Tim Wu: Why the Courts Will Have to Save Net Neutrality (nytimes.com) 251
Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia who first coined the term "net neutrality," writes for the New York Times: Allowing such censorship is anathema to the internet's (and America's) founding spirit. And by going this far, the F.C.C. may also have overplayed its legal hand. So drastic is the reversal of policy (if, as expected, the commission approves Mr. Pai's proposal next month), and so weak is the evidence to support the change, that it seems destined to be struck down in court. The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled), such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn't enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong. It isn't. In fact, it's very weak. From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives. More specifically, Mr. Pai claims that industry investments have gone down since 2015, the year the Obama administration last strengthened the net neutrality rules.
Long standing rules ? Courts making legislation ? (Score:3, Insightful)
For one : 2015 is not "Long standing rules". If anything, the "Long standing rules" apply more to the 1996 Telecommunications Act which labeled ISPs as Information Service Providers.
For two : Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down. If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one.
Re:Long standing rules ? Courts making legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
in addition, the gop controlled Congress, which refused to seat hundreds of judges under Obama is packing the courts with incompetent republican partisans, so the activism from the bench will be decidedly pro-business
Re: (Score:2)
Not that any previous administration packed the courts with partisans, competent or not.
You actually may not want competent partisans packed onto the courts, though it's hard to tell what's worse, partisan judges or incompetent judges. Not a big deal however, as the results are often the same. So is the fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you do. Money always, different directions.
As if there is a difference.
But with Democrats, you get dozens of genders, attacks on police and Republicans, riots in the streets, and breathtaking swaths of corruption at the highest levels. The Republicans sort of shortcut the corruption cycle, and happily spend money on militarizing the police.
Not much difference. We could abandon the party distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
> Of course, there's a difference in terms of what *happens* when each packs the courts.
This is the most deranged part of the current liberal narrative. Our "age of aquarius" with Obama occurred under a more balanced judiciary. It happened with people like Scalia and Gorsuch.
You simply don't have to pack the courts with communists.
The fact that the SCOTUS upheld the personal mandate is quite a travesty really. That was the only part of Obamacare I even objected to in the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
> With Democrats, you get Social Security, Healthcare, and voting rights
I'm a chronic cancer patient and the last thing I want from the government is "health care". Social Security is also something I hope to never have to depend on.
The US government is really bad at this "social welfare" thing. If you ever had any experience with it you would know.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why Hillary failed? You need a BOOK for that? For real?
The US population is used to their presidential elections to be a dog-and-pony show. This time it was worse. It was a bitch-and-jackass show. BOTH of them were unfit for the office and both of them also knew what we all knew: We can't simply say "no, fuck you". One of them WILL be president.
The main reason Hillary failed is that for most people it doesn't matter whether a bitch or a jackass is president, they want neither.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason Hillary failed is that for most people it doesn't matter whether a bitch or a jackass is president, they want neither.
Where 'bitch' in this case supposedly means a person lacking a certain body part, and in possession of a pair of other body parts that the other candidate doesn't have.
Sadly, there seems quite a lot of truth in this statement, so it is more accurate to say that for many voters the presidential elections should be a 'cur-and-pony' show.
Re:Long standing rules ? Courts making legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
I have seen a lot of demonization of Hilary Clinton. Decades worth of it. Bengaaaaazzzzziii!! Butheremails!!!! Nothing significant ever stuck, but yes, this demonization produced the stink of corruption. It is very disappointing.
What amazes me is that almost issue-by-issue there were similar allegations against Donald Trump, and in his case there is a lot of substance, but somehow it doesn't seem to matter. Just take the supposed corruption with the charity foundation of the Clintons. A lot of mud has been thrown, but nothing substantial was ever proved. Whereas Donald Trump's charity foundation was used to pay off a prosecution and buy a portrait of Donald Trump; this is fairly well documented.
Similar for that stupid pizzagate versus DJT harrasment of lots of women; the uranium nonsense versus foreign diplomats staying in Trump hotels to please the president; Trump's 'original' way to handle state secrets; and there is Trump's past history as a shady business man, and I haven't even used the word Russia or Twitter yet...
Given all that, I try to understand why so many people still go for Trump, and all those 'isms' seem to be the most plausible explanation. And despite all evidence I still hope that enough people now realise what a danger to the country (and indeed the world) the current president is, and that THAT will backfire on him.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't simply say "no, fuck you".
Actually, we can. It is called "voting in the primaries".
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily true... at least theoretically, an independent could have been elected if they were to actually get more votes than either of the two main parties.
The fact that many people in the USA feel that any vote that isn't for one of the big two is a wasted one is irrelevant. If enough people voted for an independent, than an independent would, in fact, be president. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Just not the people that elected the Republicans. It's OK, the Republicans are just as bad when the Democrats win.
