I started the service at about 6:00 PM until midnight the service would slow to a crawl making it almost totally unusable. This has been going on now for the 5 years I have been on Suddenlink. Now, I am getting the 20 MB/s all day long. Granted, 20 MB isn't blazingly fast but it beats the drop to roughly 1 MB/s I was getting between those times.
Re:Well done FCC (Score:5, Funny)
It's a slippery slope, soon the railroad barons will have to allow anyone to transport on their tracks!
Re:Well done FCC (Score:4, Insightful)
If we can get the content providers and ISPs separated, like it should be, maybe we'll see competition like we had in the days of dial-in. Oh to have the option to choose my ISP based on MY needs and desires, rather than either DSL or Cable, or only one of them and no other choice.
That should be our next goal. Split the content providers and ISPs into two separate entities.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree - all the tax money put those lines in and the baby bells are a government mandated monopoly. A level playing field would be amazing. When the FCC rolled back many of the '96 telco reform act the small ISP could no longer compete. Wholesale rates were higher than the telco was offering retail rates to the end user.
For a good first step how about the telco's having to live up to their $400 billion in broken contracts. One agreement had every house in NJ to be on fiber by mid 2000s. http://newnetwor [newnetworks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One Word ... (Score:3)
Finally!
(actually, one word is impossible due to the lameness filter, and honestly some other words would be good, like: hahaha, die bastards die, suck it, etc. etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
actually, one word is impossible due to the lameness filter
Maybe we can get the FCC to take that on next!
Re:One Word ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One Word ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help wondering how long it will take some future Republican administration to unroll this, so the big ISPs can go back to rent-seeking.
That is unlikely. There is rarely a ground swell of support for anti-monopoly actions, such as NN and this ban on bans, because the public is not aware of how much they are harmed by rigged markets. But once the monopoly is broken, people will be much more opposed to reinstating it.
Re:One Word ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the FCC basically wrote the lawsuit with all it's work on the internet being an information service or an enhanced service prior to 96. I doubt the FCC will have to wait until republicans get in power before having to toss the title 2 regulation over the internet.
It is important to note, the FCC has never until recently held any position that the internet was anything other than a title 1 enhanced or information service. Even the brief period of time in the 90's when it became a title 2 classifica
Re: One Word ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If access to the World Wide Web and Internet doesn't qualify as interstate commerce then nothing does.
Re: One Word ... (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it is interstate commerce, the constitution says congress has the power to regulate it not some extra legislative commit or department. It doesn't resolve the need for an act of congress to create the regulation or even pass the standards for the regulation to a department created for that reason. And there lays the problem, the FCC has openly and often admitted that congress never intended the FCC to regulate the internet in the ways it is trying to do. Congress has never given the FCC the power to create laws or rules for existing laws that would allow this to survive a constitutional challenge in court.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean an act of congress like the Communications Act of 1934?
Re:One Word ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Allowing the FCC to nullify state law sounds pretty damn outrageous. I.E. it has Barack Obama's fingerprints all over it and deserves to go down in flames in the courts. As for allowing towns to set up their own ISP's, I don't see a problem with it as long as the town citizenry gets a vote and they don't go deep into debt and ask to get bailed out by the state later. What towns ought to do though is make it possible for companies to build or improve their networks, something the FCC can't pretend to have any control over.
Actually the FCC is preventing states from nullifying the will of municipalities.
Make no mistake, these laws, no matter what rationales are offered, are only about protecting outfits like Comcast and Time Warner Cable from competition, and keeping certain areas reserved for them until they feel like getting around to providing service in them.
Re: One Word ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the FCC is preventing states from nullifying the will of municipalities.
And the municipalities are nullifying the will of private citizens. The idea here is that because the government can subsidize their business schemes through tax dollars on everyone, people who use the business and people who do not, government interference should be kept to a minimum. The fear is that the government will put in a shitty connection and subsidize it with taxes. That will make it harder for people who want a better connection to get one, because the real ISP can't make a profit if they can't
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to say though. There's enough of a libertarian leading in the party now that I don't think the pro-corporate faction could get away with it. They're essentially a minority in the party, with enough clout to stop or delay bureaucrats but not enough to add their own regulations (ie, barring municipal utilities is adding regulation, while allowing them is more hands-off, and the hypocrisy would be obvious even to factions who normally only care about social issues).
