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

[vipergts2207]

You’ve proven in every reply you’ve posted you don’t understand facts or how people discover them. I’m not going to waste any more time on misguided discussion.

I suggest reading an experimental design textbook. You’ll learn how to use critical thinking and look beyond headlines.

I have a chemistry degree. I have no need to read a textbook on experimental design and critical thinking. The problem here is you’ve come up with a hypothesis, but haven’t actually run the experiment and are using results you don’t actually have to make ‘conclusions’.

Perhaps you can try to explain the 'facts', so that people who have lived through them can refute them. As the forum rules here state, onus is on you to back up your claims.

So by all means, back them up.

BL.

Thank you! All I’ve seen is a bunch of baselsss conjecture and nothing in the way of the ‘facts’ of which he speaks.

 

[macTW]

Perhaps you can try to explain the 'facts', so that people who have lived through them can refute them. As the forum rules here state, onus is on you to back up your claims.

So by all means, back them up.

BL.

Again. Did you even read my first post.

smh maybe instead of an ethicist asking Apple to limit our time on phones, we need a teacher asking Apple to teach us to read.

 

[dukebound85]

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.

You don't quite understand.......ISPs sue any potential competitors because they want to keep their monopoly and behave any way they want.
[doublepost=1516213932][/doublepost]

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

Fox News was not part of the Disney merger.... so no, it is no longer part of 21st century fox and not part of disney

https://www.fastcompany.com/40507942/what-happens-to-fox-news-after-the-disney-fox-merger

 

[macTW]

You don't quite understand.......ISPs sue any potential competitors because they want to keep their monopoly and behave any way they want.

Man the people out here on the forums today... did you even read my post?

To make up an idea and claim it as what will happen is idiotic. Any scenario is plausible under that guise. We need research and data before we can claim what will or won’t happen with net neutrality.

Like what you claimed. Data it happens? Because it likely doesn’t.

 

[dukebound85]

Man the people out here on the forums today... did you even read my post?

To make up an idea and claim it as what will happen is idiotic. Any scenario is plausible under that guise. We need research and data before we can claim what will or won’t happen with net neutrality.

Like what you claimed. Data it happens? Because it likely doesn’t.

Your'e amusing, I'll give you that.

Here is the "data" if you even bothered to be competent in your argument

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...hey-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-accused-of-sabotaging-small-isp-owners-business-1796344688

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Sue-West-Virginia-For-Trying-to-Improve-Competition-139973

How many do you want?

Now where are your "facts"?

 

[bradl]

Again. Did you even read my first post.

smh maybe instead of an ethicist asking Apple to limit our time on phones, we need a teacher asking Apple to teach us to read.

I did. You asked to use critical thinking and see data before posting emotionally. Show us the data.

Even moreso than that, there has been a timeline of incidents where NN was violated, including Congressional intervention (aforementioned Communications Decency Act, passed 22 years ago, which was subsequently struck down).

We have yet to see how what we have said is wrong or emotional. We have provided data. Either refute with data, or retract your statement.

BL.

 

[vipergts2207]

Your'e amusing, I'll give you that.

Here is the "data" if you even bothered to be competent in your argument

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...hey-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

https://gizmodo.com/comcast-accused-of-sabotaging-small-isp-owners-business-1796344688

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Sue-West-Virginia-For-Trying-to-Improve-Competition-139973

How many do you want?

Now where are your "facts"?

I wish I could like this more than once. It’s like he doesn’t know Google exists and can look this stuff up.

 

[SRLMJ23]

You don't quite understand.......ISPs sue any potential competitors because they want to keep their monopoly and behave any way they want.
[doublepost=1516213932][/doublepost]
Fox News was not part of the Disney merger.... so no, it is no longer part of 21st century fox and not part of disney

https://www.fastcompany.com/40507942/what-happens-to-fox-news-after-the-disney-fox-merger

Okay, so I made a mistake. The articles I were reading were either not up to date or the deal has not completely finalized maybe, so they still have it listed as under 21st Century Fox. They still have the 21st Century Fox flag flying outside of their headquarters in NYC. I apologize about posting something wrong, I never like to post something that is not factual. So, sorry everyone.

Edit: What happened to the Wall Street Journal in the deal? Fox News and The WS Journal were corporate "cousins" under common ownership. I am assuming Disney did not want them since they have ABC News?

