Lawsuit Filed By 22 State Attorneys General Seeks To Block Net Neutrality Repeal (techcrunch.com) 355
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A lawsuit filed today by the attorneys general of 22 states seeks to block the Federal Communications Commission's recent controversial vote to repeal Obama era Net Neutrality regulations. The filing is led by New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, who called rollback a potential "disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet." The letter, which was filed in the United States District Court of Appeals in Washington, is cosigned by AGs from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Washington DC.
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
Hey why have 3 branches of government (Score:5, Interesting)
When you can rule by fiat with just one.
There Is Another (Score:4, Insightful)
As Yoda would tell you - there is another.
That Another is Congress. You know, the guys who are supposed to make laws?
So which would you rather have - an un-elected body making up whatever rules they like (FCC), or rules thought out be representatives from across the country (legislative branch - congress/house).
And they are making an effort to do so. It's WAY BETTER that rules that effect so many companies large and small, come from careful deliberation in the open rather than a handful of commissioners in secret.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: There Is Another (Score:5, Interesting)
You almost had it right and then you ruined it by saying they should look at companies. They should not. It is "For the people, by the people." Thinking of the companies brought us in this mess.
This will cause lightning to descend from the skies to smite my heresy.
While the profit motive works well for many things, it does not follow that it works for everything. There are some things that should not be run by profit. Health care should not be a profit center, Government should not be a profit center. Churches should not be a profit center.
With all three being profit centers at this time - how's that workin' out for us?
Re:There Is Another (Score:5, Insightful)
As Yoda would tell you - there is another.
That Another is Congress. You know, the guys who are supposed to make laws?
You are correct, but there is absolutely no faith by anyone that Congress will do anything. They are quite happy to sit on their hands while receiving money from the monopoly ISPs.
It is a perfect storm, all bought and paid for. The municipalities have granted monopoly status locally, Ajit Pai rolled back consumer protections, and Congress just has to do nothing and access to the Internet becomes the golden goose that keeps on giving... to a select few.
The dystopian sci-fi future is being built right now. "Right to Read" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org] indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I want a parliamentary system with proportional representation, and end to the Senate . . .
Then you will be continued to be (bitterly?) disappointed by the legislative arrangements of the United States of America.
Our entire system of government was designed by wealthy landowners to give themselves a disproportionate amount of political power at the expense of the working class.
There is no mention in the Constitution of "votes per acre," and any state requirements to own property to vote are long gone.
Re:Option #3 (Score:4, Funny)
Absolutely true. When it comes right down to it, the Founding Fathers were basically rich wine snobs who just didn't want to pay their taxes. All the stuff about liberty and equality was just so much happy horseshit to make the yahoos think there was something noble going on while they set up their aristocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
So, essentially, the US was the same it ever was. A country of rich guys not wanting to pay their tax.
Re:Option #3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The US is a great democracy, but its a prototype of a democracy at a time where there where not many examples to go by and forged by revolutionaries without the hindsight we have today. And sadly the old girl is definitely showing her age.
We know that no system is perfect (See Arrows Theorem) but there are many systems that are better. My personal favourite is instant runoff voting, used in Australia and a few others. Another good one is proportional seats, and there are others. And all of these have in common the idea of not wasting votes (Instant runoff does this by incrementally adding in preferences until a clear prefered candidate emerges as having 50+1 majority, good for presidents and individual seats. Proportional works by dividing seats by the number of votes. Good for houses of representation) All of these can be number crunched and manipulated, but so can "Just give it to whoever got the most votes". So if you really want to vote for the Greens or the Liberty, you can do so without endangering your prefered majority party candidate.
The problem is the current system is so favourable to the major parties, I highly doubt we'll see change anytime soon
Re: (Score:3)
If the United states was not supposed to be a democracy, why didnt someone stop the founding fathers from making one.
You seem confused by terms. Lets look at those terms.
Republic;- A country without a king or queen.
Examples: United states, North Korea.
Monarchy;- A country with a king or queen:
Examples: Australia, Saudi Arabia.
D
Re: (Score:2)
Our entire system of government was designed by wealthy landowners to give themselves a disproportionate amount of political power at the expense of the working class.
That is wrong.
The system was designed to have a somewhat democratic way of organizing a huge land mass, where travel etc. is expensive and time consuming.
Hence the "platform" (perhaps research how and why that term was coined) of politicians and "electors".
