ISPs seek halt of net neutrality rules before they take effect next month
ISPs seek halt of net neutrality rules before they take effect next month
Fate of net neutrality may hinge on Supreme Court's "major questions" doctrine.
ISPs need to fucken die. Internet should be provided as a social service.
We already paid for the god damn infrastructure ourselves and the invention of the Internet itself through our tax dollars. Why the hell do ISPs get to profit from it infinitely with almost no meaningful regulation to protect you and me (who, again, already paid for this shit several times over).
Fun fact: ISPs have received almost half a TRILLION dollars in kickbacks funded by taxpayer dollars on top of everything else. Regulatory capture is a real problem.
its a base requirement, like water. it should be regulated as such. zero profit motive, ubiquitous access.
In my town it is a city utility like electricity and water. Gigabit fiber up/down for $70 with net neutrality
Just think. In Article 1 of the US Constitution, the same article that creates Congress, also creates a federal post office system. Remote communication was so important that’s where it was described using the latest technology of the time.
There are so many systems today that need similar treatment. Internet. Medical. Education. Job Training.
And no, I don’t mean fed government enforced monopoly. I mean, UPS exists and competes with the USPS. But there is a minimum level of service in operation.
I loved it when my local giant ISP kept pushing broadband connections, saying they couldn't possibly deal with costs associated with Fiber. Then they begged money from the Government to install infrastructure. Queue absolutely no work in my area. Fast forward a few years, a new ISP rolls in with Fiber and like magic my ISP was suddenly able to provide similar services.
As they exist right now, definitely. But making Internet a govermentally run service is also likely to turn out bad. The best method so far, based on what other countries are doing, seems to be public infrastructure, that any ISP can then sell service through. This prevents monopolies and creates competition in the market, which tends to result in better service for the users.
Edit: public as in anybody can use it to provide service, not as in governmentally managed. Just to force a separation to prevent monopolies.
What do we need ISPs competing on if the infrastructure is run by the government? They can't increase speeds, they can't increase service availability, they'll just be getting a profit margin on top of what the government is charging them to use the communications infrastructure. I'd rather just pay the government the pre-profit amount
They’re welcome to compete with the government utility. But I want a government utility isp. One I get a say in as a voter, not merely as a customer
Good luck convincing the taxpayers of that fact. It should be regulated and made available as such, but made to run for free by government agencies...I think that will piss absolutely everybody off for a number of reasons.
Pretty well every case I've read of municipal owned fiber nets has been a grand success, barring interference by the local carriers. Let the city own the infra and the carriers compete for access. Of course you get the whinging about 'muh free market/choice' but that's the case for any public works really.
"Waaaaaah! I can't rip people off as much!"
-ISPs
I cannot upvote this enough
One thing COVID masking made me aware of is that even after brushing, flossing, tongue scraping and mouthwash, the best my breath could smell was stale. Gawd forbid if I jumped up outta bed and immediately went to the grocery store. Now imagine the stink this guy was always breathing. No wonder he had a bad attitude.
How many times do we need to fight these assholes?
The fight against assholery is unending.
the day we stop is the day we lose, so gotta keep on doing it over and over and over and over..
As many times until Congress grows a spine and finally codifies ISPs as being a dumb pipe into law.
Until then, greed will continue.
Life is an endless prisoner's dilemma.
This court is absolutely raring to go on major questions. In the past, when Congress left things wide open, the High Court usually gave deference to the agency to handle the details. Examples are things like:
- Congress: "Protect endangered animals" - Executive: "I've created a list of what I think is endangered."
- Congress: "Build a highway between Chicago and the Mexican border in Texas" - Executive: "I've come up with a way to string already existing roads and upgrade them to create this road."
- Congress: "Ensure that companies pay the full cost of environmental damage" - Executive: "I'll will bill them for CO₂ released into the air"
Congress doesn't list in massive detail every single possible permutation that's possible in law. That would create thousand page laws. But as EPA vs WV has shown us, the Supreme Court wants incredible detail. So we get the over 300 pages of new law that indicate six gases, fifteen different levels of municipality, and over ten thousand different industries plus all the various ways those three things interact with each other, to address what was "missing" from the original grant of authority for the EPA.