Re: (Score:2)
Or, we could just send it to SCOTUS and let them fuck us over like what happened when they said businesses and unions were people.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as long as John Oliver is on the job keeping them honest. Hard to believe he's accomplished so much so far with only 15 minutes a week dedicated to examining one issue in depth.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah -- Obama being basically a GOP posterchild in every other policy -- how ironic. After 8 years, fucking finally he does something a liberal could be proud of.
Re:One Word ... (Score:5, Insightful)
One sentence: Now you actually have a chance to have a decent internet service without massively overpaying for it in US.
It's going to be interesting to see how quickly municipal internet in US can actually challenge incumbent monopolies and force them to compete on quality and price.
Re: (Score:2)
Now begins the stall tactics. "Grass roots" opposition on the basis of the project would be a huge waste. Officials who support the projects finding themselves target by cookie cutter *insert politician name here* attack ads on cable.
All so their lobby drones have more time to rewrite the laws and make it illegal again.
Re:One Word ... (Score:5, Informative)
Given the 8-1 decision in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League in 2004, it's essentially certain that this FCC action will be overturned by the courts. The FCC doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law did not and could not preempt a Missouri state law that prohibited municipalities from providing Internet service. Of the eight-member majority in that case, five (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Thomas) are still on the court.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That was before Title II. Now they actually have the authority.
Re: (Score:2)
And they are not preempting the ban. They can still ban it, but if they dont they cannot restrict it to imaginary boundaries.
Re:One Word ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Municipal electric utilities have sprung up for some time, but they're still relatively uncommon despite the benefits. I suspect it will be similar for internet utilities.
And of course, if Comcast charges $75/month and the city charges only $25, some people will still whine about it because it's the evil government charging the $25.
Re: One Word ... (Score:2)
Don't you understand this decision? It's not about 'self-control' of the Internet backbone, it's about allowing municipalities or utility companies to offer services outside their service area, the locals don't want to run their own Internet backbone, they want someone else to come into their territory and offer service.
Re: One Word ... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah -- subpar. Every time I ask FedEx or UPS to mail a letter for me for less than 50c, they laugh.
Re: One Word ... (Score:2)
UPS and FedEx are bared from competing with the post office for mail delivery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FedEx et al would undercut the prices and only take the bigger cities where it costs less on average to post a letter. USPS cannot refuse to take a letter for the same price from Podunk to Notown all the way across the country. So if the private industry want to play, they'd need to be forced to offer a universal postal service just like USPS. Which would be decried by you and the one you quoted as "bad government regulation interfering with private industry!". But without that, either
a) you have no postal
Re: (Score:2)
The bad news is that your property taxes will double to pay for it.
[citation needed]
He wants to believe it, therefore it must be true.
cant lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cant lie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we can go back to worrying about the bankers in charge of banking regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, even more interesting, we can go back and determine the true colour of the dress.
Re: (Score:2)
John Oliver once said having a former telecom lobbyist be the chairman of the FCC was like having a dingo babysit your baby. Wheeler responded to this by saying "I am not a dingo"
I always wondered if that had like a double meaning.
Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
Up with service! Down with monopolies! Up with net neutrality! Down with regulation! Up with Pluto! Down with Kim Dotcom!
Wait a minute - Today's stories leave me feeling edgy and confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Up with service! Down with monopolies! Up with net neutrality! Down with regulation! Up with Pluto! Down with Kim Dotcom!
Wait a minute - Today's stories leave me feeling edgy and confused.
Things tend to equal out; read Slashdot again on Monday to set things right.
Great News (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still dubious about the end effect of net neutrality regulations being passed (remember that none of us have seen the actual regulations to take effect, and none will until they are finalized).
That said, the real road to true Net Neutrality is and always will be in allowing real competition for your ISP provider, and that's the kind of thing that this allows for. If a community cannot be well served by a "real" networking company it makes no sense to block them from taking matters into their own hands.
So I applaud this action, I just wish they would be open in other regards rather than limiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Even bigger.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why only those two states? (Score:2)
They have these duopolies everywhere. They have it in New York city and Los Angeles and Miami and Seattle.
I'm reserving judgment until they break the monopolies that are CITY and county imposed as well. They're not any better.
A monopoly is a monopoly. I don't care who imposed it.
Re: (Score:2)
They are the states that had laws on the books?
