New York Attorney General Leads Filing of Multi-State Lawsuit to Block Rollback of Net Neutrality

[superduperultra]

Good luck from the rest of the world.

 

[glindon]

What they call "freedom of the internet" is really "freedom from paying other people for access to their infrastructure."

Why do you think every media outlet, bar none, are pro NN? It's not because it's a good idea.

This is my thought as well. As soon as all the corporations started cheering for NN I knew for sure it was a scam.

 

[JosephAW]

What did content providers do before 2015? Must have been a nightmare for companies like Facebook and search engines like google.

 

[ScottHammet]

Burn.


Except that makes no sense, since 100% of the opposition to net neutrality is from the right. So you're wrong.
[doublepost=1516149164][/doublepost]

Is that you, Ajit?

Your comment has a number of glaring factual errors (I would say lies, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt):
The only reason Wheeler classified ISPs under Title II is because the courts rejected their previous rules—after a lawsuit from Verizon, of course—and insisted they use their current powers under Title II. So this "government never had power" argument is BS.
The idea of "competition" with ISPs is absolutely laughable, since Comcast absolutely dominated the market. For example, I live in the tri-state area and have exactly one option for cable and broadband. What do I do when Comcast tried to screw me? What competition is pushing them to be better? Who do I complain to when they throttle my Netflix/Facebook/CNN/Snapchat?
Your reference to the IRS makes no sense whatsoever. And the rules under Pai would allow Comcast to charge your precious Fox and/or Breitbart and/or whatever your propaganda outlet of choice is more money to keep reaching their audiences. Fox is particularly susceptible to this because they're one of the few major networks not owned by a massive corporation; Comcast and AT&T will have no problem streaming CNN and MSNBC to their respective customers.
Finally, your use of "fake news" is not only pathetic, its nonsensical.
[doublepost=1516149254][/doublepost]

Not really the same situation. Federal courts tend to resolve public disputes as quickly as possible, particularly when they have such far-reaching consequences.

Yep...you swallowed it hook, line, and stinker. You're just spouting out Left talking points. If a Republican had passed Net Neutrality--not that one would--your head would be spinning off its shoulders making the opposite argument. Net Neutrality force-fit the Internet into a box that could be regulated and taxed. That's right...taxed, like and old-school telco, so they could charge everyone with an internet connection the fees they use to supply telco service in rural areas that wouldn't otherwise make economic sense to service. The internet survived just fine for 25 years without government intervention and it will be just fine once that intervention is removed. Some of us are likely to pay more for a faster Internet connection, but that's just how it goes...want a good steak, or a nicer shirt, and you're going to pay more. Why would you/should you expect any different for your Internet service? Because it's a "right"...something you're "owed"?

 

[jarman92]

Yep...you swallowed it hook, line, and stinker. You're just spouting out Left talking points. If a Republican had passed Net Neutrality--not that one would--your head would be spinning off its shoulders making the opposite argument. Net Neutrality force-fit the Internet into a box that could be regulated and taxed. That's right...taxed, like and old-school telco, so they could charge everyone with an internet connection the fees they use to supply telco service in rural areas that wouldn't otherwise make economic sense to service. The internet survived just fine for 25 years without government intervention and it will be just fine once that intervention is removed. Some of us are likely to pay more for a faster Internet connection, but that's just how it goes...want a good steak, or a nicer shirt, and you're going to pay more. Why would you/should you expect any different for your Internet service? Because it's a "right"...something you're "owed"?

That’s correct, yes—fast, reliable internet is a necessity and a right just as much as clean water and electricity, and it should be regulated as such.

Your assertion that the internet was “just fine” before “government intervention” is wrong on multiple levels. There are many many many cases where the ISPs tried to screw consumers and were stopped by the FCC; that enforcement authority goes away under Pai’s idiotic plan. Comcast/AT&T/Verizon can now do literally anything they want, since they have no competition and no watchdog. They’ve done nothing in their entire existence to indicate they’ll do anything other than screw us over.

It’s also rather odd you’re perfectly fine paying out the nose for internet to line the pockets of the ISPs, but outraged if they government taxes it (which hasn’t even been proposed). Makes sense...

