U.S. Appeals Court kills net neutrality

[Seshmeister]

You have to admire the self-victimization here:
These 'Title II' rules go far beyond protecting the Open Internet, launching a costly and destructive era of government micromanagement that will discourage private investment in new networks and slow down the breakneck innovation that is the soul of the Internet today."

Breakneck innovation = On average half the speed of Japan and some other Western powers and barely more than Russia and China.

[Kristy]

Either it was on here or somewhere in the somewhere I heard that France was turning obsolete payphones into some sort of FREE WI-Fi stations. In America, that would be considered "socialism."

[FORD]

The less reported story of the week is that the FCC also overturned state laws (passed by industry whores) that prevented cities from establishing their own municipal broadband networks. This could actually be better news than net neutrality itself, in the areas where the local governments decide to go through with it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCC overrules state laws to help cities build out municipal broadband

3-2 vote gives local broadband an important victory
By Chris Welch
February 26, 2015 11:21 am

Before it tackles net neutrality, the FCC is setting a major precedent for municipal broadband: it's just voted to preempt state laws that were preventing two cities from building out their own locally run broadband networks. The decision was prompted by separate petitions from Wilson, North Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee — both cities that've established high-speed, gigabit internet services, but have been barred from expanding to neighboring communities due to existing state laws. So far, 19 states have similar regulations to those that the FCC is overriding in Wilson and Chattanooga, but today's ruling affects only those two specific cases.

Even so, the FCC's 3-2 vote will serve as a landmark moment that other communities will point to as they try to compete against commercial ISPs and knock down those deeply restrictive state laws. "There are a few irrefutable truths about broadband," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ahead of the vote. "One is you can’t say you’re for broadband, and then turn around and endorse limits." The commission has decided that Tennessee and North Carolina are needlessly preventing the "reasonable and timely deployment of high-speed internet access to all Americans," a senior FCC official said during a press call a few weeks ago. It's not hard to see the exact same logic being applied elsewhere when other petitions are brought forward.

If you're wondering where the FCC gets power to make these decisions, it's claiming that states are getting in the way of its authority — granted under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act — to promote the deployment of broadband across the US. Here's how the FCC justified today's action in a press release that followed the successful vote:

Under federal law, a federal agency may preempt state laws that conflict with its regulations or policies so long as it is acting within the scope of its authority. There is a clear conflict, the Order finds, between Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the FCC to take action to remove barriers to broadband investment and competition, and provisions of the Tennessee and North Carolina law that erect barriers to expansion of service into surrounding communities, including unserved and underserved areas.

Unsurprisingly, the cable establishment and entrenched ISPs have lobbied against this becoming a trend, with the opposition (and dissenting commissioners) trying to frame it as an aggressive overreach of the FCC's authority. "We don’t take lightly the matter of preempting state laws," admitted Wheeler. But the chairman made clear this was a situation in which the FCC saw no other choice but to act. "The human faces of those who are condemned to second-rate broadband are a message to all of us."

[FORD]

Just in case anybody was wondering what Glenn BecKKK thought about this issue......

Silly BecKKK....... as an internet ONLY "broadcaster" yourself, you should be the first one to support Net Neutrality. Because without it, your lunatic ramblings would probably be among the first things censored into the "slow lanes" by the likes of Scumcast or Verizon.

[FORD]

And if BecKKK wasn't crazy enough for you.........

Once again, Pat gets his facts completely backward. Apparently he was NOT consulting Jesus this time, because we all know the Lord loves the Internet!

[Seshmeister]

Oh the irony!

Most things are better these days but looking back I do prefer the days when you only had to suffer the mentally ill shouty idiots when you went into the city center on a Saturday and they were talking bullshit into a megaphone as people walked past ignoring them.

[Nitro Express]

Question to the US people.

I get the impression you don't have much choice when it comes to internet providers is that true or is it just a problem in rural areas?

I have a choice of 6 here and the competition has to help.

Quite a few choices if you live in the city. I'm using the cable company. They run fiber optics down the main road so we are on a branch line off of that and not too many houses between us and the trunk line. We aren't paying for the fastest service but I can't complain about the speed.

[Nitro Express]

The thing about these agencies making regulations is the regulations are basically laws. Some of them have a huge impact on society and commerce. Only the US Congress can make laws so I think it needs to go through the congress. We are giving these regulatory agencies the power to make laws and all they should be able to do is enforce the laws that pass the congress and are signed into law. I also don't like this trend of "We have to pass it so you can see it". Sorry put it out publicly and give the public time to read it and no adding anything the last minute.

[Nitro Express]

All these right wing pundits do is whine. Hey if they are so into fighting for it. Ok Rush, Glenn, and Pat. Grab your rifles and lead the charge. No you are just going to sit in your studios, collect big paychecks and whine some more. Toilet paper is more useful than you idiots.