Re:Option #3 (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument has never made any sense to me as a European and a proponent of democracy, especially for the electoral college because what the EC does is flip the situation upside down by giving a minority of people the right to elect a ruler of the country. How's that superior? It's now put you in a situation wherein some states are fundamentally worth more than others to candidates, and you can moneyball the entire election process by competing for those more valuable votes that decide the end result. It in fact makes you more susceptible to groupthink, because you now only have to manipulate a minority of the voterbase to believe you're on their side (as Trump successfully did) and you'll be elected. How does this 'ensure' you against anything? To me it's obvious at this point that it makes the system weaker to populism of the Trump kind, where all you have to do is make grandiose and baseless promises to a minority of people (and it's easier to fool a minority than a majority) and the groupthink of these people will help you get elected. As a 'safeguard' measure it's an utter failure, not to mention fundamentally undemocratic. You're all citizens of the same country, you all have the same president. Trump rules just as much over California than he does over Ohio, so why on earth should votes from Ohio be more important that votes from California? There is no rational justification for this.
Again, this statement has nothing to do with the fact that the EC is fundamentally undemocratic because what it does is it ties the significance of ones vote to one's geographic area, which is irrational and can in the end used to manipulate the result by either side. There is absolutely nothing about a person living in a given area that means he/she will think in a certain way or hold certain beliefs, yet the system as it now is treats people differently based simply on where they happen to live. Democracies have mechanisms which are meant to safeguard minorities from tyranny by the majority, the most important one usually being the constitution and that uphold it. On top of this you have the local elections on a city/state level giving people further influence over the governance of their immediate area, but what you're saying that certain people should have more power in selecting who rules over everyone simply because the happen to live in place X instead of place Y, and that to me is thoroughly irrational. Your place of residence does not determine your intelligence, your values, political beliefs or set them in stone, so it should also rightfully not affect the weight of ones vote.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where 10 people set up a camp in the woods. 6 of them live in the same building, while 4 people set up tents further away. What you're saying is that those 4 people should get to decide who is elected as the leader of the camp simply on the merits that they're located in a different spot because you want to avoid 'the groupthink' of the 6. So your suggestion is 'hey, let's give power instead to this even smaller group of people, after all, a smaller group of people cannot possibly fall victim to groupthink' . It just makes no sense, from the perspective of equality and the western democratic principles. If indeed you hold, as many Americans so proudly proclaim 'that all Men are created equal', then this system is the very antithesis of that statement and should be done away with.
Re: (Score:3)
I was with you up until the point you said "you're all citizens of the same country." Technically true, but the North and South have always been -- I'll say it -- enemies. The intensity of the conflict rises and falls but they were enemies in 1783 and they're enemies in 2018. The only reason the North and the South are still the same country is because a half-million soldiers died in what we call the Civil War, and the secessionists lost. We can blather the rhetoric of "shared values" and a "common heritage
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, that's not what I'm saying, not at all. Of course the people living in the tents have a different situation than the people living in the building, but that statement does not get you to the conclusion that therefore the people in the tents should have the deciding v
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question (Score:2)
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
(Assuming the topic was not legislated by congress. NN actually went against a legislative directive.)
It just seems really weird that, in the future, random groups of AGs can file suit to force the federal government to do stuff.
Can they really do that?
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Google "federalism".
It doesn't have to be a "bunch" of AGs. One is enough. It just so happens that all the states where people wear shoes and have dental care joined in this particular lawsuit. And in this case, it's not to get the government to do something, but to stop the government from doing something.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your feelings of butthurt have exactly no bearing whatsoever on the reality that His Wholelyness describes.
You take pride in your ignorance and you hide behind your resentment of those who embrace knowledge and difference, which is very much the problem with the Right these days.
And we know how to spell and punctuate.
So fuck you and the horse-drawn cart you drove here, Know-Nothing.
Re:Hey why have 3 branches of government (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, yes, keep blaming Obama for your reckless embracing of Trump, as if nobody remembers the Imperial Presidency of Bush the Younger, or Saint Reagan's Cult of Personality and treason with Iran. Or Nixon's Secret Plumbing Team. And really, Goldwater wasn't that far from the tree.
Here's a hint: Republicans have been charging pell-mell over the cliff of irrationally entirely of their own volition for decades.
Some of us even remember when you started to hear AM talk radio through the metal plates in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, convicted felon here. I am legally allowed to vote. Research some laws buddy. Just can't vote while serving a sentence or on parole/probation. Atleast in the great state of Nevada, other states may have different laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question... for those thinking they only one because of gerrymandering or voter suppression... how would they be successful at such things if they hadn't won previously and been in a position to implement polices rules that they think benefit their own party?