Re: (Score:2)
Coast 2 Coast.
here - Everywhere - there.
Call me when NYC and LA etc are forced to allow competition. Until that happens... this whole thing is bullshit.
Something is horribly wrong.... (Score:3)
The government is acting with sense and doing so in a honest way that fair to citizens.
This is not right, so I firmly believe that the world is coming to an end.
A different take on this (Score:2)
Here's Karl Denninger's take on this. I don't agree or disagree. I just want to see what the reaction is: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-... [market-ticker.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit, because the ISPs sold "all you can use" plans, then failed to deliver. The only reason the so-called "cost shifting" went on is because the ISPs outright lied about what they were selling to consumers. To imply that Netflix allowing customers to use what they've paid for is somehow wrong is just plain wrong-headded.
You're basically blaming Netflix for the ISPs mis-selling a service.
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit, because the ISPs sold "all you can use" plans, then failed to deliver. The only reason the so-called "cost shifting" went on is because the ISPs outright lied about what they were selling to consumers. To imply that Netflix allowing customers to use what they've paid for is somehow wrong is just plain wrong-headded.
You're basically blaming Netflix for the ISPs mis-selling a service.
It is actually worse. The product they sell is the Internet and specifically all the content on the internet and netflix is a major provider of internet content. Their argument is blaming Netflix for giving them business... Think about that.
Republicans are totally out to lunch on this issue (Score:3)
And I speak as a Republican. Unless there's some outrageous hidden agenda yet to emerge, net neutrality just means that Internet service over cable, because it is in many places a natural monopoly, is henceforth to be treated as a utility, like your electrical service. How you use the watt-hours you buy for your home is your own business, and we are all more free if the same applies to your Internet feed. Regulation of business is something we by instinct would rather not have, but if you live in an area where Comcast is the only game in town, treating it as a utility is more palatable than giving a single company full control of your access to the Internet.
Whether to build municipal broadband is a decision that any locality should be allowed to make for itself. Because wired Internet service so often is a natural monopoly, there are all kinds of situations in which towns or villages or even small neighborhoods find themselves cut off from any service by a company that simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market. Value decisions like this should be the company's right, but has no business standing in the way of any group of users who wish to band together to organize service of their own.
Re: Republicans are totally out to lunch on this i (Score:2)
Really, because the "company simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market"?
They decline to extend services to areas that they don't think will be profitable, see they are a profit-driven enterprise in most case
Re: (Score:2)
So long as localities get to vote on this sort of situation, I see a much smaller problem than if the cable companies are able to lobby a state legislature into getting government to give them a lock on the entire state. That is the situation the FCC just ruled against.
Re: (Score:3)
Got a reference to that statement anywhere? I haven't seen one.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know what's buried in their 300+ pages of rules, but have you read Title II? It gives the FCC an enormous amount of power, if the Internet falls under it (it doesn't).
Incorrect Title? (Score:2)
Of Two Minds on This (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what's Orwellian about it, but that's the general idea. A private company can only charge customers, a government can charge/tax everyone. So certain projects (ie ones that require infrastructure) may be to expensive for a private company to undertake if they get too few customers. But a group of citizens can get together and say "It would benefit the whole town if everyone/most had blah (water, electricity, sewage, postal service, internet, etc)". So once a certain majority agrees, a law is pa
Re: (Score:2)
The most sensible government broadband propsals seem to only involve the government in the layer 1/2 aspect of the network and any layer 3+ services are simply using the municipal network as a transport layer and are actually provided by third parties. Even management of the layer 2 side could be outsourced to a third party on some kind of basis where they just make it work for some kind of fixed margin for a period of time.
The metaphor that makes the most sense to me are municipal roads. The government i
And blocked in court in 3, 2, 1 . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
As a constitutional matter, municipalities do not have any independent existence; they are organs of the state governments. Municipal governments only have whatever powers states choose to give them, and the federal government may not commandeer a state government. So if a state chooses to deny its municipalities the authority to sell Internet access (or sell it below a certain price), then no declaration from the FCC can give the municipality that power, nor require the state to give a municipality that power.
So, all this vote means is the FCC majority has decided to waste a bunch of taxpayer dollars losing a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
No, not "just like" that at all. There are three basic classes of entity in US constitutional law - the Federal Government, the states, and individual people. States are not organs of the Federal Government, but legally separate entities with independent rights and powers. On the other hand, municipalities are mere organs of the state.