[Nitro Express]

Actually I think healthcare should be treated as a utility. Have price caps on the costs. Do a cost analysis work in a reasonable percentage for a profit margin and cap the costs.

[FORD]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the Information Superhighway........

[FORD]

[Seshmeister]

Think it's going to be fucked this time.

[FORD]

John Oliver tackles net neutrality again, crashes FCC comments site—again

arstechnica.com
John Oliver tackles net neutrality again, crashes FCC comments site—again
Jon Brodkin - 5/8/2017, 8:30 AM
5-7 minutes
Saving net neutrality —
Oliver helps lead protest against dismantling of Title II net neutrality rules.

Comedian John Oliver has once again asked his viewers to fight on behalf of net neutrality, and the Federal Communications Commission website wasn't able to handle the immediate influx of angry comments.

On HBO's Last Week Tonight, Oliver yesterday announced a new URL, gofccyourself.com, that redirects to the FCC proposal to eliminate net neutrality rules. (Clicking "Express" is the easiest way to submit a comment.) The comments website promptly crashed, making it difficult or impossible to file comments last night and this morning. The comments site has started working, but only intermittently.

Oliver first tackled net neutrality in June 2014, causing the FCC comments site to crash. The site struggled again later that year as the net neutrality debate winded down, forcing the commission to extend the comments deadline. The commission's tech team has significantly upgraded the website and back-end systems since then, but the influence of John Oliver was still too much to handle without any downtime.

There are now about 80,000 comments on the proposal, more than double the amount reported on Friday. The previous net neutrality debate drew 4 million comments, but there's still plenty of time to break that record. Right now, comments are being taken on the draft text of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will be voted on May 18. As we've previously written, there will be another three months for public comments after that preliminary vote, and the FCC will make a final decision sometime after that.
John Oliver vs. Ajit Pai and Verizon

When Oliver tackled net neutrality in 2014, he called then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler a "dingo" while the commission debated whether ISPs should be allowed to charge Web services for Internet "fast lanes." Wheeler and his Democratic majority eventually issued rules outlawing paid fast lanes.

Now, the debate is over whether net neutrality rules should exist at all. At a minimum, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, intends to reverse the decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Pai hasn't committed to imposing rules against blocking and throttling, and his proposal suggests that throttling of websites and applications might somehow be good for Internet users.

Pai has also said that net neutrality rules' "days are numbered" and that he intends to bring a "weed whacker" to various FCC regulations.

"'Days are numbered' and 'take a weed whacker' are serial killer talk, so that is pretty ominous," Oliver said. "When the Code of Federal Regulations looks out its window at night, there's just Ajit Pai, standing silently holding his weed whacker waiting for his chance."

Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, May 7, 2017.

Oliver scoffed at the FCC chairman's claim that net neutrality rules have harmed investment. "What he's essentially suggesting there is that as soon as Title II came in, companies said, 'fuck it, investing in infrastructure is way too difficult now, we're not doing it anymore. In fact, pull some of the cable out of the ground, we're going back to the telegraph," Oliver said.

While Pai has pointed to investment research, Oliver said that "infrastructure investment is harder to measure than you may think" and pointed out that ISPs have told investors that the rules do not impact their network investment.

Oliver also disputed Pai's claim that there is no evidence of ISPs interfering with websites and applications. "There are multiple examples of ISP fuckery over the years," Oliver said. "For instance, a few years back, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile at one point shut out Google Wallet from their phones, a product that coincidentally happened to compete with their own mobile payment app," which was called "Isis."

Oliver noted that Pai is a former lawyer for Verizon and showed video of Verizon making the bizarre claim

that the FCC is not talking about eliminating net neutrality rules, that no ISPs have asked the FCC to eliminate net neutrality rules, and that the FCC is simply looking to put the existing rules into a more "enforceable" legal framework outside of Title II. In reality, Verizon sued the FCC

to prevent implementation of net neutrality rules issued without the commission's Title II authority, leading to the FCC's decision to use Title II to enforce net neutrality rules.

"When Verizon claims, 'hey, we love the open Internet but why don't we just put it on a different legal footing,' it's basically O.J. Simpson asking why you won't let him hold any of your samurai swords," Oliver said.

Oliver urged viewers to contact the FCC and tell the commission to preserve net neutrality rules and the Title II authority used to enforce them. He also urged viewers to contact their representatives and senators.

"Every Internet group needs to come together like you successfully did three years ago," Oliver said. "Every subculture must join as one. Gamers, YouTube celebrities, Instagram models, Tom from MySpace if you're still alive. We need all of you, even, and I cannot believe I'm saying this, Donald Trump's Internet fans on sites like 4chan and Reddit, the most powerful online trolls of all. This subject is one of the few things that we actually agree on."

[FORD]