Same Q can be asked about the Democrats... not 9 years ago there was talk of a permanent Democrat majority... which
Re: (Score:2)
Where it starts getting weird is when the party that is iin the majority at the moment starts looking at the voting results and arranging the districts in such a manner that is advantageous to the party.
At this point, might as well issue the disclaimer that both parties do this
The interesting thing is that it can be used in an opposite manner, of grouping a lot o
Re: (Score:2)
But the one thing you _can't_ argue is that they're ruling by fiat. America got exactly what we voted for. And if you didn't vote for it, well, this is what happens when you don't show up to the polls.
I think this may have been hammered home forcefully in 2016. There are still some big issues regarding what happens to those votes once they enter networld, but iit is batshit crazy that the party that has more registered voters gets hammered at the ballot box.
And yes, for what I hope is the last bloody time this _is_ a partisan issue. When a Dems was in the Whitehouse we had NN. When the Dem left a Republican appointed an additional Anti-Net Neutrality FCC chair who did exactly what he was appointed to do. Hell, the Republicans central plank is eliminating regulation, of which NN is one. Meanwhile every Democrat Senator just signed on to undo the FCC ruling. When one party supports an issue and another party doesn't that _is_ partisan politics.
The whole "They are all the same" mantra is just that. A handy way for the supporters of the guilty to deflect responsibility. Note even in this case, the Republican deniers note that Pai was appointed by OBlama. They conveniently forget that he was
Re:Hey why have 3 branches of government (Score:5, Interesting)
Right-wing think tanks (and red state AGs) brought many suits against the Obama Administration for things they didn't like. Mostly EPA regulations forcing them to have safe drinking water, etc. Landmark Legal Foundation made a nice little business bringing these suits, and it's founder, right-wing talk radio jackoff Jay Sekulow,, is now on Trump's legal team to prevent these suits from happening.
It's actually the way our system is supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean mostly EPA regulations which were ruled unconstitutional by the court and didn't have anything to do with drinking water. But was an "overreach of federal power" in restricting what a state can do with it's own resources. Such as mining, forestry, and so on. Because the EPA at the behest of Obama was writing regulations like laws, and the courts ruled that regulations aren't laws, and in doing so the government was not only violating the constitution but the executive branch was exceeding it's c
I got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If the governments in these states really cared about having a free and open internet, they would repeal any state laws that restrict broadband competition or the roll out of new players (be it companies like Google, community groups, non-profit groups, municipalities or whoever else) and pass state laws that overrule any monopolies at the local level (be they monopolies put in place by local laws or monopolies granted via exclusive franchise deals).
And they would tell AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Charter Spectrum and the other last-century dinosaur ISPs to get stuffed when said ISPs complain about having to actually compete.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bring in competition, new networks, new ways of connecting different ISP to their customers. Freedom of choice.
The NN rules in the past saw a dramatic change to network competition all over the USA?
Re:I got a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Sorry. That's just not true. The Net Neutrality rules went into effect in 2015, and the consolidation of the ISP industry started over a decade before that.
Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with how many ISPs enter the marketplace. It doesn't set up or encourage monopolies. It just says that if you're selling broadband, you can't prioritize traffic to help some other division owned by your parent company.
I guess it's once again time for me to post the simplest, clearest definition of Net Neutrality ever posted, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you want new politicians, you first need to get a new population.
Re: (Score:2)
403 Access denied. The irony is strong here.
Because the display doesn't show the whole URL. You can't simply copy-and-paste to get to the page. You need to "click" on the link which contains the whole URL. Where is the irony here rather than a mistake of your own?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that new networks are extremely expensive to install.
Which would do preciously nothing. (Score:3)
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Google could compete if they were willing to --- by creating exclusive content available only to customers who choose Google fiber, and marketing the hell out of it. For example.... what if they created a new Youtube Live TV service of some sort, and a portfolio of other services that required you get fiber from them.
How abo
Re: (Score:3)
Exclusive content on different ISPs is exactly the type of thing that NN proponents seek to avoid. Google would look a tad hypocritical if they did that. The idea is that the internet is the internet. There's no Comcast internet and AT&T internet and Google internet. What you're proposing is 1990s AOL/Genie/Prodigy.
Re: Which would do preciously nothing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing.
