100 US Mayors Sign Pledge To Defend Net Neutrality Against Crooked ISPs (gizmodo.com) 91
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: More than 100 U.S. mayors have signed a pledge to hold internet service providers accountable for net neutrality violations, despite the FCC's vote to repeal the regulations late last year. The pledge, initiated by Mayors Bill de Blasio of New York City, Steve Adler of Austin, and Ted Wheeler of Portland, promises that cities will refuse to do business with ISPs that violate net neutrality standards. The mayors, brought together by a coalition of open internet advocates, including Free Press, Demand Progress, and Daily Kos, have accused FCC Chairman Ajit Pai of caving to corporate interests by giving companies such as AT&T and Verizon the power to "block, throttle and slow access to sites and services at will." A complete list of the cities taking the pledge is available on the campaign's website. At time of writing, nearly 80,000 letters have been sent urging mayors across the country to participate.
And probably not a single one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Has pledged to open up their jurisdiction to unlimited local competition. They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.
Re:We need global dark fiber. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish the United States had a healthy government.
You have the best government that money can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At least we have the option of buying, unlike a certain set of parents in the UK.
There was nothing worth buying, nobody could offer any effective treatment or cure.
It's one thing to pull on your jackboots and goosestep in front of providing care because MUH MATH. It's another thing entirely to forbid people from seeking care outside your fucked up little shithole of a country.
It's one thing to want the best for your children, it's another thing to go into debt providing useless treatment that only prolongs an agonizing death, and then being unable to pay for it, induce the rest of us to compensate those individuals who took advantage of you by providing an ineffective service that is simply exploiting your own naivete.
Frankly, the Vatican should be billed for the excess costs and burden to the UK
Re: (Score:2)
Small, Minority or women owned shell companies (Score:5, Interesting)
The ISPs will just set up partner relationship with local companies that will preferred for govt bussiness, such as the carve outs for supporting local, small, minority or women owned bussness many cogt have. Those shell companies will not violate net neutrality but their only customers will be the local govt. They will only have one peer and that will be verizon or whomever.
problem soved for ISP, and govt' gets to claim success too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you bother to read the pledge? Because what you wrote doesn't even apply.
Here it is: [openinternetpledge.org]
Net Neutrality
I will support legislation and measures that ensure the protection of net neutrality principles and that remove any registration or other restrictive requirements on the provisioning of Internet content or services.
Ethical Campaign Donations
I will never accept campaign contributions from any company or individual that has lobbied for the removal of net neutrality regulations or for restrictions on municipalities to create broadband networks.
Municipal Broadband
I will support legislation and measures to create publicly-owned and managed municipal fiber networks, built to serve the residents and businesses of my community.
Government Transparency
I will support legislation and measures that promote the availability of government data to residents, as well as the usage of open formats and open standards in government.
Open Access to Knowledge
I will advocate for freedom of communication and access to knowledge, and I will support initiatives to ensure that publicly-funded intellectual property is made available in the public domain.
Freedom from Surveillance
I will not support any proposal for storage or surveillance of communications data that has not been subjected to credible, independent assessment for necessity and proportionality or that is not subject to regular review to ensure compliance with these criteria.
User Privacy and Data Protection
I will support legislation and measures that promote and protect the fundamental right of individuals to privacy and data protection, and the use of encryption and other privacy-enhancing technologies.
Re: (Score:3)
Local jurisdictions grant monopoly franchises because corporations insist upon them. The (land) phone lines, electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, roads/sidewalks and cable TV connections to YOUR house (and everybody else's) are Natural Monopolies [wikipedia.org], where the capital costs are so high for last-mile coverage that "easily switching to a competitor" isn't possible because there aren't any and never will be. A corporation isn't going to wire every house in a city on the o
Re: (Score:2)
The (land) phone lines, electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, roads/sidewalks and cable TV connections to YOUR house (and everybody else's) are Natural Monopolies [wikipedia.org], where the capital costs are so high for last-mile coverage that "easily switching to a competitor" isn't possible because there aren't any and never will be.