Oh, and spare me the condescension. I’m quite capable of thinking for myself and clearly quite aware of the benefits of net neutrality, no matter where the idea comes from. If the right had proposed it I would first be shocked they managed to crawl out of Trump’s orange a$$hole long enough to propose a good idea, then support it wholeheartedly.
[doublepost=1516154029][/doublepost]

This is my thought as well. As soon as all the corporations started cheering for NN I knew for sure it was a scam.

Strange this whole time I thought that Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc. we’re corporations too...
[doublepost=1516154323][/doublepost]

What they call "freedom of the internet" is really "freedom from paying other people for access to their infrastructure."

Why do you think every media outlet, bar none, are pro NN? It's not because it's a good idea.

Just ridiculous. We ALREADY pay for access to the internet infrastructure. The ISPs just want the ability to squeeze more money out of consumers, either directly—through larger bills for BS “innovation” that still sees the US lagging the rest of the developed world in throughput and availabilty—or indirectly by charging sites for access that they then pass on to us.

Comcast doesn’t need you to fight for them.

 

[dukebound85]

"arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion that violates federal law."

lol That describes about a [strike]quarter of what Obama did[/strike] all of what Trump does while in office.

Fixed for you
[doublepost=1516154532][/doublepost]

This is nothing but sad. Folks please read the so called net neutrality rules. Before these rules there were no federal control and the net survived just fine. These rules claim rights for the FCC that the government has never had with respect to the internet. And internet freedom is one of the keys to its success.

Competition will keep the internet open, unless the government takes over, then the government will use these rules to regulate the internet just like they did with the IRS to silence conservatives organizations, just like they did with the FBI , the federal judges, and the NSA to attempt to sabotage a presidential election, they will implement the rules that Google and Twitter want in order to silence those with out favor views.

The attempt to say that these rules are for Net Neutrality is nothing but lies and fake news, they are nothing but the groundwork for government's forced control of the internet.

It’s like you didnt even read the post above yours.......

Isps WERE blocking and throttling. fine my ass.

Google if you don’t believe it

 

[scoobydoo99]

Some of us are likely to pay more for a faster Internet connection, but that's just how it goes...want a good steak, or a nicer shirt, and you're going to pay more. Why would you/should you expect any different for your Internet service? Because it's a "right"...something you're "owed"?

Actually, that is exactly the point. Corporations don't own the internet, only our access to it. It IS a right to have free and open access to the internet! It's essential to liberty and the rights of individuals to share information and stand up to the corrupt power structures that dominate not only the U.S., but the world. Once corporations control the internet with no restrictions, they will censor any content that challenges corporate tyranny (not just of the internet, but of society). This is NOT about paying a little more to stream Netflix - this is about losing access to uncensored public health information, education, human rights reports, activist organization, and countless other streams of data that are critical to preserving what little is left of free society. This is NOT a partisan issue. Polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality across party lines. This is a battle between We the People, and the Corporate/Government power elite that want to enslave humanity. Unfortunately, the well-financed elite have unlimited resources to achieve their goals.

 

[goobot]

This is a prime example of people using their guts (which most of the time are wrong) instead of critical thinking or data. We need to see what the data says before emotionally and irrationally fighting for or against net neutrality.

We have already seen how internet gate keepers have abused their power. I’d rather not wait and see when they choose to go further.

 

[vipergts2207]

This is nothing but sad. Folks please read the so called net neutrality rules. Before these rules there were no federal control and the net survived just fine. These rules claim rights for the FCC that the government has never had with respect to the internet. And internet freedom is one of the keys to its success.

Competition will keep the internet open, unless the government takes over, then the government will use these rules to regulate the internet just like they did with the IRS to silence conservatives organizations, just like they did with the FBI , the federal judges, and the NSA to attempt to sabotage a presidential election, they will implement the rules that Google and Twitter want in order to silence those with out favor views.

The attempt to say that these rules are for Net Neutrality is nothing but lies and fake news, they are nothing but the groundwork for government's forced control of the internet.

Pump the brakes. What competition? Many people have access to only one high-speed ISP, and sometimes none if you live in a rural area. Not to mention that ISPs do everything in their power to keep competition out, like trying to get legislation harmful to competition passed.

 

[Naaaaak]

We can't possibly go back to 2014 internet rules, before Obama took credit for something Our comrades are literally dying on leftist internet. We need a political win! Quick, sue Drumpf!

 

[SRLMJ23]

Hmmm. Traditional democratic majority states.