 

[tgara]

Sucks that the House has so many right wing nut jobs...I find it very hard to believe if the House and Senate managed to pass the CRA bill and send it to Trump’s desk that he wouldn’t sign it.

Not gonna happen. Dream on. lol

Well... 'nut jobs' comment aside, we're fortunate that the Constitution has an app for that! If enough of the House and Senate members vote yes for this it won't matter what the president does. He can sign, ignore or veto. If a veto, the House and Senate just re-vote and overrule him. Yeah for checks and balances. Unfortunately too many times the very people who are supposed to be in charge forget about this little feature.

I don't think this lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Courts are hesitant to overturn decisions by administrative agencies unless there is a good reason (that is the so-called arbitrary and capricious standard). I think the AGs bringing the suit will have a hard time meeting the arbitrary and capricious standard when all the recent FCC action did was return the regulations to the state they were in before 2016 (and those regs were not challenged as far as I know).

In addition, I doubt the current state of votes in the Senate is going anywhere either. The basis of the Senate measure is to overturn the FCC regulations using the Congressional Review Act, where Congress has 60 legislative days to overturn rules issued by an administrative agency. However, any legislation the Senate comes up with must also pass the House and be signed by the President. A tall order.

 

[neliason]

Part of the problem is that the FCC is not only attempting to remove the federal rule regarding net neutrality, but also try to prevent states from establishing their own net neutrality laws in it's place. Does the FCC really have the authority to prevent states filling the void that the federal government vacated? Probably not. Federal supremacy doesn't apply when you're eliminating a federal law. States do have the right to pass laws that aren't in conflict with a federal one.

So this is a states rights issue? That means these Democratic governors are all neo Confederates!

States do have a right to pass laws, but they can’t in areas that are federal jurisdiction. Immigration would be one area. I assume copyright would be another. I could see how this would be as well, but I don’t claim to be an expert or particularly knowledgeable in the law.

 

[lec0rsaire]

This should be a bi-partisan issue. Unfortunately we have corrupt corporate Dems in Congress along with the entirely corrupt GOP. What the FCC did is a complete disgrace.

 

[jarman92]

Well... 'nut jobs' comment aside, we're fortunate that the Constitution has an app for that! If enough of the House and Senate members vote yes for this it won't matter what the president does. He can sign, ignore or veto. If a veto, the House and Senate just re-vote and overrule him. Yeah for checks and balances. Unfortunately too many times the very people who are supposed to be in charge forget about this little feature.

They can override but need a 2/3 majority in both houses, which is essentially impossible right now. It’s much more likely that Trump signs anything placed in front of him than he vetoes and gets overridden.
[doublepost=1516231923][/doublepost]

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

But 21st Century Fox doesn’t own the fiber that their content runs on. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner control essentially all the infrastructure that brings data to our homes. In a very possible dystopian future, Comcast could easily slow or stop Fox content on their network in favor of MSNBC. Fox doesn’t have that ability.

 

[ScottHammet]

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

You're basically arguing that a company *must* invest in infrastructure, and eat the cost of that investment, and do so year after year as consumers like yourself demand more and faster bandwidth. You're talking about billions of dollars in investments, and you appear to be arguing that those companies shouldn't pass those costs back to their customers. I hate to spoil it for you, but businesses don't operate that way. They're selling a product, highly managed photons and electrons, and you're going to have to pay for them if you want them.

 

[vipergts2207]

You're basically arguing that a company *must* invest in infrastructure, and eat the cost of that investment, and do so year after year as consumers like yourself demand more and faster bandwidth. You're talking about billions of dollars in investments, and you appear to be arguing that those companies shouldn't pass those costs back to their customers. I hate to spoil it for you, but businesses don't operate that way. They're selling a product, highly managed photons and electrons, and you're going to have to pay for them if you want them.

First of all, people aren’t complaining about paying for internet access, but rather being price gouged for it due to a lack of competition, many times as a result of actions of the ISPs themselves. Maybe we should also take a look at the profits of these ISPs before we start in with the, ‘oh but won’t somebody think of the poor corporations’ routine.

 

[mudslag]

You're basically arguing that a company *must* invest in infrastructure, and eat the cost of that investment, and do so year after year as consumers like yourself demand more and faster bandwidth. You're talking about billions of dollars in investments, and you appear to be arguing that those companies shouldn't pass those costs back to their customers. I hate to spoil it for you, but businesses don't operate that way. They're selling a product, highly managed photons and electrons, and you're going to have to pay for them if you want them.