I don't get it... (Score:2)
I can't quite reconcile this:
With this:
Re: (Score:2)
Communities and public utilities can already offer service in thief own areas, this change would allow them to offer service in other communities, exchanging their old provider for another, neither owned or controlled by them.
this is not true in these states. Wilson and Chattanooga got grandfathered in because they already built their network before the laws took effect.
If I live in a community that is served electricity by power company A, and power company B in the neighboring community offers internet access that I want, allowing power company B to sell Internet access in the territory served by Power company A isn't 'self-ownership'... If the county next to me offers Internet access and now they can offer Internet service in my county, does my county now control the Internet backbone in our county or does the neighboring community?
You are using a rather limited definition for the work community. I live in NC, near Wilson but outside of any area they will probably service, however I can give you a perfect example of how terribly limited your definition is. I live in an area with the City designation of Garner NC, however I dont live in Garner, because I live across the Wake (Garner's county
FCC CREATES Internet monopolies (Score:3)
Actually, the FCC's action will have exactly the opposite effect. I own and operate a small, competitive ISP, and am quite willing to (and capable of) going up against any competitor on a level playing field. But I simply wouldn't enter any market where the city was providing service. Why? Because the city would engage in all of the following anticompetitive and predatory practices:
* The city would completely control my access to rights of way and pole attachments, and would be motivated to keep me from getting that access or make it expensive;
* I would be taxed and the taxes would be used to subsidize my competitor;
* The city would engage in horizontal monopoly leverage from its other monopoly businesses (trash, water, sewer, and in many places energy) and would enjoy cross-subsidies from them; for example, it wouldn't have to build a new billing system but could use its existing one;
* The city could also use its ability to tax, and bonding authority, to obtain capital for the buildout at bargain rates;
* The city, with its deep pockets and by expending some of that capital, could engage in predatory pricing, offering its service below cost due to taxpayer subsidies. It could do this at the outset, to take customers away, or possibly permanently;
* The city, because it provided those other services, would GET PAID more easily than I would because users wouldn't want their water, etc. cut off if they didn't pay the bill;
* The city would know when both owner-occupied and rental real estate was turning over (because of changes in the party being billed) and so could always sell to people as they moved into a new home before they would have a chance to consider my service;
* The city ISP would get the lucrative business of the city itself (eliminating one of the largest potential customers), as well as that of other government entities such as the county government and state government offices; and
* The city, under the FCC's new Title II regime, could demand franchise fees from me that it would not have to pay itself.
So, if you put yourself in the shoes of a hard working local ISP (which I am), or of a customer who wants choice, this no longer seems like such a good idea. Any ISP entering the market would have to fight an uphill battle against City Hall. So, new ISPs will not enter the market and existing broadband providers will have a strong incentive to pull out, leaving a monopoly. What is needed is FAIR, PRIVATE competition, not the unfair competition that turning unaccountable city bureaucrats loose would bring.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
who the fuck cares?
Re: Authority (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a good question. The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.
Personally, I'm all in favour of Thor turning up to the Supreme Court, but he probably wouldn't be allowed in on account of not having a visa.
Re: Authority (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the FCC even have the authority to do that? Under what legal theory does an unelected federal regulatory commission have the authority to overrule state government laws on matters of state government interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see such laws go, as they're a major competition inhibitor, but how does the FCC have any authority in this?
Congress has clear authority to regulate interstate commerce, under the Constitution. Unlike some other things Congress has tried to regulate, it is very clear that the Internet is interstate commerce.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no. But I know there are many people who would argue that point.
The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.
Not even close. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could not impose the rules it had tried to impose, BECAUSE it had not classified internet companies as Title II common carrier communications companies. So what the FCC did here, quite properly (if you accept that they have any authority to do it at all), was to re-classify internet providers as Title II common carriers.
There are many implications to this that people haven't been discussing much. It depends on the exact language of the rules when they go into effect. But the OLD rules for Title II common carriers stipulated that your communications can't be legally "intercepted" without a warrant. So deep packet inspection by ISPs is probably out the window.
Re: Authority (Score:4, Interesting)
the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no.
