AT&T/Verizon Lobbyists To 'Aggressively' Sue States That Enact Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com) 133
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities that try to enforce net neutrality rules. USTelecom, the lobby group, made its intentions clear yesterday in a blog post titled, "All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online." "Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks, and uphold net neutrality protections for all," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter wrote. "To continue this important work, there is no question we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible." The USTelecom board of directors includes AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream, and other telcos. The group's membership "ranges from the nation's largest telecom companies to small rural cooperatives."
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks, and uphold net neutrality protections for all," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter wrote. "To continue this important work, there is no question we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible."
We support net neutrality so strongly that we will sue anyone that dares to try to enforce net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They want you to believe that they are defending our rights but what they are really saying is that they will fight to defend the repeal of net neutrality and sue anyone who doesn't abide by it.
Corporate thugs. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know who else talks like that? The Mafia.
Re: (Score:1)
Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Big difference. With the mafia, you don't get to choose between the two biggest crooks for the position of the don.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Per "1984" book, their statement is corporate double-speak at its finest.
Re: Makes sense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the headline that says that the telcos will sue states that enact Net Neutrality. That's not what the telcos are saying, it's the flamebait headline... and you fell hook, line, sinker.
Then what did they mean by "we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts..."?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the headline that says that the telcos will sue states that enact Net Neutrality. That's not what the telcos are saying, it's the flamebait headline... and you fell hook, line, sinker.
Then what did they mean by "we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts..."?
He meant: "Mmmmm, AT&T your shit tastes extra good today. Great texture too. I love the corn."
Re: (Score:3)
what they _mean_ is "we will sue anyone who wants more than the feds do, now that we've got them doing only what we're willing to support, but we'll claim to be supporting the principles we no longer have to actually implement."
Re: (Score:2)
Such fucking bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
FCC states that it's up to the states to enact these rulkes. The states go to try to enact these rules and the telecoms try to sue
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Sociopathic filth (Score:1)
ALL major corporations come to a point where all there deciders (directors, CEO, etc) are all sociopaths. Why ? Selection, pure and simple. A CEO that never bothers himself with things like morals or ethics will ALWAYS have an advantage over one that does, producing more profit for the company.
Remember, all corporations turn into completely amoral entities because WE want them that way.
Re: Sociopathic filth (Score:1)
Not because we WANT them that way, but because capitalism is geared that way. It's powered by everyone acting in their own self interest, and those who do that best are those who never care about the interests (or rights) of others.
There are laws designed to keep capitalism from going full psycho, but since money and politics are intertwined, the forces of capitalism are able to subvert those too (or more concretely, the most powerful capitalists are highly motivated to use the power of their money to subve
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws designed to keep capitalism from going full psycho, but since money and politics are intertwined, the forces of capitalism are able to subvert those too (or more concretely, the most powerful capitalists are highly motivated to use the power of their money to subvert them).
We need a system where power and money is separated and independent, and where empathy, which is invaluable for any functioning society, is rewarded instead of discouraged.
Any time authority(aka power) and resource distribution(aka money) are separated, authority is used to adjust resource distribution so that it is primarily directed towards those with authority.
or if you prefer: any time power wants more money, it goes and gets it, therefore separating them never lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sheesh, who core dumped all over the carpet?
Re:All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online (Score:5, Insightful)
"All Americans deserve equal rights online."
And you'll get them as long as you're willing to pay through the nose for the privilege.
Re:All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online (Score:5, Informative)
Unless Comcast is the only provider in your area. If that's the case, you'll pay through the nose while you scream like a little bitch and then they'll ignore you and/or laugh at you since they know you have no other option.
Re: (Score:2)
no, no, all Americans deserve equal rights. 0 == 0. Money gets you _perks_.
newspeak (Score:2)
Bastards (Score:1)
Sue the government that granted you your franchise agreement? If you don't like the laws in our state, we'll be happy to revoke that license and replace your terrible overpriced services with municipal fiber.
Or better yet give them a taste of their own medicine and tell them that you won't renew their franchise without a "binding arbitration" clause that says they can't take you to court. Bend them over like they bend over all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Biting the hand that feeds them in the hopes that they can continue to squeeze more money out of their customers. It's a bold move Cotton. Lets see how it works for them.
This is why it matters. (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone ever asks why political stuff gets a section on Slashdot: It's because this stuff matters.
Technology is shaped by the limits imposed on it.
Your computer can only interact with another computer if there is a connection between you.
Very rich organizations own those connections, and charge eachother large amounts of money for those systems of connections.
They are owned by shareholders that demand more money each year.
Thus, unless there is a constant fight against it, you will pay a higher and higher rate than inflation, an increased amount for each method of communicating with other computers.
Net neutrality is part of that fight. Giving up on net neutrality is very much like giving up your side of that fight, without any meaningful promise of extra services.
Which is especially galling, because those same groups have constantly renegged on actual promises for better service for prices in the past.
