Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   It will be up to the courts to save net neutrality   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Scary, net neutrality, Mr. Pai, Network neutrality, net neutrality protections, basic net neutrality, net neutrality rules, Madison River, internet application Vonage  
•       •       •

2286 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2017 at 12:28 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-22 10:58:57 PM  
How can the Courts force the FCC to regulate something?
 
2017-11-22 11:24:56 PM  

feckingmorons: How can the Courts force the FCC to regulate something?


Because there's already a precedent in favor of Vonage. Also, FTFA:

As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action." Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong.

Guess who would ultimately decide if the justification were strong enough.
 
2017-11-22 11:28:04 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,


They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.
 
2017-11-22 11:39:11 PM  

feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.


Drink it. It'll give you superpowers.
 
2017-11-22 11:41:15 PM  

dv-ous: feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.

Drink it. It'll give you superpowers.


Obama's rules have been in place since 2015.  Net Neutrality has been around for 30+ years.
 
2017-11-22 11:53:31 PM  

feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.


The speed limit laws in my town changed last year. Your point? Most of our laws are based on older principles. Same-sex marriage wasn't achieved through legislation. It was a SCOTUS decision, even though a previous SCOTUS decision upheld a ban on same-sex marriage years before. You already know this stuff.

I'd like to think that we're progressing as a society most of the time, and then I see that some people will disingenuously tie themselves into knots to defend things they don't like.
 
2017-11-23 12:13:19 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-23 12:14:58 AM  
We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.
 
2017-11-23 12:15:55 AM  
Watching anyone on the internet argue against Net Neutrality is farking sadlarious.
Looking at you, he whose screen name makes more sense in the singular.
 
2017-11-23 12:24:35 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.

The speed limit laws in my town changed last year. Your point? Most of our laws are based on older principles. Same-sex marriage wasn't achieved through legislation. It was a SCOTUS decision, even though a previous SCOTUS decision upheld a ban on same-sex marriage years before. You already know this stuff.

I'd like to think that we're progressing as a society most of the time, and then I see that some people will disingenuously tie themselves into knots to defend things they don't like.


They weren't laws. They're regulations. Much different implementation. I'm quite happy to let the Courts decide, but I simply don't see how that can require an Executive Agency regulate something.

Same Sex marriage and if your ISP can throttle videos from Netflix are really not equivalent. One was about equality, the other is about whether 'the internet' is a utility (as it currently is) or a common carrier (like POTS phone service). Utilities like cable and ISPs are significantly less regulated than landline phone service.

Common carriers are highly regulated, remember common carrier laws started for trains, it wasn't until about 1930 that they applied to stuff like telephones and telegraphs. Heck you can even think of a greyhound bus as a common carrier (it is) it has to serve all people who show up, it can't deny tickets to short people for example, it has to offer the same seat at the same price to everyone (of course it can have sales), it has to follow all the other regulations.

Net Neutrality changed the scene so that ISPs were treated like telephone company common carriers, now those regulations are being rolled back.
I'm a big fan of fewer regulations.
 
2017-11-23 12:32:23 AM  
s2.quickmeme.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-23 12:33:06 AM  

fusillade762: We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.


We're not wedded to one ISP. Regulation stifles innovation. With net neutrality rolled back innovation will drive alternate internet connictivity to our phones, or fttp with shallow trenching (like google fiber they dig a 6 inch deep , 3/4 inch wide strip down the street and lay the fiber to the house) , global satellite broadband, MIFI, municipal wifi, and other methods of access.

Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.
 
2017-11-23 12:33:19 AM  

fusillade762: We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.


Don't forget that the evil fake news organization of CNN is owned by Time Warner.
 
2017-11-23 12:34:03 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: Watching anyone on the internet argue against Net Neutrality is farking sadlarious.
Looking at you, he whose screen name makes more sense in the singular.


Why do you think it is bad? Why do you think internet service should be treated as a common carrier?
 
2017-11-23 12:34:08 AM  
 
2017-11-23 12:34:16 AM  

feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.

The speed limit laws in my town changed last year. Your point? Most of our laws are based on older principles. Same-sex marriage wasn't achieved through legislation. It was a SCOTUS decision, even though a previous SCOTUS decision upheld a ban on same-sex marriage years before. You already know this stuff.

I'd like to think that we're progressing as a society most of the time, and then I see that some people will disingenuously tie themselves into knots to defend things they don't like.

They weren't laws. They're regulations. Much different implementation. I'm quite happy to let the Courts decide, but I simply don't see how that can require an Executive Agency regulate something.

