FCC Chair Accused of 'Political Theater' to Please Net Neutrality's Foes (freepress.net) 34
The advocacy group Free Press on Friday blasted America's Federal Communications Commission chief "for an order that rips net neutrality rules off the books, without any time for public comment, following an unfavorable court ruling," reports the nonprofit progressive news site Common Dreams:
A panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in January that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service" under federal law, and the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from creating online "fast lanes" and blocking or throttling web content... FCC Chair Brendan Carr said in a Friday statement that as part of his "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, "we're continuing to clean house at the FCC, working to identify and eliminate rules that no longer serve a purpose, have been on our books for decades, and have no place in the current Code of Federal Regulations...."
Responding in a lengthy statement, Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood said that "the FCC's so-called deletion today is little more than political grandstanding. It's true that the rules in question were first stayed by the 6th Circuit and then struck down by that appellate court — in a poorly reasoned opinion. So today's bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality... There's no need to delete currently inoperative rules, much less to announce it in a summer Friday order. The only reason to do that is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight...."
Wood noted that "the appeals process for this case has not even concluded yet, as Free Press and allies sought and got more time to consider our options at the Supreme Court. Today's FCC order doesn't impact either our ability to press the case there or our strategic considerations about whether to do so," he added. "It's little more than a premature housekeeping step..."
Responding in a lengthy statement, Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood said that "the FCC's so-called deletion today is little more than political grandstanding. It's true that the rules in question were first stayed by the 6th Circuit and then struck down by that appellate court — in a poorly reasoned opinion. So today's bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality... There's no need to delete currently inoperative rules, much less to announce it in a summer Friday order. The only reason to do that is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight...."
Wood noted that "the appeals process for this case has not even concluded yet, as Free Press and allies sought and got more time to consider our options at the Supreme Court. Today's FCC order doesn't impact either our ability to press the case there or our strategic considerations about whether to do so," he added. "It's little more than a premature housekeeping step..."
This administration is governing (Score:2, Offtopic)
I think the Trump voter is know they fucked up but they're in too deep. A lot of them have lost family and friends for trump. It's classic cult like behavior where the cult leader is trying to cut you off from the outside world. And it's working.
So midterms will still go maga and then Trump
Re: This administration is governing (Score:1)
You and Donald, always stuck on campaign mode, and always stuck on stupid.
Re: This administration is governing (Score:2)
Fortunately he only wants to.
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah thing's are going real fucking great right now
Maggots like AD think things ARE going real fucking great right now.
This is all the same shit the Republicans have been telling us for decades that they wanted to do, all of it. LITERALLY all of it. And they are here for it.
A few long time republican voters are now realizing that it's not a good plan. The vast majority of them still believe the invisible hand of the free market is going to make everything all better as soon as they get rid of all the woke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Obama.
IKYKWIM.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until they start screaming "Where's the beef?" Prices are going up again, and with the trade tariffs, likely to go up even more. Brazil, Mex, and Canada all supply decent amounts.
You know what's crazy about all of that? I've consistently maintained the position that tariffs are a terrible idea, meanwhile people sitting in the same camp as that moron you're replying to, especially Bernie Sanders, have been demanding tariffs that entire time. I kept saying, for years, that putting up tariffs in the US wouldn't do anything to stop Australia from buying cheaper cars from China. And whatdya know? That's exactly what's happening right now.
What's even crazier about all of this is Bernie Sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This administration is governing (Score:1)
Nevertheless, here sits drinkypootin pretending that I have anything to do with Trump when for decades I've been advocating against exactly what Trump is doing. Meanwhile, if this were Bernie in office doing the exact same shit, drinkypootin would be offering to suck his dick. This is exactly the kind of contrarian conspiracy theorist fascist asshole that he is.
Re: (Score:2)
throwing tariff's on in a way that at least in my view is unconstitutional because it is NOT an emergency situation.
Really?
Ultimately, Congress can limit or expand the presidential tariffs powers through legislation, but the CRS concludes that based on precedents dating back to the time of Chief Justice Marshall, judicial precedent “has given the President broad latitude to exercise his tariff authorities.”
Source: https://constitutioncenter.org... [constitutioncenter.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Maggots like AD think things ARE going real fucking great right now.
Unlike you, I don't deal in conspiracy theories or crack heroine. I only deal in what is observable and measurable. Hard data wins every single time.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans... [ted.com]
Videos like that piss you off because you've got a narrative to sell, and the last thing a flimflammer like you needs is somebody going around proving that your product is nothing more than snake oil. You're not happy until you've convinced at least one other person that we're living in the worst period in all history. And then
Re: (Score:2)
honestly rsilvergun stocks up bigly right now thanks to you lot.
Which "lot" would that be?
Re: (Score:2)
Like one that isn't expecting to have elections anymore. It's clearly expect one more round in the midterms but it's also clear that after the midterms they don't think that they need to care what any of us think.
What?
You saw this, right?
It's true that the rules in question were first stayed by the 6th Circuit and then struck down by that appellate court — in a poorly reasoned opinion. So today's bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality...
So the 6th circuit stays the rules, and then an appeals court strikes down the rule, but somehow going ahead and removing the stayed then struck down rule is somehow proof of an out of control administration?