Compared to virtually every other modern economy, they offer the US the worst value per dollar. And they will force these trends onto other countries with time.
It's fine if you want to be libertarian - but the libertarian ideal also has to include each side negotiating with full force. Giving up net neutrality is giving up your side of the argument completely, since there is no meaningful competition on the horizon for most of this. You're just agreeing to pay more over time forever, for no real reason, your only option is to pay more at each branching path.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think it will look like when I try to pass Net Neutrality legislation? Will Verizon try to sue me? Maybe they'll donate to my campaign at some point, and then try to sue me because they want their money back. \o/
u have it backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIGHT solution is to remove their monopoly, AND allow municipals and even states to set up competitive fiber utilities. Once a state de-monopolizes or at least forces open the ability for competition, then they will have no choice but to go after each other's area and compete on performance, and $.
Re: (Score:2)
Get Ajit Pai to say it, then I'll believe it... no wait, I won't. Get him to do it... then I'll believe it.
Re:u have it backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not much more room for utilities (at least in the ground) in most places. Electrictiy, sewer, water, telecom all usually require a certain distance from each other, and municipalities and private citizens don't like to hand out permits/easements for more where they might encroach. so atleast for telco underground, and overhead where they often go joint-use with the electric utility, there is not room for more than a few in my experience. Sometimes, especially with electrictiy for example, there isn't physical/legal room enough for more than one infrastructure...so sometimes "monopolies" are necessary, and they need to be regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it would take a sociopath to actually do this.
Catch 22 at its finest.
Muni broadband will last about 3/10ths of a second (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you're forgetting the option to collude. Sure, they're not supposed to, but that doesn't mean they don't/won't if they can profit from it.
Re: u have it backwards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
then there will be no AT&T or Verizon
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the RIGHT solution is to ban companies that own cables in the ground from charging for the services provided across them.
Why should the same company provide both the connection and the content? Separating the two works for electricity, for physical deliveries, heck even for telephones. It's the easiest and cheapest option for internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy the solution our government over here came up with (as did many others in Europe).
Our cables were originally put into the ground by a government monopoly. In other words, we (taxpayers) paid for them. When it was time to privatize the cables, what they did was to privatize the former government monopolist and handed over the cables BUT at the same time created a law (and a regulatory body that watches over it) that those cables have to be rented to everyone competing with them at the same rates and
Re: (Score:1)
Usually I'd agree that heavy-handed regulation isn't the answer, but public utilities (which the internet undoubtedly now is) are natural monopolies. Unless you want 600 different firms digging up every street to lay redundant fibre, water, electric and gas lines to their customers, and then having to come back two weeks later to add/remove a customer, then you have to have a single provider for the "last mile".
The way we do it this side of the pond is that one firm has responsibility for the physical conne
The Libertarian counter argument is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If government gets out of the way, the end result is monopolies.
And that is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
If your government gets out of the way, you'll probably burn your hand in the fire.
Hooray for doublespeak! (Score:1)
It would be a shame (Score:5, Informative)
If the FCC had enough balls (or a lack of glaring personal financial interest) to start collecting back spectrum licenses from AT&T and Verizon.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has huge balls. To roll over so brazenly without even trying to hide the fact that they are a sock puppet for the industry and fuck the American public over to the extent they did takes balls.
What they don't have is integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like testing their structural integrity.
This explains (Score:2)
Why my internet bill nearly doubled recently. Gotta pay for all those lawyers somehow...
yes (Score:2)
Instead, push for de-monopolization, along with allowing all municipals and even states to do their own broadband utility.
THAT would change the industry and bring back REAL competition.
Re: (Score:3)
A nice suburb could bring in new community broadband.
A city can place new community broadband in for its business district.
Let a city and state see what networks that are not paper insulated wireline can really do to bring in new digital products and services.
Open your city and state up to internet innovation.
More rate hikes coming soon (Score:2)
Re:More rate hikes coming soon (Score:5, Interesting)
We've already paid for it. Twice. During the Clinton administration, $200 billion of taxpayer dollars were handed over to broadband providers [newnetworks.com] who promised us 45 Mbps, both ways, within a decade.
Since that time, over $1 trillion in direct payments, tax breaks and other inducements, all of it taxpayer money, has been given to broadband companies who are now fighting tooth and nail not to provide the service they claim to do.
Considering it was the government (i.e. taxpayers) who created the internet, that it is government (i.e. taxpayers) who continues to foot the bill, it's very disingenuous for companies to claim they shouldn't have to do what the government tells them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Quit trying to regulate (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be far more effective than trying to regulate them.
"to uphold net neutrality protections for all." (Score:2)
To them, Net Neutrality apparently is like the flu, that Broadband providers have protected against.
Simple Fix (Score:5, Interesting)
The States should counter-sue demanding folks like AT&T be forced to break up into smaller companies.