If that were true the Treasury (part of the Executive branch) wouldn't be able to issue debt. Up until WWI Congress decided how much debt to issue. During WWI a lot of expenses started adding up (tanks, planes, etc) and Congress found debating how sell bonds to be boring. So they gave that responsibility over to the Treasury and said "If we've made it part of a law and it requires money, issue as much debt as needed to pay for it". Later, they imposed a "debt limit", but it's odd to impose the debt limit on the Treasury given the fact that the Treasury is only finding ways to fill in the funding gaps laid out by Congresses budget.
Re: Authority (Score:4, Informative)
once again: you are wrong about independent agencies.
we've been through this at least a dozen times.
Congress absolutely has the power the to delegate, the same as the President does.
Just as no one could ever reasonably the President to personally oversee the enforcement of the entire body of law without delegation, no one could ever expect the Congress, 535 people, to personally be experts at every single topic and perform all necessary oversight. It take an entire agency to keep an eye on Wall Street, the SEC. It takes an entire agency to study the environment we live in and forge compromises between the needs of the public and the needs of industry, the EPA. I could run through the entire list, but there should be no need.
The only people who argue the point are unreasonable people who think a return to the agrarian society run by educated scholarly farmers envisioned by Jefferson is still a real possibility, ignoring all else that has happened in the past 200 years. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that Congress can delegate, but it doesnt explicitily state a lot of things that we take for granted. The Founders were a lot of things, and varied a lot in ideology and opinion on strong or weak the government should be. But one thing they were not was stupid. And the idea that they expected us to adhere to the document like a holy writ verbatim for eternity was not part of the plan, as evidenced by the many clauses and phrases that are vague generalities and obviously exist solely for the purpose of expanding on the parts that are spelled out.
Parts like (and this is not an exhaustive list) the 9th Amendment, the process for amending the document, and most relevant to this topic, the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the "basket clause". Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:
p>The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
IE, whatever it takes to run the country and enact the peoples will, they can do. Case closed.
And there was a case, and it wasn't recent. McCulloch v Maryland, in 1819, a time when many of the Founders were themselves still alive, if not for much longer. And in that case the Courts established quite clearly that:
"First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government."
as indeed it must. Explicit powers are no good if they cannot be implemented due to the technicality that the prerequisites were not also explicitly stated. Again: the Founders were not stupid, but to take the opposite interpretation, an interpretation you seem to believe, is to imply that the Founders were in fact stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy.
More importantly, has Congress delegated their authority over this specific issue to the FCC? Of course, as has been demonstrated on the issue of illegal immigration (and several other issues as well), we no longer have a government of laws. The law is now whatever the President (and, in more and more cases, the bureaucrats who theoretically answer to him) says it is. Which means that it can change from day to day and person to person.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be impractical for Congress to operate at the level of detail overseen by the various commissions and authorities.
Which indicates that it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution that the Federal government not attempt to do so. If you read the various writings of those people you will discover that they thought the federal government should not get into such detail. If anything required close detail, those who wrote the Constitution thought that the laws regulating it should be written by those close to that actual detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm all in favour of Thor turning up to the Supreme Court, but he probably wouldn't be allowed in on account of not having a visa.
You, sir, win the internet today.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'm all in favour of Thor turning up to the Supreme Court, but he probably wouldn't be allowed in on account of not having a visa.
Citizens of the Nordic countries don't need visas to visit the US. So bring him on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well according to the show The Almighty Johnsons (a really good comedy) Thor is living in New Zealand so he might need a visa after all. (Don't know if Kiwis need one or not.)
Re: (Score:2)
US citizens can get a visa online to visit AUS or NZ, and IIRC that's also true going the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
They do, if they want to come work.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, he'd be a Thor loser.
Re: (Score:2)
I reason thus: The country is based on the premise that you have inalienable rights - to bear arms, marry who you want, say what you want, to privacy, to remain silent, to make a living, etc. Neither the Federal nor a State government can abrogate these rights, except to prevent physical harm to others. A government may enact regulations, which are defined in the classical, correct sense of managing potentially conflicting rights in such a way as to minimize conflict. So if your state infringes your righ
Re: (Score:3)
The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which includes telecommunications. The FCC charter tells it to use that power for the public interest.
Re: Authority (Score:2)
Because Democrats really, really want it (whatever it is - have yet to actually know what's in the 300+pages), no laws can stand in their way.
Obamacare was so good, they had to pass it in the dead of night in a rushed manner because Republicans had a chance to stop it.