I live in NY and I cannot stand our AG. He sues for everything and anything. He best watch his back, because our super corrupt Governor (Cuomo) is going down on corruption charges in the near future (and might bring Schneiderman down) for getting a little greedy in the SUNY IT Nano Center that was supposed to open, and GE was supposed to come back to Utica (in the nano center) on the SUNY IT campus, however, everything is on hold because of some of the charges already filed with Cuomo's two top guys. They talked.

I am sick of the New York State we have because of democratic rule. I was much happier under Republican Governor Pataki. New York was far better off under Republican leadership! Most all states that are run by a Republican Governor are far better off than states run by Democratic Governors.

 

[macTW]

Pump the brakes. What competition? Many people have access to only one high-speed ISP, and sometimes none if you live in a rural area. Not to mention that ISPs do everything in their power to keep competition out, like trying to get legislation harmful to competition passed.

This is the exact argument against net neutrality. Areas with lacking infrastructure or demand for high speed internet don’t provide enough incentive for companies forced into certain pricing models to expand there. If they’re allowed to charge based on traffic or speed, they can make the investment worthwhile, while providing people with internet connectivity they didn’t otherwise have.

I haven’t seen the data on this, so I don’t know if this actually happens, but your argument against net neutrality is actually one argument for it.

 

[SRLMJ23]

Burn.


Except that makes no sense, since 100% of the opposition to net neutrality is from the right. So you're wrong.
[doublepost=1516149164][/doublepost]

Is that you, Ajit?

Your comment has a number of glaring factual errors (I would say lies, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt):
The only reason Wheeler classified ISPs under Title II is because the courts rejected their previous rules—after a lawsuit from Verizon, of course—and insisted they use their current powers under Title II. So this "government never had power" argument is BS.
The idea of "competition" with ISPs is absolutely laughable, since Comcast absolutely dominated the market. For example, I live in the tri-state area and have exactly one option for cable and broadband. What do I do when Comcast tried to screw me? What competition is pushing them to be better? Who do I complain to when they throttle my Netflix/Facebook/CNN/Snapchat?
Your reference to the IRS makes no sense whatsoever. And the rules under Pai would allow Comcast to charge your precious Fox and/or Breitbart and/or whatever your propaganda outlet of choice is more money to keep reaching their audiences. Fox is particularly susceptible to this because they're one of the few major networks not owned by a massive corporation; Comcast and AT&T will have no problem streaming CNN and MSNBC to their respective customers.
Finally, your use of "fake news" is not only pathetic, its nonsensical.
[doublepost=1516149254][/doublepost]

Not really the same situation. Federal courts tend to resolve public disputes as quickly as possible, particularly when they have such far-reaching consequences.

Umm, you made a big factual error. Fox News is not owned by a massive company, hmmm...WRONG. You are telling me 21st Century Fox is not a "massive" company? You know, the 21st Century Fox (which Disney just bought for $54.2 Billion) that makes the Simpsons, and the WallStreet Journal (common ownership) and TONS of massive hit movies. Not a massive company at all...except the exact opposite.

Disney alone is #5 on Forbes Global 200 Regarded Companies, ahead of all the companies you listed:

https://www.forbes.com/top-regarded-companies/list/#tab:rank

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...lds-top-regarded-companies-2017/#55f642466726

21st Century Fox ranked #63, and the companies you listed are not even on the list.:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...lds-top-regarded-companies-2017/#55f642466726

 

[jarman92]

This is the exact argument against net neutrality. Areas with lacking infrastructure or demand for high speed internet don’t provide enough incentive for companies forced into certain pricing models to expand there. If they’re allowed to charge based on traffic or speed, they can make the investment worthwhile, while providing people with internet connectivity they didn’t otherwise have.

I haven’t seen the data on this, so I don’t know if this actually happens, but your argument against net neutrality is actually one argument for it.

Or the FCC can continue incentivizing the ISPs to expand access to rural areas, which is exactly what they were doing before Pai dismantled it. Comcast could never charge farmers enough to justify spending millions to lay fiber in the middle of Nebraska.

 

[Admiral]

Actually, that is exactly the point. Corporations don't own the internet, only our access to it. It IS a right to have free and open access to the internet!

Unless I am mistaken, the Internet Protocol is free. There is nothing stopping you from pulling your own cables and connecting to the networks of other liberty-minded patriots. Simply negotiate with your local government for the right to make that investment.