Re: Long standing rules ? Courts making legislatio (Score:2, Insightful)
For what crime? Please, be specific, and don't waste our time with unproven allegations and accusations...
How much will Democrats force the federal government spend to investigate the Steele dossier, which they themselves funded the creation of and never bothered to corroborate or vett any claims within it before 'leaking' it to the press?
Re: Long standing rules ? Courts making legislatio (Score:4, Insightful)
How much will Democrats force the federal government spend to investigate the Steele dossier, which they themselves funded the creation of and never bothered to corroborate or vett any claims within it before 'leaking' it to the press?
I don't know how much the federal government will spend investigating the Steele dossier but I will bet that it winds up being significantly less that the Republicans spent of investigating "Bengazi". And please address the contents of the dossier not where it originated, because if true then the contents are a damn-sight more important than who paid for it.
Re: (Score:2)
> potential collusion with a foreign government to tip the scales in his favor in an election
This is the kind of bullshit that get a guy like Trump elected. You make yourselves look so bad that even (previously left of center classical liberals start to get the creeps.
You don't win over anyone by insulting the other guy.
Insulting the electorate isn't terribly bright either.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a reminder, net neutrality has only been in existence for 2 years. The internet of 2015 was not a dystopian hellscape of strangled innovation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
The will of the public is enforced through the ballot box. In this case, it was clear the Trump agenda was deregulation. It was a theme of his campaign that Government is too big and needs to be trimmed down.
He even addressed SPECIFICALLY the 2015 Act prior to its passing :
https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
And he was elected. You can't argue "Will of the people" in this case.
Re:Long standing rules ? Courts making legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the number of people who voted for Trump based on his Net Neutrality stance.
It is also the number of people who voted against Trump based on his Net Neutrality stance.
Can you guess this magic number? I'll give you a hint-- It's between ZERO and ZERO.
Say what you want about whether NN is being "destroyed", or if it never existed in the first place... but don't fabricate a public mandate when 99.9999% of people who give a fuck disagree with what is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
He promised it in his campaign and is now delivering on his promises. He was voted into office. I know you're not used to Politicians keeping their campaign promises, but this is what is happening now, and yes, he wasn't voted into office based only on his stance on Net Neutrality, but the fact remains : He is the sitting President of the United States and he is fulfilling his campaign promises.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians actually usually do keep their campaign promises.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He is doing exactly as promised your number of 99.9999% is way off base. Everyone that voted for Trump is behind this. Get rid of the government bloat and get them out of micromanaging business. Let the free enterprise system work.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much always the case in politics: concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. [wikipedia.org] It certainly applies here: net neutrality provides concentrated benefits and imposes diffuse costs, which is why you have such vocal net neutrality proponents and hear little from the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
The mandate applies to the elected officials and their appointees, not to their individual policies.
For better or worse, we elect officers to exercise their judgment. In this case, it's pretty clearly for the worse.
He lost the popular vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, our system exists the way it does because slaveholding states wanted more power to determine who was to be President. The crap about small states was made up as an ex post facto reason.
You also appear to favor large states being abused by small ones, and your idea of democracy is apparently that the minority tells the majority what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
ow you can say that Trump's tweet addresses anything "SPECIFICALLY"
He's not talking about the vague concept of "regulations" in a general sense, he's talking directly about the Net Neutrality policies that are about to pass (when the tweet was written in 2014). So regardless of whether you think he got the finer details right or wrong doesn't change the fact that he's addressing the subject specifically.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "specifically"...
Re: (Score:2)
You are imparting meaning to Trump's words where none exists. And it's not whether or not I "think" his words are factually incorrect,, but the evident fact that his words are indeed factually incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
You are imparting meaning to Trump's words where none exists. And it's not whether or not I "think" his words are factually incorrect,, but the evident fact that his words are indeed factually incorrect.
Trump derangement syndrome is an ugly thing.
No matter what you think about his words, they were still specifically addressing the Net Neutrality regulation. Your opinion on their correctness doesn't change the scope of his tweet as linked.
Re: (Score:2)
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
The will of the public is instantiated in an election. If the people don't like what the elected officials do, they change them at the next election.
One doesn't throw a coup against democracy because it hasn't turned out the way you imagined. There's nothing he can do that can't be waved away in the future (unless 18 months counts as long-term precedence, as OP claims, in which case 30 months under Trump will be even worse.)
The real problem is the supine, ballless Congress of both sides who prefer to do n
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you are referring to the issue with the FCC ignoring letters, 45,000 emails is not reflective of the will of the public in a country with over 300 million people, especially when it does not amount to doing anything more than basically signing your name on someone else's letter and sending it. It is reflective of the beliefs of a special interest group which has made some relatively small number of people aware enough of the issue to sympathise with their position.
I don't agree with the FCC's d
Re:Long standing rules ? Courts making legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Case law is normal and proper (Score:5, Informative)
Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down.