My argument is that you can't call sub services competition when it's not equal to other options. I was also pointing out that a tiered service structures is not something that should be ignored as a possible system that ISPs would try. That puts everyone else at a disadvantage. We know Comcast used a option in the past to force more money from Netflix to access to it's customers and NN was put in place to stop such tier type structures. As for infrastructure, a good portion of that was paid for by gov subsidies, which means tax payer dollars. From around mid 90s to late 2000s, the gov has subsidized around 400 billion for infrastructure.

Some towns and cities have even tried to build their own infrastructure but are blocked by state protectionist laws that favor ISPs. Some towns in Colorado are fighting back though. Those are clear examples of ISPs fighting competition. Im all for fair business but fair it must be. Not this nonsense lobby for laws that prevent actual competition so a company essentially walks away with a monopoly. I also get that businesses are looking to make money and that it does cost money to lay down new infrastructure, be it subsidized or not but if you end up screwing over everyone else to make a buck, we end up right where we are now with more people cutting the cord because of the asinine costs. Look at comcast, their surcharges have jumped 241% in 3 yrs. That's just insane.

 

[SRLMJ23]

They can override but need a 2/3 majority in both houses, which is essentially impossible right now. It’s much more likely that Trump signs anything placed in front of him than he vetoes and gets overridden.
[doublepost=1516231923][/doublepost]

But 21st Century Fox doesn’t own the fiber that their content runs on. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner control essentially all the infrastructure that brings data to our homes. In a very possible dystopian future, Comcast could easily slow or stop Fox content on their network in favor of MSNBC. Fox doesn’t have that ability.

Gotcha. Well lets pray that it never gets to the point where cable companies stop broadcasting certain news channels because they do not agree with the politics of that news channel. I do not think cable companies would be so stupid to say drop Fox News, as it has the most viewers out of ALL the news channels. They definitely face massive backlash from Fox News viewers. I mean, remember when tons of people were smashing their Keurig machines because they temporarily stopped advertising for Sean Hannity's show over some bogus claims against Hannity.


"Sean Hannity called for his viewers and radio listeners to "stop smashing your Keurig" machines, after several fans uploaded clips of them destroying the Vermont-based manufacturer's ubiquitous office accessory.

The anti-Keurig protest began when the president of the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America tweeted at the company that Hannity was allegedly defending Alabama Judge Roy Moore (R) and disparaging his accusers.

Hannity replayed tape of the interview to show that MMFA's Angelo Carusone deliberately took him out of context in order to convince advertisers to silence him as a prominent conservative voice.

"Please stop smashing your Keurig coffee machines," Hannity said, adding that he personally owns five of them, and that boycotts are a form of censorship."

EDIT: I forgot to tell you that Fox News must control some of their distribution because they now offer live TV on their Apple TV app, before it was just clips of shows. You obviously have to have a login with a supported cable/satellite company. Or does that not really count as distribution? I suppose they can stop you from being able to stream Fox News over the internet and what not. Lets just pray it never gets to that point in our country!

 

[jdsingle]

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...

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.

You're being logical. That's not allowed on the internet. Please step away from your computer.

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.

This is what drives me nuts about people arguing for ISPs. I wish people would actually take a look at real data (this is a few years old).

http://www.esa.doc.gov/under-secretary-blog/how-much-competition-exists-among-isps

"Net-neutrality" is a term used to disguise government control of internet bandwidth. Under Net-Neutrality, the FCC will determine how much bandwidth Facebook, Twitter, Netflix will enjoy rather than the "filter" of a competitive private sector. This will hurt private innovation but will enrich politicians and government.

Remember, the private sector is armed with money and lots of talent. The public sector however, is armed with money, little talent, and an arsenal of laws and weapons.

Be careful who you trust.

Make sure you don't take your tinfoil cap off when you go to bed tonight.

If the best argument that someone can come up with to oppose net neutrality laws is "nothing is going to change except the law is removed", then what is the point of removing the law?

This. All. Day.

I don't think this lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Courts are hesitant to overturn decisions by administrative agencies unless there is a good reason (that is the so-called arbitrary and capricious standard). I think the AGs bringing the suit will have a hard time meeting the arbitrary and capricious standard when all the recent FCC action did was return the regulations to the state they were in before 2016 (and those regs were not challenged as far as I know).