Same Sex marriage and if your ISP can throttle videos from Netflix are really not equivalent. One was about equality, the other is about whether 'the internet' is a utility (as it currently is) or a common carrier (like POTS phone service). Utilities like cable and ISPs are significantly less regulated than landline phone service.

Common carriers are highly regulated, remember common carrier laws started for trains, it wasn't until about 1930 that they applied to stuff like telephones and telegraphs. Heck you can even think of a greyhound bus as a common carrier (it is) it has to serve all people who show up, it can't deny tickets to short people for example, it has to offer the same seat at the same price to everyone (of course it can have sales), it has to follow all the other regulations.

Net Neutrality changed the scene so that ISPs were treated like telephone company common carriers, now those regulations are being rolled back.
I'm a big fan of fewer regulations.


"Fewer regulations" is a dumb thing to be a fan of. "Fewer unnecessary regulations" I can get behind, but some regulations are absolutely a good thing to have, and simply taking the stance that removing regulations is de facto a good thing obfuscates that. Sometimes getting rid of a regulation is a very, very bad thing.
 
2017-11-23 12:34:17 AM  
Obligatory
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-23 12:35:15 AM  

feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.


(Jon Stewart's voice): "Yeah, that's bullshiat."
 
2017-11-23 12:35:17 AM  

feckingmorons: fusillade762: We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.

We're not wedded to one ISP. Regulation stifles innovation. With net neutrality rolled back innovation will drive alternate internet connictivity to our phones, or fttp with shallow trenching (like google fiber they dig a 6 inch deep , 3/4 inch wide strip down the street and lay the fiber to the house) , global satellite broadband, MIFI, municipal wifi, and other methods of access.

Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.


Net Neutrality did absolutely nothing to stifle innovation.  In fact, it helped create an atmosphere where innovation was easier.
 
2017-11-23 12:36:24 AM  

Delta1212: "Fewer regulations" is a dumb thing to be a fan of. "Fewer unnecessary regulations" I can get behind, but some regulations are absolutely a good thing to have, and simply taking the stance that removing regulations is de facto a good thing obfuscates that. Sometimes getting rid of a regulation is a very, very bad thing.


OK, you're right I should have put fewer unneeded regulations. I think treating broadband like a common carrier is unneeded regulation.
 
2017-11-23 12:37:25 AM  

Delta1212: feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: feckingmorons: ecmoRandomNumbers: Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures,

They've been in place since 2015. I have salad dressing older than net neutrality.

The speed limit laws in my town changed last year. Your point? Most of our laws are based on older principles. Same-sex marriage wasn't achieved through legislation. It was a SCOTUS decision, even though a previous SCOTUS decision upheld a ban on same-sex marriage years before. You already know this stuff.

I'd like to think that we're progressing as a society most of the time, and then I see that some people will disingenuously tie themselves into knots to defend things they don't like.

They weren't laws. They're regulations. Much different implementation. I'm quite happy to let the Courts decide, but I simply don't see how that can require an Executive Agency regulate something.

Same Sex marriage and if your ISP can throttle videos from Netflix are really not equivalent. One was about equality, the other is about whether 'the internet' is a utility (as it currently is) or a common carrier (like POTS phone service). Utilities like cable and ISPs are significantly less regulated than landline phone service.

Common carriers are highly regulated, remember common carrier laws started for trains, it wasn't until about 1930 that they applied to stuff like telephones and telegraphs. Heck you can even think of a greyhound bus as a common carrier (it is) it has to serve all people who show up, it can't deny tickets to short people for example, it has to offer the same seat at the same price to everyone (of course it can have sales), it has to follow all the other regulations.

Net Neutrality changed the scene so that ISPs were treated like telephone company common carriers, now those regulations are being rolled back.
I'm a big fan of fewer regulations.

"Fewer regulations" is a dumb thing to be a fan of. "Fewer unnecessary regulations" I can get behind, but some regulations are absolutely a good thing to have, and simply taking the stance that removing regulations is de facto a good thing obfuscates that. Sometimes getting rid of a regulation is a very, very bad thing.


Government regulations aren't the only kind.  Given the power, private companies are going to regulate the internet within an inch of its life
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-23 12:40:51 AM  
A few things. One, the courts have been slapping down the travel ban with fantastic speed, so there's that. Two, I get very skeptical when people think deregulation is magic.