Sigh... Courts make laws constantly in the form of case law [wikipedia.org]. That is normal and proper. It is their job to make regulatory bodies adhere to the law when they overstep their authority. That is exactly the point of the judiciary. They are there to determine what the interpretation of the law should be in the event of an ambiguity or conflict. A judiciary that does not have the authority to create binding judgments and to correct regulatory bodies is worse than useless.
If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one.
If a judge oversteps their authority that is why we have an appeal system and a supreme court. In the event they cannot handle it that's why we have Congress and an executive branch to provide a counterbalance. Sometimes judges get it wrong just like sometime congress passes laws that are wrong. That's ok as long as we have a mechanism to right the wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sigh...
I am puzzled at your reaction. What Tim Wu is suggesting is not "interpretation of law" and thus as you state, making case law, it is literally forcing the FCC to enforce regulations they are planning on repealing.
Courts interpret current laws and can only rule on the legality and constitutionality of a law. They cannot force regulating bodies to enforce specific policies, just because people on the Internet signed a petition.
Re:Case law is normal and proper (Score:5, Insightful)
I am puzzled at your reaction
I would have thought it clear enough but I'll endeavor to clarify.
What Tim Wu is suggesting is not "interpretation of law" and thus as you state, making case law, it is literally forcing the FCC to enforce regulations they are planning on repealing.
Because sometimes repealing regulations is not legally justified or proper or handled appropriately. It's not exactly difficult to make the argument that the FCC is being arbitrary and capricious in changing their policies nor is it difficult to argue that there would be real and tangible harm to consumers and content makers from their actions. There also seems to be some disagreement about what the FCC's role in this should be. This all absolutely is interpretation of law which at the end of the day is case law. You don't need to invoke the specter of judges inventing law out of whole cloth here because that isn't what is happening.
Courts interpret current laws and can only rule on the legality and constitutionality of a law. They cannot force regulating bodies to enforce specific policies, just because people on the Internet signed a petition.
The courts absolutely can, do, and should force regulating agencies to enforce specific policies provided there is a legal basis to do so. Regulators don't get to enforce and/or ignore and/or undermine rules as they see fit without limits. This has nothing to do with whether people signed a petition and everything to do with law. If the FCC makes regulations that they were authorized to make and people depend on those regulations then it is entirely reasonable and proper for a court to hold the FCC to keeping those regulations in place. It's absolutely the job of courts to help ensure that regulators are not allowing arbitrary and capricious changes of policy when such changes clearly result in favoring the narrow interests of a few over the wider interests of most of the populace.
Let's not pretend here that Mr. Pai is attempting to be a neutral and honest arbiter of the law here. He's clearly got an agenda and it is perfectly reasonable to question his actions in a court of law.
Re:Long standing rules ? Courts making legislation (Score:5, Informative)
If you could be bothered to read the article, it explains that the long standing rules are from 2005:
Back in 2005, a small phone company based in North Carolina named Madison River began preventing its subscribers from making phone calls using the internet application Vonage. As Vonage was a competitor in the phone call market, Madison River’s action was obviously anticompetitive. Consumers complained, and the Federal Communications Commission, under Michael Powell, its Republican-appointed chairman, promptly fined the company and forced it to stop blocking Vonage.
That was the moment when “net neutrality” rules went from a mere academic proposal to a part of the United States legal order. On that foundation — an open internet, with no blocking — much of our current internet ecosystem was built.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, just rolling back the classification change from 2015. If an action was not legal before 2015 it will continue to not be legal. The 2005 example is irrelevant.
Re: Long standing rules ? Courts making legislatio (Score:5, Informative)
I can't tell you if you're trolling or just misunderstanding what the argument is about, but I'll bite.
There is a huge difference between regulations regarding blocking a competitor 100% and allowing one customer to pay for faster service, which has no net effect on others that choose not to pay for faster service EXCEPT to make them slower only by comparison to those that paid for faster service. (It's like arguing that first class mail got slower when the post office started offering priority mail service.)
That isn't what NN is about. You, the customer, are free to purchase higher or lower tiers of bandwidth. You always have been, and probably always will be. Each byte is given the same priority of service, no matter where it's bound or what type of byte it is.
Net Neutrality is all about how those bytes are handled. It affects services that you may subscribe to (Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, Skype), commercial websites you may frequent (Amazon, Reddit, Slashdot), or non-commercial sites (bit-torrent, your cousin's blog). This list is not exhaustive, but you get the idea.
If Net Neutrality is repealed, your ISP may charge you more to simply unblock any of the above -- you're not guaranteed access, because they will no longer be required to treat all bytes the same way. They may also charge the site (not you) money just to allow them onto the ISP's network. Once they're allowed, the ISP may charge you yet again to make one site -- but not other sites -- go faster for you so you can effectively use it. This is on top of the subscription fees you may already pay to the ISP and the service.