 

[Z400Racer37]

This is a prime example of people using their guts (which most of the time are wrong) instead of critical thinking or data. We need to see what the data says before emotionally and irrationally fighting for or against net neutrality.

We already have seen what happens, Net Neutrality wasn't a thing here until a couple years ago. no problems then, no problems not.


But the end of the world is always coming......

 

[SRLMJ23]

nt5672 said: ↑
This is nothing but sad. Folks please read the so called net neutrality rules. Before these rules there were no federal control and the net survived just fine. These rules claim rights for the FCC that the government has never had with respect to the internet. And internet freedom is one of the keys to its success.

Competition will keep the internet open, unless the government takes over, then the government will use these rules to regulate the internet just like they did with the IRS to silence conservatives organizations, just like they did with the FBI , the federal judges, and the NSA to attempt to sabotage a presidential election, they will implement the rules that Google and Twitter want in order to silence those with out favor views.

The attempt to say that these rules are for Net Neutrality is nothing but lies and fake news, they are nothing but the groundwork for government's forced control of the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, thank you for understanding it!!!

 

[jarman92]

Umm, you made a big factual error. Fox News is not owned by a massive company, hmmm...WRONG. You are telling me 21st Century Fox is not a "massive" company? You know, the 21st Century Fox (which Disney just bought for $54.2 Billion) that makes the Simpsons, and the WallStreet Journal (common ownership) and TONS of massive hit movies. Not a massive company at all...except the exact opposite.

Disney alone is #5 on Forbes Global 200 Regarded Companies, ahead of all the companies you listed:

https://www.forbes.com/top-regarded-companies/list/#tab:rank

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...lds-top-regarded-companies-2017/#55f642466726

21st Century Fox ranked #63, and the companies you listed are not even on the list.:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristi...lds-top-regarded-companies-2017/#55f642466726

Bit of an oversight...I meant that Fox is the only one owned by a corporation that doesn’t also control distribution. Comcast owns MSNBC, Time Warner owns CNN, etc.
But either way that doesn’t change anything about what I said... pretty pedantic response.

 

[Dominicanyor]

Yes..

 

[SRLMJ23]

Bit of an oversight...I meant that Fox is the only one owned by a corporation that doesn’t also control distribution. Comcast owns MSNBC, Time Warner owns CNN, etc.
But either way that doesn’t change anything about what I said... pretty pedantic response.

I apologize. I thought you were saying that 21st Century Fox was not a behemoth of a company. So, my bad on that. I honestly think everything will be fine though! Here is a comparison of each company. I do not really see how you can say they do not own distribution of Fox News though? The Murdoch family own it, they control what comes out of their company.

It might be a bit of jet lag hitting me, so I apologize again if I simply am not understanding how "distribution" works. Though I thought I did.

21st Century Fox
Owner: Rupert Murdoch and other investors on Nasdaq

Based: New York

Employees: 25,600

Chairman and chief executive: Rupert Murdoch

Co-chairman: Lachlan Murdoch

Stock market value: $50bn

Revenue: $27bn

Profit: $7.3bn

Owns:

• Fox News, and Fox Movie channel and a range of television stations which claim to reach 37% of US households. Makes the Simpsons, Modern Family, 24, Glee

National Geographic channel, Big Ten Network, STAR India which has 44 channels in seven languages.

• TV production company Shine makes MasterChef, One Born Every Minute and Minute to Win It.

• Movie studio 20th Century Fox, maker of Life of Pi, Slumdog Millionaire, Fault in Our Stars

• Owns library of films ranging from The Sound of Music to Ice Age and Star Wars films.

• Part-owns Sky Deutschland, Sky Italia and a 39% stake in BSkyB.


Time Warner
Owner: Quoted on New York Stock Exchange

Based: New York

Employees: 34,000

Chairman and chief executive: Jeffrey Bewkes

Stock market value: $62bn

Revenue: $30bn

Profit: $3.6bn

Owns:

• News channel CNN

• Pay television service HBO (Home Box Office) which makes Game of Thrones, True Blood, and Boardwalk Empire

• Cartoon Network

• Movie studio Warner Brothers, maker of Harry Potter, Gravity and the Lego Movie

 

[mudslag]

Competition is great when there is actual competition. In too many parts of the country competition is nonexistent to down right pure bs. Sure some places can get DSL or Sat or Wifi but that in no way equates competition if it's not equal to say cable. In my area, we have Comcast and ATT and DSL. DSL right off the bat loses due to the slow speeds and that only covers half the neighborhood. Att is twice as slow as Comcast, who happens to own all the lines in my area. That's not true competition. It's like that in many parts of the country so arguing that is fine or will save the need for NN is a piss poor argument.

