For Sale: Series of Tubes, highest bidder

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 17, 2009
2,104
2,162
IOKWARDI
Some of us might find this a bit troublesome

[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/14/262454310/feds-cant-enforce-net-neutrality-what-this-means-for-you?sc=ipad&f=1001]Elise Hu – NPR[/url] said:
In a landmark ruling Tuesday, a federal appeals court has struck down key parts of the Federal Communications Commission's open-Internet rules, effectively ruling that the federal government cannot enforce net neutrality. Put more simply, it can't require that Internet service providers treat all traffic equally.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the agency's rules had no basis in federal law. A key passage:

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."

Judges did, however, preserve the disclosure requirements that say while Verizon and other carriers can make some traffic run faster or block services, they have to tell subscribers they're doing it.
Anyone have a good guess as to what we should expect? Will this go to SCOTUS, and will those judges be able to make a sensible ruling?
 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,518
Atlanta, GA
They can block stuff, but will have to "tell users they're doing it". So essentially, like anything else a highly-profitable corporation "has to do", they will bury it in 1-point type on the bottom of some other meaningless document 19 clicks into their website.
 

lannister80

macrumors 6502
Apr 7, 2009
476
17
Chicagoland
I believe they already were considered common carriers, and a court struck down that.
I heard on NPR that the FCC wanted to classify them as Common Carriers/Telecommunication Services back in 2010, but there was a *huge* backlash from the industry because it would mean ISPs would have to carry traffic/services for Mom & Pop ISPs (which would pay them, of course). FCC backed down due to pressure.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I believe they already were considered common carriers, and a court struck down that.
I think the rather convoluted argument was that they weren't officially classified as common carriers, but were restricted as such by the rules and regulations. That's one of the major reasons why we're finding ourselves in this current situation.

I'll see if I can find the Ars Technica article I read about it. They obviously know far more about it than I do.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
Interesting timing with the TPP treaty racing towards completion isn't it? :roll eyes:

Let's just shut it down guys. There are signs every day that nation-states are no longer the true holders of power on the globe. The Corporatocracy of the globe is only a few generations from total completion.

Thank god these "People" have the ability and funds to make the slow play, as they aren't mortal like us mere humans.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Interesting timing with the TPP treaty racing towards completion isn't it? :roll eyes:

Let's just shut it down guys. There are signs every day that nation-states are no longer the true holders of power on the globe. The Corporatocracy of the globe is only a few generations from total completion.

Thank god these "People" have the ability and funds to make the slow play, as they aren't mortal like us mere humans.
In America at least and parts of Africa, mega corps already have complete control over the goverment and the people.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
In America at least and parts of Africa, mega corps already have complete control over the goverment and the people.
Its far more than America and Africa.

Globalization has nearly reached it's conclusion. The TPP treaty pretty much seals the deal.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Its far more than America and Africa.

Globalization has nearly reached it's conclusion. The TPP treaty pretty much seals the deal.

If people think NAFTA ****ed this country, wait until the TPP.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
If people think NAFTA ****ed this country, wait until the TPP.
Exactly.

This treaty overturns national sovereignty for all country's involved (though I suspect we'll give ourselves a pass when needed) and instead places the decision making in a rotating cast of corporate lawyers whom decide when clean air laws can't be enforced. It's truly shocking stuff going on right now.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Its far more than America and Africa.

Globalization has nearly reached it's conclusion. The TPP treaty pretty much seals the deal.
Well I should have thrown in Asia as well.

In Europe, at least as far as I can tell, their goverments are not owned by Mega corps as you see in the states. Hence the whole things like affordable college and healthcare.

In America big business and the super rich own the White House, Own Congress and own the senate, they also own the vast majority of state governments as well, and what local governments they don't own, they bribe along as they go.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
Well I should have thrown in Asia as well.

In Europe, at least as far as I can tell, their goverments are not owned by Mega corps as you see in the states. Hence the whole things like affordable college and healthcare.