With NN, ISPs work like telephones. You may call any other phone, and talk as long as you want, under terms that apply equally to the entire class of calls. The phone company may not intentionally interfere, may not listen in, and may not dictate which other subscribers you may, or may not, call.
Without NN, ISPs get to work more like Cable TV and decide what you get and what you don't get. Don't like it? Get another ISP that offers a different package. (haha, you only have one ISP to choose from.)
Do you see the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
12 years in terms of rules on ISPs? Yes, that is longstanding.
You clearly don't have any idea what Pai is proposing, so maybe you should fucking look it up before speaking out of your ass. I'd expect much more from a 4-digit member here.
Courts also keep the Executive Branch honest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In this instance, the Supreme Court is acting as the checks and balances to the changes being made by the FCC. It's not like the Supreme Court are the ones suggesting that the law should be that the internet is free for all. Far from it. Instead, if the FCC go ahead with Pai's plans, someone will file a complaint with the Supreme Court. If there is enough evidence to show that the FCCs changes break the laws of the US, they will be ruled illegal. The SC simply aren't going to decide that they don't like the
Re: (Score:2)
If there is enough evidence to show that the FCCs changes break the laws of the US, they will be ruled illegal
How was it not illegal before 2015 but suddenly illegal now?
Re: (Score:2)
By 'undoing' what was done during the Obama administration they are 'undoing' the way things have basically always worked.
OK. Too bad Obama fast tracked congress so many times and didn't get actual laws passed. He mad it pretty easy for his legacy to be unraveled.
Most people in favor of repealing net neutrality have no idea of what net neutrality is.
Same goes for most people that are for it. Of course the people in the industry understand it so your next statement is pretty redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that the SCOTUS has a right to comment on is whether or not the actions of the executive (through the FCC) pass constitutional muster.
Anything beyond that is outside their powers granted under the law.
They are not a 3rd branch of the legislature, nor are they a 2nd executive.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on laws other than the Constitution a lot of the time. One thing they do sometimes is take up different interpretations of Federal statutes in different circuits and decide which interpretation will be consistently followed.
In this case, there may be legal restrictions on what processes the FCC has to follow. Obviously they have the legal ability to change the 2015 decision, and the courts aren't going to stop that, but they may have to provide some sort of e
Re: (Score:2)
Checks is what I write to politicians when I need a law, and balance is what I care about in my bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
And apparently you've never heard of this thing called "Marbury v. Madison"
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even close to what they'd be doing. You are characterizing it dishonestly. It merely states that the SCOTUS can rule on whether or not a law (or regulation) is legal.
It has been that way since founding fathers still walked the land.
Re: (Score:2)
also think about what an Information Service Provider is. it's actually defined as an enhanced service provider in the law. back in the day it was a phone number you called into like a 900 line. it was a service someone provided to the public back then. 900-dial-hor got you a chick to sex with. if you called 555-AOL-HELL you connected into AOL, and the internet. all of this was done over the telecommunications network (however, by dialing into AOL, you actually were accessing another common carrier network
Telecomes disagree with his logic (Score:5, Insightful)
From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.
CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).
Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.
Re: (Score:2)
CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).
Your statement might mean something in a legal system that includes actual punishments. We are still rewarding CEOs when they get caught doing unethical shit. When the worst case scenario is being forced to pull a platinum-lined parachute and walk away with millions, they have zero incentive to be honest and ethical.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your reply...
Are you trying to say that the CEO's mislead their investors in that the reversal of net neutrality wouldn't effect their bottom-line?
Damn. That's some hardcore reverse psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
He read that CEOs said something but got no further due to having a knee jerk reaction
Re: (Score:2)
We are still rewarding CEOs when they get caught doing unethical shit.
Only when the unethical shit doesn't hurt the stock holders and investors. If it screws over customers, employees, and partners, then it's fine for CEOs. For example, Martin Shkreli [wikipedia.org] never suffered any kind of real punishment for raising the price of Daraprim to extravagant amounts while CEO at Turing Pharmaceuticals. No, he was convicted of securities fraud for lying to investors while at MSMB Capital Management and Retrophin. You never screw over the investors as they are mostly wealthy and can bring real
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully. Pai's entire premise is ludicrous on it's face. Comcast and Verizon already have huge coffers, and yet Verizon halted it's rollout of FIOS, having no intention of ever deploying it to many locations (as I was told by a Verizon lineman). They could certainly afford to, but they don't want to expand, they just want to sit on what they've got: the money alone isn't motivation enough anymore. Maybe they don't see certain areas as profitable enough. Killing net neutrality won't change that mindse
Re: (Score:2)
and yet Verizon halted it's rollout of FIOS, having no intention of ever deploying it to many locations (as I was told by a Verizon lineman).