You say this a lot. Putting aside for now the fact that this would be a very strange sort of statement to make in an SEC filing, as far as I can tell nobody else on the face of the planet appears to be talking about it, which is a bit weird if it's anywhere close to correct. Please provide a link to the specific SEC filing and the exact text you believe constitutes this "admission" so we can evaluate it for ourselves. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing.
Cite? I've spent some time looking through Comcast filings and haven't found that anywhere.
Worth noting the party breakdown (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, but in so far as it has become one, it is pretty clear that there's a pretty massive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at play here.
The Democrats want the government to dictate fine-grained details of how bits may and may not be fed down a pipe. The Republicans want to leave more of those decisions in the hands of private industry. IMO these positions are exceptionally consistent with the parties' overall worldviews.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost every single one of these AGs is a Democrat. I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, ...
Republicans are not in favor of an informed electorate, just the people with money, who control the corporations with money, who control the flow and availability of information to that electorate. Everything the Republicans care about, or claim to care about, reduces to money and/or power and ensuring they have it and "others" don't. /cynical
Re: (Score:2)
the kids have a phrase that describes the republican view:
"I got mine, fark you"
it really is true, too. divide the classes even more. sure. what could happen? what are they gonna do?
(...)
Re: (Score:2)
By "people with money" you must mean people:
1. Jeff Bezos ...
2. Bill Gates
3. Warren Buffet
4. Mark Zuckerberg
World's Richest [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well since you are obviously very well informed on the topic you can use your 200 iq to tell me why using Title 2 as the legal framework is the answer and why an ISP is not an information service provider in any legal definition that will not be successfully challenged in court.
I mean besides evil greedy republicans wanting a dumb electorate and the legal costs for an ISP to navigate Title 2 are obviously minimal to a startup/small company.
Re: (Score:3)
When people claim that the parties are functionally identical, they are ignoring things like this.
Those people are just making an easy excuse for their own ignorance and resultant inability to argue for/against a party on specific policy.
Enough already! (Score:2)
The fundamental issue with the Obama Admin regulations is that they were only regulations, and based on some reports the protections they tried to implement were better suited to bring enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Enough alreafy, flip a coin to decide if the DVD or the HTC should enforce it, write an actual LAW implementing Net Neutrality, and be done with it.
It's not hard to do, the language for the bill was in the ACC regulations, and the clear majority of the public agrees there should be something
Re: Enough already! (Score:2)
Wow, not sure how FCC and FTC got auto corrected into DVD and HTC.
And no, political appointees don't get to "fill-in" when Congress fails to act, nor does the President.
That's why DAPA failed in the courts.
That's why DACA was set to be cancelled by the courts, until Trump gave Congress 6 months to fix it.
That's why Net Neutrality regulations put in effect by one FCC Chairman despite the law clearly indicating it was illegal to do so can be removed by a subsequent FCC Vommissioner.
Anyone know what the grounds are? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Changes to regulations have to (a) follow a process and (b) be supported by new sufficient evidence. This is done to prevent administrations from randomly changing regulations screwing with society. The lawsuits claim that both the process and the evidence were insufficient.
No jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no. The new FCC regulations specifically preempt the states from imposing their own rules. As for jurisdiction, the question of whether this preemption is legal shall surely be litigated; in 2015 a court ruled the FCC couldn't preempt state laws on municipal networks. If the FCC new rules are upheld, the most naively obvious thread of consistency between the two decisions may be that whatever makes it easier for giant incumbent telco monopolies to wring more money out of their networks is what's l
This makes me laugh (Score:2)
Historically, the folks on the right of the isle (eg; Republicans) have ignored the best interest of their constituents, while their constituents applaud their actions and call Democrats "libtards" and worse. 22 congress critters oppose something isn't news. That 22 can spark a change would be news. I don't expect this to make a fart in the wind of difference.
Re: This makes me laugh (Score:2)
State Attorneys General are not 'Congress Critters'
So who are those Attorney Generals? (Score:5, Informative)
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Simple, irrefutable, facts, people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Is this supposed to be an argument FOR partisan voting? If so, shall I start listing all of the nasty things the Democrats (DMCA, Copyright Extension, etc) have done and are planning to do?
Partisan voting is how we got here. It is worse than useless, even counterproductive, to point out party lines. Both parties are utterly suborned. The part of the historical cycle where heads get chopped off is arriving, and I think it will be particularly ugly this time around.
Re: (Score:2)
None of those people care about NN. They saw another AG fund raising like crazy by suing the Trump administration. They want a piece of the action.