In America big business and the super rich own the White House, Own Congress and own the senate, they also own the vast majority of state governments as well, and what local governments they don't own, they bribe along as they go.
NATO.

Thought the EU (which is essentially big bank operated, take a look at the austerity measures) is a bit of a counter balance.

That's why everyone is rushing into Africa before their union plans finally take root.

And on the America side, you say the super rich OWN the senate? Come on, they ARE the senate.

Issa is work nearly half a billion dollars on his own.
 

CalWizrd

Suspended
Jun 21, 2011
373
1,554
NYC/Raleigh, NC
NATO.

Thought the EU (which is essentially big bank operated, take a look at the austerity measures) is a bit of a counter balance.

That's why everyone is rushing into Africa before their union plans finally take root.

And on the America side, you say the super rich OWN the senate? Come on, they ARE the senate.

Issa is work nearly half a billion dollars on his own.
In the spirit of accuracy, Issa is in the House, not the Senate.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
In the spirit of accuracy, Issa is in the House, not the Senate.

Related.

The wealth effect is in full force on Capitol Hill. For the first time in history, the majority of Congress members are millionaires. Both political parties made significant gains in their median net worth, and continue to hold positions in some of America's most well-known companies.

Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to a new report by the Center for Responsive Politics and the latest disclosures filed by Congress in 2013. In the previous year, only 257 members had a median net worth of at least $1 million. Senators are generally better off than House members. The median net worth for all House members totaled $896,000, compared to $2.7 million for senators.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/01/12/stocks-popular-with-congress/4412141/
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,775
totally cool
NOTE: Mods, I have no idea if this is against forum rules, but this document is now out in the public. Please remove it if I am breaking any rules but I'm not posting anything that hasn't been in The Guardian yet.
uhh, its not against the rules.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 17, 2009
2,104
2,162
IOKWARDI
Now the Rs are trying to delay the FCC policy decision, to get the document posted in full before it gets voted on. Presumably so that the telcoms have more time to bombard everyone with BS. But this is the lamest argument of all:
[url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-will-help-foreign-leaders-control-the-internet/]Ajit Pai said:
“If in the United States we adopt regulations that assert more government control over how the Internet operates... it becomes a lot more difficult for us to go on the international stage and tell governments: ‘Look, we want you to keep your hands off the Internet.’ Even if the ideas aren’t completely identical, you can appreciate the optical difficult[y] in trying to make that case."
No, you idiot, Net Neutrality is the exact opposite of controlling the internet.
 

noodlemanc

macrumors regular
Mar 25, 2010
208
17
Australasia
Now the Rs are trying to delay the FCC policy decision, to get the document posted in full before it gets voted on. Presumably so that the telcoms have more time to bombard everyone with BS. But this is the lamest argument of all:


No, you idiot, Net Neutrality is the exact opposite of controlling the internet.
Government control was what turned ISPs into monopolies in the first place. Why not scale THAT back instead of intervening more? Because one intervention always creates a problem which requires another intervention, etc etc...
 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,518
Atlanta, GA
Now the Rs are trying to delay the FCC policy decision, to get the document posted in full before it gets voted on. Presumably so that the telcoms have more time to bombard everyone with BS. But this is the lamest argument of all:


No, you idiot, Net Neutrality is the exact opposite of controlling the internet.
I hd this argument with a friend today who posted an article from the WSJ about this very thing, and he was going on about burdensome regulations and government control and how it would lead to internet monopolies charging high prices for things. No matter how many times I said that net neutrality is about preventing that very thing, he kept repeating it. Some people are helpless.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
I hd this argument with a friend today who posted an article from the WSJ about this very thing, and he was going on about burdensome regulations and government control and how it would lead to internet monopolies charging high prices for things. No matter how many times I said that net neutrality is about preventing that very thing, he kept repeating it. Some people are helpless.
Some people seem to believe that only governments can be corrupt. They don't understand that ultimately it's power that corrupts. Whether that power is in the hands of a politican or a company executive doesn't matter.