THAT'S the reason it is so hard to get a Verizon lineman to come fix my service. He's busy in high-level strategic planning meetings! Foolish me, I thought he was a contractor paid to do grunt work.
but the cableTV division is degrading everyday with more commercials and less content.
The cable TV company is not responsible for ad time inserted by the content providers. If ESPN or CBS decides to double the number of ads, the cable company has no say over the matter.
These two mega-corporations are prime examples of when gov't regulation *is* needed.
Government regulation over the number of ads in a TV program? Truly first world problems.
I hope so ... (Score:3)
I can only hope that there will be a sudden outbreak of common sense and that the courts will uphold net neutrality. ISPs should really only be access providers whom can optionally offer their own competing content services without harming competition by charging extra for access to, and throttling, the competition. Big Telecom has complained about the expense of building out their networks and maintaining them. Really, these networks have been subsidized by government granting them duopolies, or in some cases, monopolies. And in other cases, municipalities have offered tax breaks to Big Telecom for building out high speed data, which in effect, is a tax payer subsidy.
I do not want a return to the days of AOL, Prodigy, and CompuServe. Those days were truly walled gardens. You could not send email outside of those services. Bulletin boards were open only to subscribers and there was no sharing of content amongst the online services. If you wanted information on both a CompuServe and an AOL forum, you'd need subscriptions on both services. Then, as if to add insult to injury, you were sometimes charged exorbitant per minute usage fees on top of the monthly fee. Perhaps, the only more generous of services was Prodigy. At least with Prodigy, it was just about an all you can eat.
Censorship? (Score:2)
So let me get this straight:
Oh, brave new world!
Depends on what you mean... (Score:3)
The FCC is going to have no shortage of examples of censorship and flaming hypocrisy from the most vocal advocates of Net Neutrality like Google, Facebook and Twitter. If the goal is an "open Internet," it's going to be the biggest backers who end up looking the worst because they are doing all of the things that they fear the ISPs would do (and yet have never done).
Big Tech crushes dissenting opinions, even slightly dissenting opinions. People get banned, shadowbanned, demonetized, etc. at the drop of a hat. By comparison, even Comcast looks downright honorable in how it treats its users.
Leftists on slashdot love to say "no one has a right to give you a platform [xkcd.com]." It's just terrifying to think that someone else might have the power to deplatform you instead of those who are amenable to your point of view on issues like this.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the term is "nobody has an obligation to give you a platform". And yes, nobody does. Unless of course they are a monopoly. Then it starts being a bit iffy.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the term is "nobody has an obligation to give you a platform". And yes, nobody does. Unless of course they are a monopoly. Then it starts being a bit iffy.
There is one print newspaper serving this area. (We have a statewide one from 90 miles away.) Does our "HomeTown Newspaper", as they like to call themselves, have a legal obligation to print my letter to the editor? They're a monopoly on the local print media. Is it "iffy"?
Re: (Score:3)
One's business is making content, one's business is transporting it. So no. And neither is a leaflet printer required to carry my snail mail spam to you, but the mail service is.
Follow the money (Score:2)
Completely backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
"The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason"
Well no, he gets this exactly backwards. Network Neutrality was EXACTLY such a reversal, and here's Pai simply undoing what the FCC wasn't free to do in the first place. Pai is correcting the very transgression Wu is citing here.
It was previously a longstanding rule--supported by law--that the FCC would have a hands off approach to the internet. Wheeler reversed that policy drastically. Pai is saying the FCC can't make such reversals.
Anyway, in the end Wu is complaining that he's not getting his own way. It's akin to throwing a tantrum when he's just not managed to convince lawmakers that his perspective is the right one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BS Alert. The FCC was ordered to get involved in 2015; until then it was the FTC.
Re:Completely backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
The FCC was always involved. It chose to take a more active role in 2015 despite the Telecommunication Act not asking it to, and despite its means of involvement kicking the FTC off the case.
That's one of the huge problems with how the FCC acted under Wheeler: they removed the FTC and its consumer protections. Pai has now been pushing to get the FTC back on the case, and their proposal of regulation lays out clearly that restoration of FTC protections is one of the key elements of his plan.
Bogus argument (Score:4, Interesting)
Well no, he gets this exactly backwards. Network Neutrality was EXACTLY such a reversal, and here's Pai simply undoing what the FCC wasn't free to do in the first place. Pai is correcting the very transgression Wu is citing here.
If there is any disagreement as to whether the FCC has that authority it is the responsibility of the judiciary and/or congress to clarify the matter. I disagree that the FCC doesn't/shouldn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality but if there is disagreement on that point then the courts are a perfectly reasonable place to address the matter. To be frank with the current Congress and administration the judiciary is probably the only place to fight what Mr Pai is trying to do.
It was previously a longstanding rule--supported by law--that the FCC would have a hands off approach to the internet.