Because I worked nuclear power then nuclear waste. When people talk about deregulation, they strangely are never talking about us. The omnipotent powers of the free market triumphing over regulation are apparently null and void if you work with something 'scary' that most don't understand.

Deregulation just means "you're shaving a nickel off the dollar I'm making and frankly I can't stand for it, I don't care what that nickel is for."
 
2017-11-23 12:43:41 AM  
Don't know about that scary tag. The article sounded quite hopeful that a legal challenge would be successful.

"...So drastic is the reversal of policy (if, as expected, the commission approves Mr. Pai's proposal next month), and so weak is the evidence to support the change, that it seems destined to be struck down in court.

"The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason, such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn't enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must 'examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.' Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong.

"It isn't. In fact, it's very weak..."
 
2017-11-23 12:43:46 AM  

feckingmorons: Markoff_Cheney: Watching anyone on the internet argue against Net Neutrality is farking sadlarious.
Looking at you, he whose screen name makes more sense in the singular.

Why do you think it is bad? Why do you think internet service should be treated as a common carrier?


Let me turn that around on you: How do you think rolling back the regulation will help consumers?


feckingmorons: We're not wedded to one ISP


I am. Where I live it's Comcast or nothing.
 
2017-11-23 12:43:47 AM  

feckingmorons: fusillade762: We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.

We're not wedded to one ISP. Regulation stifles innovation. With net neutrality rolled back innovation will drive alternate internet connictivity to our phones, or fttp with shallow trenching (like google fiber they dig a 6 inch deep , 3/4 inch wide strip down the street and lay the fiber to the house) , global satellite broadband, MIFI, municipal wifi, and other methods of access.

Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.


Most Americans don't have other options for broadband. As for rolling back Net Neutrality spurring innovation, we already know that's a crock of shiat since the companies have already told their shareholders (who they are legally required to tell the truth to) that NN had no effect on investment.
#s3gt_translate_tooltip_mini { display: none !important; }
 
2017-11-23 12:44:29 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: Watching anyone on the internet argue against Net Neutrality is farking sadlarious.
Looking at you, he whose screen name makes more sense in the singular.


It's like he's deliberately being factually wrong on every post.
 
2017-11-23 12:44:47 AM  
Remember aereo, that service that was going to let you watch local TV over the internet. Everyone would have their own tiny antenna in a giant block of antennas (a silly format made necessary by regulations) and you could be anywhere and watch it on your device.

Their idea was that you could watch TV gathered by 'your' antenna on any device at any time. It was the same as over the air programming they just pushed it to you over IP rather than coax or copper wires to your antenna on your TV. Seems reasonable, right?

Well nope, the court eventually decided they were a cable system. So they flipped their model, said they were a cable system and as such must be granted license by all the TV stations and broadcasters as any other cable company is. That didn't fly either so they shut down. The Court said your TV antennas, then your a cable company, but you can't actually act like either.

So now if you get crappy reception with your rabbit ears you have to get cable because Aereo is not allowed to operate because, regulations.

Regulation stifles innovation.
 
2017-11-23 12:46:04 AM  

feckingmorons: Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.


So you know they've throttled, but you think they'll innovate.
 
2017-11-23 12:47:10 AM  

feckingmorons: fusillade762: We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.

We're not wedded to one ISP. Regulation stifles innovation. With net neutrality rolled back innovation will drive alternate internet connictivity to our phones, or fttp with shallow trenching (like google fiber they dig a 6 inch deep , 3/4 inch wide strip down the street and lay the fiber to the house) , global satellite broadband, MIFI, municipal wifi, and other methods of access.

Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.


Imagine if when car shopping you had to consider which car companies in the area owned the roads. Perhaps your in a Ford town, all the roads in the city are owned by Ford. Sure, you can drive a Toyota on them, but you gotta pay the $10 a day Toyota Tax to do so. Also the speed limit for Toyotas is 10mph slower than Fords, and Toyotas aren't allowed to park on city steets or fill their gas tanks more than once a month.

Now you say, "Toyota can just build their OWN roads! let the free market decide!"

But of course, the realities of city planning means there is simply no room for new roads, and no NEW car company could ever raise the capital needed to buy out the existing Ford Road system. They are forever at a competative disadvantage, their cars will always be subject to the whims of the Ford Road system and it's ever oppressive fee's for access. No startup company will thrive under these conditions.

If at any point in that scenario you go "Jesus, that sound's awful!", you support Net Neutrality.
 