I can choose between half dozen ADSL ISPs, and about the same number of electricity providers, despite only having a single fixed line for either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see the big ISPs putting up a dirty fight. How long before they start charging everyone more, and call attention to it as *additional mandatory local regulatory requirements fees, while simultaneously slandering the officials that are costing them more on their monthly cable bills.
FAQ:
Q: Why are there changes to my bill / plan?
A: We'd love to give you more affordable internet packages, but unfortunately the political climate in your area prevents us from being able to give you a custom tailored plan th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They love the money they get from the cable franchise monopoly rights too much. Signing a meaningless pledge costs them nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds good in theory. But there are some areas where these local governments are begging for anyone to provide services to their area. The United States has a lot of low populations towns, even in States Like New York, you go past New York City, Some towns are just farm communities. These communities need High Speed internet to do their business, and stay connected to the world, but ISP don't want want to lay miles of cables just to support dozens of customers, if these dozens of customers can pick and
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm rural (Canadian, but not much different then the US), and locally at the best had perhaps 3 dial-up providers, all charging about the same price, to choose from. At the end of my dial-up days, there was only the phone company providing it and the price was $45 a month (plus the phone line that was officially $20 but seemed to have crept up to $40) for unlimited.
The phone company finally built a cell tower (and layed fibre over much of the town) but as they didn't want to update the lines where I am, th
Re: (Score:2)
Just how does a farmer or the owner of a general store need high speed internet?
Alternately, if you accept the fantasy that high speed internet is a necessity, there's HughesNet. It's available anywhere there is sky.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Has pledged to open up their jurisdiction to unlimited local competition.
You are right, none of them did. Because that's already the law. Its been federal law since 1992 when the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act outlawed the granting of exclusive franchises.
The problem isn't with the government (sorry delusional libertarians!) its with natural monopolies caused by high costs to enter the market (a cable planet is expensive AF) and collusion between competitors who have secret agreements to stay out of each other's territories. - sometimes they don't eve [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.
Invest a fortune in infrastructure, and then attempt to gain market-share by undercutting the competition in a saturated market? Thing is, at some point you'll want to make your investment back, and a profit on top of that.
Why go through all that expense and trouble, when you can just sit back and start a nice easy cryptocoin ICO?
Re: (Score:2)
Well here is the thing. By ending NN, what is happening is exactly what I though would happen. By ending a relatively simple and uniform set of rules. That can be applied across the country, it we now have a set of rules and laws all slightly different and ever changing, across different states, and communities in the states. In essence making it difficult and expensive to follow a policy, and be compliment in all customer bases.
So we have 100 mayors, so they are two cities/towns for each state (on averag
Sigh (Score:2)
More political grandstanding. DeBlasio and the others know the FCC regulations and Federal law in general supersedes any and all State and local laws. As soon as some local or State court rules against some ISP on local/State "NN" laws or regs, the first Federal court they appeal it to will dismiss it rule the laws/regs in question as not within State or local powers.
Strat
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Worked also when Obama went after Arizona because it tried to protect it's citizens from criminal illegal aliens because the Federal government refused to properly enforce immigration law and border security as they are mandated to do as part of their sworn duty.
Constitutionally [wikipedia.org], Arizona has no authority over immigration law, it can't arrest anybody for simply being in the state, that's entirely a federal matter as even Scalia and Thomas admitted (they merely asserted that there was no conflict, so wanted to dismiss the case on those grounds), so you'd really have to work hard to assert otherwise.
Given that Obama also, as even Trump admitted, deported millions, it's hard to argue that there wasn't a proper enforcement of immigration law or a lack of border securit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They're not charging them with a crime, they simply won't do business with them. Happened in Glasgow Kentucky about 40 years ago. Local provider was price gouging. Local utility had set up monitoring system for power. Someone noticed that it had the bandwidth to handle cable, so the utility erected a headend. Provider sued, claiming an exclusive contract. Utility countersued, Federal court, claiming interference in interstate commerce. Guess who won? Electric Plant Board still operating, with better prices
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it (Score:2)
So I take it itâ(TM)s not ok to ban conservatives anymore? Great!