And the thing is, Republicans will bemoan these large tomes of text, saying "how can we know what's in it?" That's them breaks. If the Supreme Court say "a government agency can not do XYZ because it doesn't say XYZ in the law" then that means we have to be very detailed about what's in the law. That's how we get thousands of pages per law. That's kind of the reason why prior Courts didn't harp on this stuff. The President changes every four to eight years, regulation can change at that rate too. Law change very infrequently. So that whole EPA vs WV result, CO₂ regulation was something that basically bounced every time we swapped parties, NOW it's in law and it's going to be there for decades.
The ISPs are getting ready to shoot themselves in the foot here. Because if NN is enshrined in law, NN is here to stay. As long as it's a regulatory process, it can change President to President. But push come to shove, if Congress really wants to, they can enshrine Net Neutrality into law. And it only took the Democratically led Congress in 2021, three weeks after the SCOTUS case to pass the new 300+ page law giving the EPA those new powers explicitly.
That's the thing, the Republicans in the 118th Congress have shown they can not get anything done. They've pass 64 laws so far, most of them are renaming Post Offices and reupping funding to VA hospitals. They've spent almost 65% of the time in committee investigating various impeachment hearings. It's so weird how they've had a majority in the House, could have worked on budget related things, and they've barely talked about the impending tax increase that's coming once the tax cut act of 2017 runs out next year. They literally had planned to run on that sole thing back in 2017, that's why they set it up to expire during an election year, and not a peep from them this year on it.
Meanwhile the Democrats in the 117th Congress passed 362 laws, with bangers like the CHIPs act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the whole turn about is fair play with the whole EPA vs WV case. Because they took the majority they had and got things done.
So ISPs better hope Republicans can keep the mayhem up forever, because if Democrats do get into power in the House/Senate/and President. This whole stunt with the Supreme Court they're pulling could massively backfire on them. Because if NN gets into law, well then it's way harder to undo that.
High Court usually gave deference to the agency to handle the details
I believe this is "Chevron Deference?"
The thing Goursich (and I believe previously his mother) wants absolutely dead. :/
Fuck you comcast. I'm sure they are one of the instigators.
There's a city in Tennessee USA (Chattanooga, I think) whose government started offering fiber internet as a utility. It would be interesting to study them as a case study, and see if it would a viable solution elsewhere.
Look at Saskatchewan, Canada. We're the only province with a public telecom, SaskTel.
Most people in the cities and even larger towns have fiber, and our cell plans are significantly cheaper than anywhere else in Canada despite being a rural province with a large coverage area to population ratio.
We also have decent electricity rates considering we have no hydro, and the cheapest natural gas in Canada. Thanks to SaskPower and SaskEnergy.
Public utilities are the only way to do it, I'm always shocked to see people defend privatization in any way.
They've been lied to by the illusion of freedom of choice. Or they're rich and don't care.
Sadly (or not) most of us live a little bit south of Saskatoon
Saskatchewan is such a fucking great case study in why this shit works, because you have literally identical conditions all around them, excerpt in that one detail, and the price differences are enormous.
We have the next best thing here from municipal internet. A local ISP started up and offered to lay fiber in any neighborhood where 40% or more of the population agreeing to sign up.
I know Spectrum is desperate for people in this neighborhood to return because I get a lot of mailings and never see a Spectrum truck anymore, but the cost is about the same, the speed is massively higher (we're talking max 15 mbps to max 50 mbps on my line and you can pay for a faster speed) and it's so much more reliable.
If you are a CEO of a major company your address should be where anyone can see it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
As expected, broadband industry lobby groups have sued the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to nullify net neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
The industry lost a similar case during the Obama era, but is hoping to win this time because of the Supreme Court's evolving approach on whether federal agencies can decide "major questions" without explicit instructions from Congress.
"By reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission asserts the power to set prices, dictate terms and conditions, require or prohibit investment or divestment, and more.
The FCC's net neutrality order reclassified broadband as telecommunications, which makes Internet service subject to common-carrier regulations under Title II.
Despite the industry's claim that classification is a major question that can only be decided by Congress, a federal appeals court ruled in previous cases that the FCC has authority to classify broadband as either a telecommunications or information service.
"There's no 'unheralded power' that we're purporting to discover in the annals of an old, dusty statute—we've been classifying communications services one way or the other for decades, and the 1996 [Telecommunications] Act expressly codified our ability to continue that practice."
The original article contains 765 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Someone got so fed up in my town they started their own ISP but I'm too far so I'm getting ripped off by Cablevision
No shit.