2017-11-23 12:47:51 AM  
This is just another case of dancing around the real issue, lobbying and corruption of government through money in politics. We need to stop focusing on the consequences of the problem and figure out a way to fix the root issue.
 
2017-11-23 12:49:40 AM  
So, the courts are now going to save us?
*Checks current SCOTUS make-up*
Not so much
 
2017-11-23 12:51:46 AM  
Fark off with the innovation talking point already. Americans pay more for inferior internet speeds compared to well over a dozen countries with the exact same-and more-regulations in place.
 
2017-11-23 12:52:57 AM  

Relatively Obscure: feckingmorons: Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.

So you know they've throttled, but you think they'll innovate.


Forget it Jake, it's Libertariantown
 
2017-11-23 12:53:59 AM  

fusillade762: We just need to remind all the Trumpers that Comcast (which owns MSNBC) will be able to block/throttle Fox, Infowars, Deadbart, etc.


Except they'll just buyout MSNCB and make Rachel Maddow give a public statement to the effect that she gargles Trump's hairy nuts and that aside from his balls, everything that's ever come out of her mouth has been a lie.

And she'll do it, because she's under contract.
 
2017-11-23 12:54:49 AM  
That's why they are loading the courts with judges who don't care about the law, or precedent... just who pays the most through the hidden back door.
 
2017-11-23 12:55:51 AM  
Bye Bye Net Neutrality - The Everly Brothers
 
2017-11-23 01:04:33 AM  

fusillade762: How do you think rolling back the regulation will help consumers?


My phone data speed in certain parts of Largo is 453 Mbps. My home cable tops out at 100 Mbps (as if I ever see better than 80). Largo has some test towers for T-Mobile 5G or LTE or whatever they are calling it. That innovation is funded because they think I will pay for it.

If I can get my phone to be as fast as my cable modem then why would I keep both? TMobile wants my money as does Spectrum. TMobile is innovating, Spectrum is not, hoping to remain in the common carrier silo.

If TMobile can make lots more money doing it, then someone else will come in and try to get my money another way. Direct point to point wireless back to an ISP, WLANs, all sorts of things will be developed to compete for our money ... money we're going to pay anyway.

We might even have a choice of ISPs again. 20 years ago we could choose which dialup internet service we wanted, perhaps in the near future we could decide which broadband provider - all offering good service and competitive prices we want. We got ISDN, DSL, Cable Modem, Mobile Broadband because dial up was so great. Oh wait, no because dial up sucked so they developed new technologies, largely unfettered from common carrier regulations, that is leaps and bounds better than where were were in 1997.

Sorry, this would have been up 8 minutes ago if Spectrum didn't do something every night a 5 to midnight so I lose all connectivity for a few minutes. Really.
 
2017-11-23 01:04:34 AM  
Trump's only legacy will be staffing the federal courts with insane pro-business Dominionists...

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-23 01:06:02 AM  

backhand.slap.of.reason: Except they'll just buyout MSNCB and make Rachel Maddow give a public statement to the effect that she gargles Trump's hairy nuts and that aside from his balls, everything that's ever come out of her mouth has been a lie.

And she'll do it, because she's under contract.


Pretty sure her contract doesn't work that way.
 
2017-11-23 01:06:40 AM  

Relatively Obscure: feckingmorons: Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.

So you know they've throttled, but you think they'll innovate.


They already did, ATT is losing market share to TMO with it's unlimited data. TMO degrades Netflix (but gives it to you for free) to make it about to serve more customers with existing infrastructure. The degradation isn't noticeable on a phone or tablet so I'm not worried about it.
 
2017-11-23 01:08:55 AM  
Just wait till ad companies pay to have their content loaded faster than the pages they're hosted on. Or maybe isps will preload ads so every page is a 5 second commercial.
 
2017-11-23 01:13:31 AM  
Online gaming ultimate pay to win you get 1 ping everyone else 100+
 
2017-11-23 01:21:18 AM  

Virulency: Just wait till ad companies pay to have their content loaded faster than the pages they're hosted on. Or maybe isps will preload ads so every page is a 5 second commercial.


They're evil enough. They don't need your help with ideas. Thanks.
 
2017-11-23 01:26:03 AM  

feckingmorons: How can the Courts force the FCC to regulate something?


I see that this thread needs to become acquainted with the most important branch of federal law that no one but lawyers knows about! (tm)

Admin Law

Otherwise known as the law concerning how government agencies should function.  The most important source of Admin law is the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act.