In addition, I doubt the current state of votes in the Senate is going anywhere either. The basis of the Senate measure is to overturn the FCC regulations using the Congressional Review Act, where Congress has 60 legislative days to overturn rules issued by an administrative agency. However, any legislation the Senate comes up with must also pass the House and be signed by the President. A tall order.

It's good to see so many state AG's coming together on this topic. I agree the courts shouldn't be deciding this. Fortunately, WA state has started marching down its own legislative path. I'm hopeful we don't run into interstate commerce issues. I'm crossing my fingers that it ends up taking years for this to pan out and doubly crossing my fingers that Comcast goes bankrupt.

First of all, people aren’t complaining about paying for internet access, but rather being price gouged for it due to a lack of competition, many times as a result of actions of the ISPs themselves. Maybe we should also take a look at the profits of these ISPs before we start in with the, ‘oh but won’t somebody think of the poor corporations’ routine.

You're telling me that because the government didn't subsidize more than one to three providers in any given area I'm forced to deal with price gouging?!? Mind boggling.

 

[barmann]

It then becomes a question of how much choice do you want to hand to a central authority. The margin between freedom and tyranny is very thin.

No, it is not .
That's just a romantic notion of conspiracy nutters who don't think further than they can spit .
It is the margin between the idea of freedom and anarchy that is very thin .

There are all sorts of tyrannical authority , but there has never been freedom without authority .
There are no magically self controlling societies , or even individuals .

Anarchy, of course, is the absence of rule, which eventually leads to a complete loss of freedom due to rule by the most ruthless .
Hence, the most powerful entities and individuals must be regulated the most, or else only tyranny will trickle down .

That's why no big corporation must get their hands on the internet as such , and must be regulated where it already happened ..

 

[SRLMJ23]

No, it is not .
That's just a romantic notion of conspiracy nutters who don't think further than they can spit .
It is the margin between the idea of freedom and anarchy that is very thin .

There are all sorts of tyrannical authority , but there has never been freedom without authority .
There are no magically self controlling societies , or even individuals .

Anarchy, of course, is the absence of rule, which eventually leads to a complete loss of freedom due to rule by the most ruthless .
Hence, the most powerful entities and individuals must be regulated the most, or else only tyranny will trickle down .

That's why no big corporation must get their hands on the internet as such , and must be regulated where it already happened ..

Here in America it is taught and said that for every freedom we give up we lose forever, hence, we get closer to total government control. Look at the U.S. Patriot Act, we gave up some of our freedoms to help keep our country safe after the horror and shock of 9/11. The NSA can snoop on our phone calls, emails, texts (except iMessages), browsing histories, FaceBook etc. The U.S. Congress literally (last Thursday) just re-approved Section 707 of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which was set to expire later this month. Last Thursday, Congress voted down an effort to reform Section 702, and instead passed a bill that expanded warrantless surveillance of US citizens and foreigners. The newly passed bill reauthorizes Section 702 for six years, long after President Trump’s first term in office will have expired.

The amendment that the House of Representatives shot down would have added significant privacy safeguards to the law, including the requirement that intelligence agents get a warrant in many cases before searching through emails and other digital communications belonging to US citizens. The bill Congress did pass, meanwhile, codifies some of the most troubling aspects of Section 702, according to privacy advocates. The legislation still needs to pass in the Senate, where fewer representatives are interested in significantly reforming the law.

Take a look at China or Russia. They do not have near the freedoms the USA has or even your country Germany, however, there is no anarchy over there. I understand that they are ruled by strict governments that have zero problem killing people that speak out against the communist government in China, or Putin in Russia. They stay in order because of FEAR, not anything else.

I will gladly take living in the United States, where I can speak out against my government all I want and will not be killed or imprisoned. Look at the forum you are on, tons of people everyday come here and say whatever they want about our President or the rest of the government, and they are not being killed. As long as you do not make a THREAT against our President or Government, you are fine. If you do make a threat, you will be investigated by the Secret Service no matter how small the threat is.

 

[VulchR]

... They're selling a product, highly managed photons and electrons, and you're going to have to pay for them if you want them.

I hope someday somebody develops a viable peer-to-peer network that largely bypasses ISP's.