A hands off approach isn't an option. You either support the content makers or your support the ISPs and there are consequences either way. Elimination of net neutrality rules de-facto is favoring the interests of certain parties over others. There is no middle ground here and someone has to play referee. If not the FCC then someone else but I would argue that net neutrality is a vital policy that needs to be enforced. I think Ajit Pai's arguments against net neutrality are specious at best and corrupt at worst.
Pai is saying the FCC can't make such reversals.
Why not listen to what he actually said [pbs.org]? Pai is CLEARLY in the pocket of those who favor elimination of net neutrality and has a long track record of favoring the interests of broadcasters over other parties. This is neither new nor a secret. His arguments are ridiculous and specious and transparently one sided.
Will the court first decide if there was ... (Score:2)
... a basis for decreeing Net Neutrality in the first place?
Networks have prioritized certain types of high-value traffic ever since someone figured out that their network was saturated with someone else's data, and that you could program a way to control that.
NN isn't a "long standing expectation", but a relatively new idea. If the basis for fighting the "abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason", the reasons behind the "longstanding rules" need to be proven to be
Re: (Score:2)
... a basis for decreeing Net Neutrality in the first place?
Networks have prioritized certain types of high-value traffic ever since someone figured out that their network was saturated with someone else's data, and that you could program a way to control that.
Because that was being done by end users. If I want to prioritize one sort of data over another, that's what I pay for. The issue is that when the ISP does it, I can't make those choices anymore.
NN isn't a "long standing expectation", but a relatively new idea.
It's not a new idea, it's only needed to be explicitly given a name because it was "just how stuff worked" beforehand. Bonus tip: with the admittedly notable exception of the AOL Time Warner merger, few ISPs were also content creators in the same way that NBC Comcast Universal are, so there was no incentive to depri
Re: (Score:2)
What is bad about all traffic being treated equally?
Because the net was designed with the ability to differentiate. And because not all data is equal in terms of need. VoIP and streaming video need consistent data rates. VoIP needs low latency to work. Email and file downloading needs neither to be functional.
How is it helpful to customers for ISPs to decide the speeds of different services?
Ask that to someone whose VoIP service is unusable because the guy next door has decided that his download of the latest linux distro is of absolute highest priority and needs full bandwidth for the full download.
2005 basis for NN is mentioned in TFA (Score:2)
That's old news; RTFA about the Madison River/Vonage case from 2005. Lack of network neutrality proved itself a disaster because it enabled anti-competitive practices. This isn't speculation; it's what happened. And the FCC got involved to address that. That's when NN started to become a more formal (but still unpolished) policy (rather than merely a theoretically good idea).
People seem to think the recent change is just a reversal of some recent Obama thing. It's true that reversing the 2015 under-Obama o
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I know you really want to imagine Pai as the boogeyman of your nightmares, but it important to remember that the changes being proposed are not the ridiculous straw-man you are arguing against. Repealing the 2015 classification change brings us back to the regulations in place in 2015. The 2005 decision was made under the pre-2015 classification and would not be affected by the proposed rule change.
Tom Wheeler says Otherwise (Score:2, Informative)
Tom Wheeler [wikipedia.org] ,the former head of the FCC, dismantled [npr.org] Ajit Pai's arguments for net-neutrality.
Longstanding? (Score:2)
The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason
The Net Neutrality regulations Chairman Pai proposes rolling back are only 2 years old...
Lobbying (Score:2)
Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.
https://medium.com/theyoungtur... [medium.com]
https://represent.us/action/ho... [represent.us]
https://www.theverge.com/2017/... [theverge.com]
Comment removed (Score:3)
Who does the pipe belong to? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Over on Twitter, a frequently promoted Tweet is Comcast claiming that they're not going to block/throttle anything.
Of course they are, even the proposal by the FCC right now includes language that addresses this specifically :
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is, if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices.513
From page 83 of the proposal : http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail... [fcc.gov]
Basically, the FCC wants to reclass ISPs from Title II utilities to Information Services and let the FTC and market dictacte what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's not like the FCC doesn't believe in Neutrality, they just don't think they are the body that should enforce it through heavy handed regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the FTC was legally barred from doing exactly that, and the FCC assigned the role of overseeing ISPs.
Re:hrm (Score:4, Informative)
Except the FTC was legally barred from doing exactly that, and the FCC assigned the role of overseeing ISPs.
Yes, which is what the FCC is trying to reverse. The FCC is proposing going back to the previous model which they judge more apt at managing ISPs than the 2015 regulations. Anyone opposing this is hoping their supporters don't actually research the issues and the timeline, and it is why you see vague articles about "Net Neutrality" rather than comprehensive coverage of what is actually happenning and what is the context of it.
The previous rules in place worked for 19 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the FCC not doing their job doesn't magically give the FTC jurisdiction. It takes an act of Congress to do that. Your argument would be just as valid if you said the FCC wanted to reverse limited amounts of over-the-air bandwidth by just "letting anyone broadcast whatever". Them not regulating doesn't change the physical or legal framework of the underlying world.