The Loans to Solyndra were so important that they ignored repeated warning of the company's flawed business model and right before it finally imploded (exactly when it was predicted to, BTW), the administration had to put private investors ahe
Re: (Score:2)
8 pages of rules, 290+ pages of precedent, forbearance, and other non rules. You can see what the rules are on their website, if you actually cared, and did not just want to attack them...
Obama care was also not rushed. If you think the Republicans did not read it you are dead wrong. The we have to pass it to see whats in it comment was talking about the populace, not congress, but again I am sure you dont care about these facts.
Re: (Score:2)
The question, though, is does that delegation extend beyond the term of the current congress?
It seems it would be unconstitutional to legislate away the law making power of future congresses.
Re: (Score:2)
The question, though, is does that delegation extend beyond the term of the current congress?
Yes, unless there's a clause specifically setting a point in time that the delegation of power ends or needs to be renewed.
It seems it would be unconstitutional to legislate away the law making power of future congresses.
No, because they haven't legislated away any power. If an act of Congress grants or delegates a power, then another act of Congress can reverse that - if they really wanted to, Congress could pass new legislation revoking or amending the previous legislation. The only way they could permanently legislate power away is via Constitutional amendment - which, by definition, cannot by uncons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Systemd, for or against? (Score:5, Funny)
As far as I know, Systemd has no capacity to think and therefore has no opinion on net neutrality.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As far as I know, Systemd has no capacity to think and therefore has no opinion on net neutrality.
Three days ago the Systemd-UpdateAgainstYourWillD automatically installed SystemD-AiD, which is a requirement to even boot the kernel because it was deemed no human being ever has or ever could be capable of the overwhelming task of "run some programs", which of course includes programs written by humans.
Two days ago there were promises SystemD-AiD would also gain enough intelligence to read corrupted syslogs, while insulting your petty human intelligence via way of SystemD-FortuneD, and injecting them into
Re: 0pointer's 30 myths about systemd (Score:5, Insightful)
Myth: Anyone gives a damn about factually dubious rants.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... get the message?
Re:Oh joy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of roads and public schools...
The biggest wastes of money when it comes to roads and public schools is the enrichment of private entities who have found a way to get themselves access to the public purse.
Same with the corrections industry.
Re:Oh joy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. I'm from a socialist country, and on of the key aspects to our prosperity and competitiveness is enabling private entities to get to compete for and win profitable infrastructure contracts.
This is because private contractors bring significant amount of expertise and capability that government would have to build from ground up without them, as well as force costs down through competition. Problems only arise when said private contractors become big and powerful enough to corrupt those making decisions behind these projects to favour them in various ways.
It's another one of those "capitalism works really well as long as it is properly managed and doesn't get big enough to corrupt powerful entities" moments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hilarious (Score:2)
How so, deductions are a part of the tax code, put there for a reason. It is the government saying you owe us X% of your income above a certain amount, but if you have a mortgage you don't owe taxes on the money you spent on interest, if you have children we know they can be very expensive, so keep some of that money you were going to pay in taxes to cover the expense of your children, etc.
Deductions is the government telling you what money it is not entitled to, not 'taking money from the government'...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "europe doesn't exist" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know why private companies seem to always do things right from an economic sense? because those that don't do things right die off. Government can just do things wrong for a lot longer....that does not mean government WILL or does anything wrong and it certainly does not mean private industry does anything correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Wilson made a profit last year....
Re: (Score:3)
Google et al likely figured out that instead of public lobbying, they have to do private lobbying. I.e. less publicity, more favours exchanging hands with important figures in government bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Wheeler changed his stance quite recently.
I expect someone from Google, etc. had a little back room meeting and "explained the world" with the equivalent of a short metal pipe.
Re: Follow the money (Score:2)
Wheeler changed his position just as fast as Chief Justice Roberts did...
Re: I hope (Score:3)
A municipal Internet service, funded with tax-payer dollars, what could go wrong?
Gee, there isn't any chance some activist groups would file suits forcing the government to filter out hate speech, pornography, extreme violence, gun sales, etc on their "tax-payer-funded Internet"? No, that would never happen...
Oh wait, we already do that on taxpayer-funded Internet in our schools and libraries!
Re: The truth about net nutrality (Score:2)
Probably the most intelligent, logical, and well-reasoned argument I've seen on Slashdot in years!