Let's not forget one of the reasons we even needed NN, was comcast forcing Netflix to pay up for access to it's users. Anyone who thinks ISPs wont look at that option again is living with blinders on. With more and more cord cutters these days that will force ISPs to look for that lost revenue elsewhere. Streaming service is on the rise which means more bandwidth use and there is zero reason to think ISPs wont look to recover lost revenue from that anyway they can. Big businesses aren't known for policing themselves in the name of customers. Cable is no longer a need but the net is and ISPs will try to keep profits growing anyway they can.

 

[Dekema2]

This is a prime example of people using their guts (which most of the time are wrong) instead of critical thinking or data. We need to see what the data says before emotionally and irrationally fighting for or against net neutrality.

I wouldn't have expected MacRumors to be so right wing on a bipartisan issue like NN.
Take a look at the studies that can be searched on databases like LexisNexis and lets see how they will make the consumer's lives harder!

 

[SRLMJ23]

Competition is great when there is actual competition. In too many parts of the country competition is nonexistent to down right pure bs. Sure some places can get DSL or Sat or Wifi but that in no way equates competition if it's not equal to say cable. In my area, we have Comcast and ATT and DSL. DSL right off the bat loses due to the slow speeds and that only covers half the neighborhood. Att is twice as slow as Comcast, who happens to own all the lines in my area. That's not true competition. It's like that in many parts of the country so arguing that is fine or will save the need for NN is a piss poor argument.

Let's not forget one of the reasons we even needed NN, was comcast forcing Netflix to pay up for access to it's users. Anyone who thinks ISPs wont look at that option again is living with blinders on. With more and more cord cutters these days that will force ISPs to look for that lost revenue elsewhere. Streaming service is on the rise which means more bandwidth use and there is zero reason to think ISPs wont look to recover lost revenue from that anyway they can. Big businesses aren't known for policing themselves in the name of customers. Cable is no longer a need but the net is and ISPs will try to keep profits growing anyway they can.

Where I live in Central New York, we have only a few options. First and best is Time Warner|Spectrum, second is AT&T, and third is satellite internet but I do not know the name of the company that offers it. For me, I HAVE to get have Spectrum internet because the Condo I live in does not allow any other companies to offer broadband in my building. Kind of BS, however, Spectrum is the best out of these options anyway so that is what I would have got anyway IF I had a CHOICE. I have the top Spectrum internet which is 350/25 for $85 a month. I am a cord cutter so I only have Spectrum's internet. I have used DIRECTV NOW since it came out, and pay $35.00 for the Go Big package because I paid for the Four Months in advance and received a free Apple TV which I just have saved as a backup. I get the free HBO and STARZ for signing up from the start with them and sticking with them. I am testing the DIRECTV NOW Beta App with the Cloud DVR for the Apple TV App in Test Flight and it is good. They definitely need to make the guide more fluid, but the guide does give your more information now. I cannot remember how many hours of Cloud DVR you get, but it seems to be plenty as I have recorded shows, and series of shows and still have 11 hours of DVR left. What I do not like is that when you record something, it only stays in your DVR for a few days and then AT&T/DIRECTV NOW deletes it. That is kind of stupid as the whole point of a DVR is to record and keep for as long as you want. I hope they change that before they release the new version! Anyway, have a good one!

EDIT: Buy cutting the cord, I saved myself about $78.00 a month!

 

[Dekema2]

What they call "freedom of the internet" is really "freedom from paying other people for access to their infrastructure."

Why do you think every media outlet, bar none, are pro NN? It's not because it's a good idea.

ISP telekom companies have had over a decade to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars they had allocated specifically for infrastructure. They didn't!

 

[amegicfox]

net neutrality was pushed by companies like Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple so they would not have to pay for bandwidth and force telecom and end users to assume the cost

they should regulate Facebook, Google and Twitter. these are companies that censure speech they don't like