Re: (Score:2)
You're clearly a fucking industry shill. Perhaps you forget Comcast getting caught throttling bittorrent? Comcast forcing Netflix to pay for access? Verizon charging extra for privacy? Wheeler stepped in and put the brakes on that bullshit before it got even worse. Now Pai wants to undo that *and more*. No way.
I also remember all those things getting resolved without Governement intervention. And then Wheeler came in and tried to impose More Big Governement where none was required. The fact is, the previous rules were already sufficient and adequate at preventing the kind of shenanigans that were tried over the years, as proved multiple times.
Solved in 2009 :
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Prior to actual 2015 rules. Funny dat. But I guess I'm just an "industry shill", whatever that means.
Re:hrm (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, the FCC wants to reclass ISPs from Title II utilities to Information Services and let the FTC and market dictacte what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's not like the FCC doesn't believe in Neutrality, they just don't think they are the body that should enforce it through heavy handed regulation.
The issue at hand is that the ISPs want to have it both ways. If an ISP is going to be a regional monopoly, it needs tighter regulation. If an ISP is going to argue to decrease the regulatory requirements with which it must comply, it needs competitors.
For large areas in the country, neither apply.
If I want >10Mbit/sec, 100ms latency internet at my home, I've got one option: Altice (formerly Cablevision, branded as Optimum). FiOS is available two towns over, but Verizon will only offer me 2Mbit/sec DSL at my residence. Both companies have different stories on this topic...and I live in the NY Metro area; I am certain it's that much worse in more rural areas.
While Altice has been pretty good about keeping my speeds and bill about right, and my content flowing neutrally, "the market" isn't really something I can use as a punitive action if they opt to change this. Literally every other option I have for internet access does not fit the FCC guidelines for 'broadband'. If they behave badly, the 'market option' is to give up broadband. Technically possible, but that's like saying the solution to Ma Bell was for everyone to give up phone calls.
If the FCC is going to say "talk to someone else about requiring this", then they really should make it clear whose responsibility it is. The feedback page was rather clear that, if asked, most people explicitly prefer Net Neutrality. All the major ISPs involved in this dispute are interstate entities, meaning that this would still be a federal matter to regulate them. Conversely, most of those same ISPs have deals with local government for exclusivity regarding wire runs, meaning the free market solution has a roadblock at the town and/or county level in many cases.
We have thus ended up with a perfect storm of bureaucracy that penalizes both options.
Ultimately, there are no shortage of companies that face regulations that prevent them from making as much profit as they could be making. Truth in advertising laws prevent companies from lying to get business. The FDA, for all its faults, generally ensures my food is clearly labeled regarding its contents. Laws which regulate hospitals ensure they can't save money by reusing needles between patients. Laws regulating insurance companies make sure they can't just deny every single claim 'because reasons' and pocket all the money.
Maybe Title II isn't exactly the set of regulations ISPs should be regulated under...and I'm fine with that argument...but ISPs can't have de facto monopolies and also decide they aren't willing to be regulated more heavily than if they were one of five options for 96% of Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
If an ISP is going to argue to decrease the regulatory requirements with which it must comply, it needs competitors.
And how do you force there to be competition? Do you have government regulations that force companies to come provide service where they don't want to?
If they behave badly, the 'market option' is to give up broadband.
No, the market action when one provider does not provide the service people want AND WILL PAY FOR is for another company to provide that service. The hitch is the "will pay for" part, since so many people seem to want more internet for less money always.
The feedback page was rather clear that, if asked, most people explicitly prefer Net Neutrality.
And if asked, most people will define NN in some odd illogical way. Like "all packets treated the same". Or
Re: (Score:2)
Except, as I and others pointed out in our responses to the FCC, most of the abuse has not been actual throttling. Comcast was technically correct when they said that they didn't throttle Netflix. What they actually did was refuse to provide more bandwidth at their peering point with Netflix's ISP. They weren't thro
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. It's not a block, it's preferential routing to benefit our customers best interest. And since our customers are too stup... busy thinking what might be in their best interest, we take this problem out of their hands. FOR FREE I may add!
Re: (Score:2)
And freedom. Somehow this is certainly very much pro-freedom. Dunno how yet, but we'll find a reason why everyone is much freer if telcos can rape your butt.
Re: (Score:2)
It will help you if you understand the terms Freedom Liberty etc are meant only for Corporations. Corporations are people, remember? If Corporations are people, then people are what? Think about it...
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with anything?
Re: No one can stop Bawack Ubama (Score:5, Funny)
What's that got to do with anything?
What? Is there a new requirement that /. comments need to be relevant to the topic at hand?