Nothing will come of this other than fund raising emails sent out in mass. Simple, irrefutable, fact.
This is what we call the "intentional fallacy." It's funny how obvious fallacies are so often posted AC.
The problem with NN is... (Score:4, Informative)
Net Neutrality relied on and enforced a law from the 1930s that in the case of the Internet was repealed in the 1990s. We are only returned to status quo pro ante 2012.
The lawsuit should fail for lack of standing. Further, the federal government has supremacy under our Constitution in this regard due to the interstate nature of the Internet, so states cannot pass their own equivalent.
The only way to meaningfully change this is through Congress. All else is political smoke and mirrors.
Repeal repeal (Score:2)
I think they should call the attempted senate bill to block the repeal the:
Net Neutrality Repeal Repeal Act
After the Patriot Act, Gov needs a new schtick (Score:2)
The US government does not have the unquestioned level of blind following they used to enjoy in the cold-war era, and only through repealing net neutrality as a means to control the hearts and minds of the people through communications manipulation, do they stand a chance (in hell) of getting a decent propaganda machine back up and running.
The single biggest obstacle to the propaganda machine is an informed public. If the information is filtered, controlled and censored, then propaganda can start to get tra
A wise man once said (Score:2)
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
And he also said
"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."
A different wise man once said "all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword".
SAVE OUR INTERNET (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the new community broadband that federal NN rules held back.
All the local communities that could have had better quality networks and ISP's blocked by federal NN rules that protected existing telco monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the new community broadband that federal NN rules held back.
Net neutrality didn't hold any new community broadband back. [consumerist.com]
Net neutrality doesn't protect telco monopolies. Local communities protect telco monopolies.
You sound like Ajit Pai. Everything you say is ass backwards.
States rights is racist? (Score:2)
I am shocked and appalled [...] States rights is also racist. Why are all these [...]
Oh racism - is there nothing it can't be applied to?
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything I don't like is racist."
Re: (Score:2)
I am shocked and appalled [...] States rights is also racist. Why are all these [...]
Oh racism - is there nothing it can't be applied to?
In this case, you can't unapply racism [thefederalist.com]. The original rallying cry about states' rights was explicitly about racism. In fact, it was about slavery, and southern states' rights to force northern states to not just accept it, but actually protect it.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be used as a codeword, but that doesn't mean that states' rights are inherently racist or that that's where it started. It's been part of the concept and debate from the beginning, and the 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that there is to be some level of separation.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Because here's mine:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Whatever you think is better or not, the nation was founded on different principles - mostly based on the tyranny of Britain and never wanting to deal with that again. While slavery was already a hot topic in the late 1700's, it certainly wasn't the
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're ignoring actual quotes from our Constitution. That's reality. There's nothing discredited about the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
You kinda lost me at racist, care to explain how it's racist?
Re: (Score:3)
My side is Europe. I don't know US history that well, hence the question how it's racist. In return I get a lot of rhetoric, a few accusations and some more rhetoric. Explanation, I got none.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at every other genocide in history, then yes.
Manifest destiny.
Re: (Score:2)
I was telling a friend exactly this recently.
Its a rule change, the 1934 title II rules don't seem to apply very well, and what exactly was so broken for the remainder of the years the internet has been around?
And the answer is not much but that set of rules appeared to have significantly deterred investment in upgraded internet infrastructure since it was enabled. Which was predicted and expected. Price controls almost always deter investment and drive away competition.
Re:What law was repealed? (Score:5, Informative)
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Here's a short list of stuff the telecoms did before Net Neutrality:
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
And that's not all of them!
Re: (Score:2)
And in all those cases there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept, and innovation of course, and probably other things including using another service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
using another service.
How nice when one is available, that actually competes!
there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept
Most of us prefer not to have to go to court every time the service goes to shit. Let's make a preemptive attack on that right now, it will save us time and fees. If the government wants to go one better it could nullify all state/local regulations that prohibit municipal/public internet and other exclusive contracts that lock out competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Antitrust action is very week in the United States. The telecoms are, by and large, an oligopoly and for the most part antitrust suits are only successful against monopolies. It's like Microsoft in the 90s—they were able to point to Apple as competition, so they were able to get away with their anti-competitive behavior.