What this article is discussing is the fact that the important question here is HOW the FCC regulates, not what regulation decision it makes.  Agencies are required to only change long standing policy for actual reasons (i.e. we learned those policies didnt work, or technology has shifted, or we ran out of money and sold all the national parks to Dubai).  The one thing an agency is not allowed to do is actin in an "arbitrary and capricious" fashion - i.e. changing shiat because politics say so, or the commissioner hates mexicans, or what have you.  In admin law, there are no dirtier words than "arbitrary" and "capricious."  its basically like if the C word and the N word F'd each other in the A.  

The challenge to this reg change will basically be: "hey, under the APA you need to follow a series of protocols for changing long standing regulatory policy, and you need to provide rationales for said policy changes.  You didn't do those things and your changes were clearly arbitrary and capricious."

And for all those who say: well the SCOTUS is in the pocket of big business so this will never fly, my one rebuttal would be that the majority of Justices on the court right now are DEEP APA wonks, and the one thing the Court  (and businesses) hate is when the federal agencies go off the reservation.  The jurisprudentially conservative position is to always slap down proactive agencies (see the right side of the court's love affair with hating on the EPA).  I can easily see a world where both sides gang up on the FCC for basically throwing the playbook out the window to fark up the internet.   

/law is like tantric sex: the most important thing is proper process, not end results
 
2017-11-23 01:30:51 AM  
feckingmorons:

Regulation stifles innovation.

img.fark.netView Full Size


"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?"
 
2017-11-23 01:32:12 AM  

Teiritzamna: feckingmorons: How can the Courts force the FCC to regulate something?

I see that this thread needs to become acquainted with the most important branch of federal law that no one but lawyers knows about! (tm)

Admin Law

Otherwise known as the law concerning how government agencies should function.  The most important source of Admin law is the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act.

What this article is discussing is the fact that the important question here is HOW the FCC regulates, not what regulation decision it makes.  Agencies are required to only change long standing policy for actual reasons (i.e. we learned those policies didnt work, or technology has shifted, or we ran out of money and sold all the national parks to Dubai).  The one thing an agency is not allowed to do is actin in an "arbitrary and capricious" fashion - i.e. changing shiat because politics say so, or the commissioner hates mexicans, or what have you.  In admin law, there are no dirtier words than "arbitrary" and "capricious."  its basically like if the C word and the N word F'd each other in the A.
The challenge to this reg change will basically be: "hey, under the APA you need to follow a series of protocols for changing long standing regulatory policy, and you need to provide rationales for said policy changes.  You didn't do those things and your changes were clearly arbitrary and capricious."

And for all those who say: well the SCOTUS is in the pocket of big business so this will never fly, my one rebuttal would be that the majority of Justices on the court right now are DEEP APA wonks, and the one thing the Court  (and businesses) hate is when the federal agencies go off the reservation.  The jurisprudentially conservative position is to always slap down proactive agencies (see the right side of the court's love affair with hating on the EPA).  I can easily see a world where both sides gang up on the FCC for basically throwing the playbook out the window to fark up the internet.  ...


I've droned on about the APA before, but I don't see an argument that can be made that these regulations can't be rolled back.
 
2017-11-23 01:34:04 AM  

Ringshadow: feckingmorons:

Regulation stifles innovation.

[img.fark.net image 601x600][View Full Size image _x_]

"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?"


We have better bombs than NK
 
2017-11-23 01:36:07 AM  

feckingmorons: Relatively Obscure: feckingmorons: Yes, phone companies have throttled before, ATT wouldn't let you use face time if you had the basic data plan on your phone, you had to pay for more data. So indeed that is a possibility. But I think the innovation and spend by competing companies to get our broadband dollars will benefit from rolling bact the Title II common carrier designation of ISPs.

So you know they've throttled, but you think they'll innovate.

They already did, ATT is losing market share to TMO with it's unlimited data. TMO degrades Netflix (but gives it to you for free) to make it about to serve more customers with existing infrastructure. The degradation isn't noticeable on a phone or tablet so I'm not worried about it.


Has ANY topic unhinged feckingmorons as much as this particular issue?! He's frothing at the mouth on this matter and I can't ever recall him being this PERSISTENT on any other issue.

A major telecom must've gotten in contact with him recently.
 
2017-11-23 01:36:59 AM  
feckingmorons:

We have better bombs than NK

Which were made in hyper-regulated environments, you absolute nonce.

North Korea has no effective regulations.

YOU JUST PROVED ME RIGHT.
 
2017-11-23 01:42:16 AM  
scontent.fsan1-2.fna.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report