Re: (Score:3)
I just watched a bunch of Republicans c*rcle j*rking on YouTube about how they were now facing an unprecedented pool of unfilled positions in the judicial system that can now be filled with 'right thinking people' thanks to McConnell's obstructionist tactics during the Obama presidency.
Not to defend the clearly-partisan choices of the Trump administration, but Hillary explicitly promised "activist judges" - one of the few campaign promises I truly believe she intended to keep. It doesn't make Trump and friends right for doing it, but there was simply no way we were going to get nonpartisan judges out of the 2016 election.
Re: (Score:2)
I just watched a bunch of Republicans c*rcle j*rking on YouTube about how they were now facing an unprecedented pool of unfilled positions in the judicial system that can now be filled with 'right thinking people' thanks to McConnell's obstructionist tactics during the Obama presidency.
Not to defend the clearly-partisan choices of the Trump administration, but Hillary explicitly promised "activist judges" - one of the few campaign promises I truly believe she intended to keep. It doesn't make Trump and friends right for doing it, but there was simply no way we were going to get nonpartisan judges out of the 2016 election.
So now you have arch conservative Republican judges being appointed and those guys are not 'activist judges' ? Furthermore many of them are into the bargain either woefully inexperienced, down right incompetent, simply corrupt or some combination of the three and they are not appointed by the administration, they are being appointed by the Federalist Society. Who the hell elected the Federalist Society?
Re: ...the Courts Will Have to Save Net Neutrality (Score:2)
The political appointee positions you speak of typically turn over after each administration - it is rare, but not unheard of, for them to remain between administrations.
Republican obstinacy under Obama did not create additional opportunities to put republicans in political appointee positions. Democrat obstinacy under Trump is a bit more overt that under Obama - with Democrats proudly referring to themselves as the party of 'no', a label they used to mock republicans as recently as last year.
Re: (Score:2)
The political appointee positions you speak of typically turn over after each administration - it is rare, but not unheard of, for them to remain between administrations.
Republican obstinacy under Obama did not create additional opportunities to put republicans in political appointee positions. Democrat obstinacy under Trump is a bit more overt that under Obama - with Democrats proudly referring to themselves as the party of 'no', a label they used to mock republicans as recently as last year.
People can try and pivot this 'my way or the high way' attitude onto the Democrats all they want but it was the Reps. who started it. It was Mitch McConnell who started that tradition and now he's stuck with it. If he really pulls off the great American tax-cut the Republican party will get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020, lose the house, the senate or both and possibly the presidency as well. Jeff Flake is right, with Trump and Moore's scandal baggage tied to it's legs and McConnell's 'my way or the highway'
Re: (Score:2)
Obama did a lot of good, like it or not...
* Released a lot of prisoners who were being unethically held without trial in a foreign country
* Got health care reform passed, so that people that have pre-existing conditions like epilepsy don't have a choice between charity and $2500/mo insurance if self-employed
* Started the US on the path of criminal justice, civil forfeiture, and bail reform (yay Eric Holder -- hell of an appointee!)
Re: backwards (Score:2)
Wu got it backwards: the legal case for net neutrality regulation is exceptionally weak, as is the evidence that it is needed in the first place; and the whole thing was regulatory overreach. This challenges to the reversal will go down in flames in court, unless they find some progressive activist judge.
Agreed.
And then that activist judge will gave his decision overturned by SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
What is "anathema to America's founding spirit" is giving a federal agency control over what private publishers can and cannot say. That is what FCC net neutrality regulations do.
You must follow the same black == white logic that Pai espouses. First of all ISPS like Comcast is not a private publisher. They are middleman. It has been clear in the last decade that they've imposed changes to their own benefit and against their customers. The FCC had to step in multiple times to stop that. Second what you'res saying isn't remotely true and nonsensical. What you're saying is as idiotic as saying: The law gives law enforcement too much power over my driving when they say I can't drive on
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is being revoked in the same manner it was implemented: by regulatory fiat. If the revocation is improper, it's very existence was improper in the first place.
That's false logic. It assumes that reversal of something is equally as easy as implementation. That's not remotely true in the real world. Putting in a road can take a few years. Removing a road and restoring the area to what it was before the road might take a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that net neutrality regulations haven't taken effect yet, there's nothing to dismantle.
Are you aware of the history of Net Neutrality battles? Because this statement seems to underscore either a complete lack of knowledge or inherent dishonesty. The FCC Open Internet Order went into effect June 2015 [forbes.com]. So your statement is factually incorrect or a lie.
So the Obama administration SAID they'd implement net neutrality.
And the FCC issued an order which went effect in 2015. Your point?
Does that bind the Trump administration?
As much as any new administration having to follow what a previous administration did. There are rules and procedures in place.
If so, it's going to be interesting to see what your response is when that logic is used to force President Bernie Sanders to build a wall on the US-Mexico border...
What the fuck does that have to with this action? Brin