The person blasting the FCC even said there was no change, that removing the regulation was meaningless...
Responding in a lengthy statement, Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood said that "the FCC's so-called deletion today is little more than political grandstanding.
And added...
So today's bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality... There's no need to delete currently inoperative rules, much less to announce it in a summer Friday order. The only reason to do that is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight...."
Which honestly makes no sense - if you want to bury something you release it on Friday, and trust me, the "broadband monopolies and their lobbyists" knew the out
Federal law is ... (Score:3)
broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service" under federal law,
Re: Federal law is ... (Score:1)
My friend you need to look at how to spin these cases. Since ISPs are no longer telecommunications companies, a lot of the government fees should be removed as well (this does not translate to customers savings). Police wiretaps require court orders again. Mergers and acquisitions have less regulatory tape.
Most importantly the barrier to entry has been lowered greatly as an ISP is not bound to telecommunications regulations. Letâ(TM)s not forget why the net neutrality argument even started. Netflix use
Restate as "Oppposition party today ..." (Score:2)
Anyone else mentally reading these as "The opposition party today criticized the current administration...."?
It makes reading the news headlines and articles much easier.
It also helps prevent elected officials, leaders of nonprofits, social agitators from continually promoting their personal brand and paid speaker bureau fee potential by existing solely to criticize the other party's administration.
It is like the old advice given to a fresh just out of college hire:
- If you come to a meeting only to point o
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing that no ISPs provide information services, or just your particular ISP?
Quite a few ISPs own streaming services, but you knew that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You've got that backwards. Offering information services should not qualify you for an exemption from regulation as a telecommunications service if that's a part of your business. Even a tiny part. Don't like it? Divest yourself of the telecommunications part. Or place it into a holding company/subsidiary.
Telecommunications is gone (Score:2)
There is no Telecommunications services anymore if we don't have the internet marked as one.
Phone companies are removing landlines:
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Many of the top ISPs are all phone companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But at the same time we're ruling the internet isn't used for communication, just information.
Your phone runs online now, you use email to talk to people, even your sms messages are sent online along with everything else. But somehow, any random ISP can block or throttl
Re: Telecommunications is gone (Score:2)
>can block
>can throttle
You realize a lot of ISPs block ports like HTTP, SMTP, SMB.. right? Should we allow unfettered access to services that when compromised affects the entirety of the internet? Iâ(TM)m okay with gating it behind a more expensive service since, you know, most home users donâ(TM)t need to send email to every smtp server on the internet
Re: (Score:2)
But at the same time we're ruling the internet isn't used for communication, just information.
No, we're not - certain telecom services (think voip phone service) use information services to transport their calls, most telcom services use private data networks to carry their calls, not the public internet.
You don't think Verizon, southwestern bell, etc use the public internet to carry their phone traffic do you?
Delete, Delete, Delete (Score:3)
It's my first time hearing this phrase, but I'd like to clarify it a bit: Destroy, destroy, destroy. That seems to be all the people in power now are capable of doing.
Rebuilding America will take generations. It can't even begin until this system of government is erased. And that can't be done until people get tired of the destruction.
Postal Neutrality (Score:2)
I'd like to question the argument for so-called "net neutrality" by comparing it to something I'll call "Postal Neutrality".
Under Net neutrality an ISP is prevented from charging users higher fees for faster service - that is the essential argument as I understand it.
Under "Postal Neutrality" the post office would be prevented from offering customers expedited delivery of letters and packages for a premium price.
You would never argue for "Postal Neutrality" but somehow "Net neutrality" makes sense?
The claim
Re:Postal Neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
Hey Ken, you kind of have it backwards - the problem is not that they can "provide some services faster", it's that they can "determine arbitrarily which services will be provided slower". Without net neutrality it's rather that the ISPs can make other traffic crawl, especially traffic that is competitive with services that they offer, such as streaming applications when the ISP offers cable services and their own streaming platforms. They can effectively prevent the use of select services by making them infeasible due to service constraints. They will do all this by saying "we're just not providing them at our faster speeds", and they will try to force content providers to cough up money to them directly as well. One of the more public examples of this was Comcast vs Netflix [theguardian.com] back in 2014. You might be ok with an internet where you need to pay all the other random ISPs directly for your merchant site to be available "at reasonable speeds" to their customers, but I certainly do not.
Re: (Score:2)
kenh's main schtick here is downplaying bad shit in defense of excessive capitalism.
Re: Postal Neutrality (Score:1)
Interesting analogy, but it does not hold up for me because special actions have to be taken to physically move a package faster. Actions have to be taken to prioritize internet traffic, rather than to have neutrality. In other words Postal neutrality requires special action while Net neutrality requires that you take no action, which is the exact opposite. Special action means cost. No action means no cost. Iâ(TM)m not trying to argue for net neutrality here. Iâ(TM)m just saying the analogy
Is it really an accusation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never been a secret, they've been telling us they want to do all this stuff for decades. Literally for my whole life they have been saying they want to end social aid programs and reduce the size of the government and let businesses perform functions for profit, they wanted to end birthright citizenship, they wanted to make America white again... Most people have just been in denial about it, and what it means.