Furthermore, the current FCC has demonstrated that it certainly doesn't exist as a layer of reprieve for consumers. The "Justice Department" is redundant with antitrust action. Regardi
Re: (Score:2)
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Here's a short list of stuff the telecoms did before Net Neutrality:
Your short list includes multiple things unrelated to net neutrality. When you buy a smartphone locked to a carrier the carrier may make deals with the phone maker to bundle or block features on the phone. For example, I have a legacy at&t unlimited plan, and the plan prohibits tethering. Net neutrality has no bearing on this restriction.
Re: (Score:3)
It absolutely has bearing.
You buy a certain bandwidth and data amount, what you use it for is none of the ISP's business, THAT is net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a process to change rules, and required justification. This was omitted. Note how it would really fuck up factory production if EPA rules changed randomly every 4 years.
And, if you recall, a few years ago, in between when Verizon got the courts to block Title 1 (in late 2014) and NN (in 2015), ISPs jumped straight into some pretty gnarly shit.
Re: (Score:2)
This was an executive order, rules change only. No legal basis for them to challenge - since there is no law there in the first place.
And the lawsuit filed by the 22 AGs is ... well, a lawsuit, not a prosecution pertaining to some law.
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
That's not true if the "anyone else" is the FCC. The state AG's are able to sue on behalf of a state, though, which is why the AGs can take this action.
The possibility of court challenges AND/OR actions by congress are the checks and balances on the regulatory agencies, and in this case at the very least the FCC should have some explaining to do if their action is not inline with what the law says the FCC should be doing, o
Re: What law was repealed? (Score:2)
Wiretapping rules... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, being a common carrier would require them to comply with CALEA.
Without the rules, they just comply with CALEA voluntarily on Internet.
You still get wiretapped; you just don't get the projections that them being a common carrier would have afforded you otherwise.
For example: now that they are not common carriers, they no longer have to provide you with 911 service on your VOIP lines.
Secret agencies, big businesses, weak leaders (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bankrupt leftist states lead the charge! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
Corporations are the Government.
Re: (Score:3)
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
It's a bit like we learned that colonies are actually baggage instead of boon. Instead, make them independent on paper but keep them fully dependent. On weapons, on "aid", on anything that lets you dictate the price of whatever you want to get from them.
Same with governments and corporations. Yes, corporations dictate what becomes law. But paying for it, that's something YOU are supposed to do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.
Of course the overall quality of the courts have dropped precipitously recently. A primary example is Judge Alsup, ruling on DACA after having just been slapped down twice by the Supremes.
In a 5-4 [viglink.com] ruling issued Dec. 8, the justices temporarily lifted Alsup’s order, though the majority did not reveal its reasons for d
Re:Bankrupt leftist states lead the charge! (Score:5, Informative)
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
In common law countries such as the USA, in the absence of legislation or in the case of conflicting legislation, including conflict between the legislature and the Constitution, the courts do create law and set public policy.
For a quick overview, read the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] I'll quote one sentence
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do Democrat assume businesses are evil trying to hurt people?
The cynic in me would say "experience". The realist would simply say that businesses don't give a shit about people, they do what's profitable. If it was not profitable to dump large amounts of waste into the sea, businesses would not do it. They're not out to be "evil", they're out to maximize profits and minimize expenses. At some point, generating more profit means screwing someone else over because the point where lowering cost without screwing someone over is no longer possible.
Re: (Score:2)
If more than a double digit number of people voted for Trump/Congress as single-issue overturn NN voters I would be shocked.
Almost. If you worded it "...single-issue (to) overturn over-regulation (of which NN is part)" you would be correct. Many voters voted on the basis of government over-regulation.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Statewide gerrymandering doesn't impact Presidential elections, because with 2 exceptions, electors are determined by statewide results winner-take-all.
State borders do NOT constitute gerrymandering.
Proper way to implement NN is in Congress (Score:2)
The same place were DACA should have been done. Hell, even Obama knew that when he said things like "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true." and "I'm president, I'm not king." and "there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as pre
Re: (Score:2)
One monopoly telco in each state to get campaign finance from?
If the federal NN rules stop then every state would have its own new networks. Some states with more skill and better state and city governments would allow the private sector to create impressive local networks.
Walled communities, wealthy parts of some towns, states would attract skilled people, new innovative business would grow in states with the best new telco systems.
Other less skille
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So what? It's still getting repealed... (Score:2)
No ISP has a plan like you described, the closest I've seen is that ISPs will offer to "zero rate" traffic from certain websites for a nominal fee - this is the exact opposite of what you allege is the outcome of a world without Net Neutrality.