They posses an unfair advantage when they are delivering both content and control the pipes that supply it at the same time. It's a classic conflict of interest.
Watch how fast the big Telcos go quiet about all this " sue everyone " nonsense if their Monopoly status gets threatened.
IANAL, but (Score:2)
Would "lobby group" have legal standing in this situation?
There's a simple solution (Score:1)
A simple solution: put language in the state's net neutrality rules that allows the state to remove all protections, tax exemptions, government business deals, local monopoly powers, etc. if some company brings a lawsuit against the state. Sure they can sue, but if they lose, they lose all rights to do business as usual in that state.
Divestiture gone wrong. (Score:5)
Rather than making it about local vs. long distance, followed by reversal of those rules based on some nonsense about unbundled elements, the only regulation that needs to be in place is this: a carrier can operate a central office and provide last mile connectivity, but cannot provide any services over those wires.
By doing this, the carriers who operate the last-mile monopoly or duopoly cannot be the same carriers who operate voice, data, or video services over those wires. At this point you end up with the same diversity of Internet providers that you currently have over "long distance carriers" (if that's still even a thing).
It's the only regulation needed, because it would eliminate the need for all of the others. You would almost immediately have aggregators who provide central office connectivity to smaller network operators. You would have large network operators going directly into the central offices to save money. And if a network operator got stupid and decided to prioritize or restrict traffic, subscribers would have dozens of other network operators to choose from.
This is the principle of placing reglations ONLY where a natural monopoly exists. When you regulate higher up the value chain, you get inefficiencies and politics and corruption and all of the other crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how the EU is doing this.
By law, all companies (so also the subsidiary of the telco that owns/maintains/operates the cables and other local infrastructure) have to get access to the same cables at the same price.
Works great. Lots of ISPs to choose from where-ever you live; excellent prices and service quality.
Big telecom/cable has no other choice... (Score:1)
Sovereign immunity (Score:2)
A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities....
Because states can Only be sued on matters they've consent to be sued about, and we KNOW Telcos are bound to abuse the court system to try and stall and delay anything they don't like; How about passing the Network neutrality rule Together with a preemptive removal of the exceptions carved into their sovereign immunity -- in other words, restriction or removal of privilege to sue from the Telcos,
What Do We Do Now? (Score:2)
I've had plenty of conversations with people who only knew what they heard on their favorite news channel. But, I think what we need is our own list of talking points. How do you describe, in layman's terms, why net neutrality is good? We should all be able to clearly state these points if we're ever going to turn this around.
Re: (Score:2)
What the voting public has said is that "Net Neutrality" is overshadowed by other issues. NN just doesn't overshadow things like Pro-Life/Choice, Gun Control/Rights, Immigration - issues that already engage the vast majority of single issue voters.
IMO - The Republicans are looking at this particular issue incorrectly. Ensuring a level playing field that promotes competition is the sort of regulation that IS appropriate by government in a capitalist society. Net Neutrality should be a stance of the righ
Re: (Score:2)
What public? The public that has already been shown to be comprised mostly of telco sock puppets?
Re: (Score:1)
Unlike the U.S. the rest of the world knows a profit is not guaranteed, it must be earned by providing BENEFIT, not just market magic.
O.K., China is a throwback.
But you recall how they dealt with the plastic infused cat food? BULLET IN THE HEAD.
Seems a good idea to me.
Re: (Score:2)
"Unlike the U.S. the rest of the world knows a profit is not guaranteed, it must be earned by providing BENEFIT, not just market magic."
How's that working for the Takata airbag scandal?
How about Sony root kits?
What about VW emission's?
There are tons of examples, so take your US sucks agenda and cram it.
Re: (Score:1)
When JAL lost an airliner thanks to cheap maintenance, the CEO bankrupted himself and his family to pay the survivors. Then he gutted himself like a fish
Amazing how they adopted American ways since, isn't it?
Meanwhile, in Iceland, the bank frauds of the 2007 crash ARE STILL IN PRISON, instead of getting a 1 trillion dollar handout by Bush.
Yep, the rest of the world thinks those who cheat should pay, and America thinks those who cheat (EC vs winn
Re: (Score:2)
Serving coffee so hot, that you have to serve it in a pressure vessel? That's some hot shit right there.
Re: (Score:1)
As demonstrated at trial, the drip output from the McD's tap was above 230 and below 245 F
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee is 0.5% -1.5% dissolved solids. Nowhere near what is needed to elevate boiling temp by 10 deg C at sea level.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.ph... [scielo.br] Didn't observe 1/2 that in extract concentrates that were 30-40% disolved solids.
180-190 F is what McDonald's served coffee at, which is still hot enough to cause nearly immediate burns.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of this sounds perfectly legal to you? "McDonald's had known the risk of serious burns for 10 years and ignored it.
Because that's the temperature that to-go coffee should be served at. Coffee cools quickly.
Now you can only get tepid, lukewarm coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
700 lawsuits != 700 cases of burns