Re: (Score:2)
not ok to ban conservatives
That's backwards. It is now OK to ban them. Or anyone else. And all other aspects of Net Neutrality aside, I think I'm going to enjoy all the GOP and evangelical fund raising web sites being blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? They have the money to pay for their sites not to be blocked and to block other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
They have the money to pay for their sites not to be blocked
Fine. Pay up.
and to block other sites.
I don't think any sane CEO would expose their company to the legal fallout from antitrust and restraint of trade suits.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time that the American government used antitrust or restraint of trade against an American business?
socialize it (Score:1)
Honestly telecomm infrastructure is a near textbook ideal example of a "natural monopoly", i.e., something where it is totally essential to have unfettered access for all and benefits most from having a single standard implementation.
If "the people" owned all the pipes and they were used in a fair manner to provide service to all, then we could sidestep all these concerns. The gov't could charge for access based on usage to everyone to make it self-supporting.
Re: (Score:2)
what if the feds make a law (Score:3, Interesting)
this needs to happen more often and to more unjust laws and policies the federal government impose on the nation
Stop the Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: what if the feds make a law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
and NOBODY obeys it
Don't be naive; less-stupid sociopaths will always be able to find more-stupid sociopaths to enforce unpopular, unjust and illegal laws.
Re: (Score:2)
At best, it's symbolic (Score:2)
NN would go in the amended franchise agreement (Score:2)
Such an ISP would stand to lose its franchise with the city come renewal time, and the city would instead switch to a competitor that agrees to refrain from abusive routing.
Re: (Score:2)
And here's the critical point. You assert that Net Neutrality is the opposite of abusive routing, when in fact Net Neutrality is an attempt to prevent cost recovery of abusive bandwidth hogging.
The effect of Net Neutrality is to discourage ISPs from expanding and improving their networks.
As long as traffic is traffic, a cap is neutral (Score:2)
Penalize bandwidth hogs for hogging bandwidth, not for accessing servers that happen not to have signed a zero-rating agreement with a particular ISP, and not for using dispreferred application protocols. An all-encompassing monthly cap that covers all traffic, as commonly implemented by satellite ISPs, is net neutral.
straw men (Score:2)
* Being net neutrally is dead, there are no laws, rules or regulations that bind any ISP to any standard. Thus there's no rule to enforce or law broken. Municipalities can not enforce non-existent regulations.
* So they "promise" not do business with ISP's who violate non existent standards... who's left to do business with? nobody. every single ISP does it. All the big ones anyway, and they are ultimately the ones who supply all up st
Re: (Score:2)
"Lastly - Funny how the author wrote "Pai caved to corporate interests"... Pai was a lawyer and lobbyist for the communications cabal prior to his appointment by Humpty-Trumpty. This was NOT a 'cave', it was THE GOAL - deliberate and premeditated.
He was first appointed to the FCC by then-President Obama in May of 2012 and received unanimous consent in the US Senate..
He was made chairmen of the FCC in Jan 2017 by President Trump.
Just my 2 cents
And who believes (Score:2)
Now they distract and confuse everything, saying oh we will fight for you, Right!
How do you know you should not trust a government bureaucrat or politician? Their lips are moving.
Just my 2 cents
Well meaning, *maybe*, but flawed (Score:1)
The pledge really bears commenting on, point by point:
> Net Neutrality
> I will support legislation and measures that ensure the protection of net neutrality principles and that remove any registration or other restrictive
> requirements on the provisioning of Internet content or services.
Now, this is a fine-sounding statement, and it's something that even the top execs at the biggest ISPs could support sincerely, without so much as a twinge of conscience, or concern for the next stockholder's meeti