Screw you, ISPs: Net neutrality switches on THIS FRIDAY – US court The US Court of Appeals for the DC circuits has denied a motion to halt the FCC's radical net neutrality rules, meaning they will officially kick in tomorrow. "Petitioners have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review," the three-judge panel noted. The decision is a win for those who believe …
This Ajit Pai opines:
I am pleased that the court did not suggest that the rules are in fact legally valid.
Mr. Ajit Pai is uniquely qualified to be an objective and impartial FCC Commissioner. On his Resume, we note that he got paid very handsomely as an Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc.
Of course, his previous connections to one of the parties litigating against the FCC's Net Neutrality rules has no bearing or influence on his Titanium-clad objectivity or ethical fabric.
Just as Tom Wheeler's previous employment as President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association must have warped his judgment in is present employment as FCC Chairman.
Mr. Pai seems to have held public sector jobs, many of which involved representing the government's position on telecommunication issues, for about 15 of the 18 years since he graduated from law school. About five of them were with the FCC, as against a bit over two years - from 2001 to 2003 - that he spent at Verizon.
Lawyers represent their clients, and Mr. Pai presumably did so at Verizon, the FCC, and other government organizations. There is no more reason to think he supported their position out of personal conviction than there is to think Irving Kanarek defended Charles Manson or Jimmy Lee Smith because he thought they were innocent. Like Wheeler and the other commissioners, he was nominated by the President with some knowledge of his opinions and judgments about what the FCC should do, and confirmed by the Senate based on general knowledge of that.
Being a lawyer, a Federal employee or being nominated by the President is no guarantee that any person is worthy of their position or have a clue about what they speak about.
Patronage and payback jobs come in all flavors and colors. There will be a day when the telcos get what they want, it's just not today.
"Today simply marks the beginning of a protracted legal fight over the legality of the FCC’s takeover of the Internet,"
This is an absolutely amazing statement. ISPs are the recipients of one of the greatest hand-downs by the government. The people (through tax dollars) paid for and delivered the internet so that many companies could get rich on technology which was handed to them free of charge. What BS!
"The people (through tax dollars) paid for and delivered the internet "
Wow. Just wow.
You're saying that the few millions of dollars of Govt spending on infrastructure before 1993 is greater than the billions private companies have spent since 1993? It seems you are.
You really don't help your cause by being a complete bell-end.
Unfortunately, you have no idea of what you are talking about or any history of technology. The government spent more than a "few millions of dollars" on the internet. The government not only funded the initial project of communication between computers (early 60's), but funded many companies, universities, colleges and think tanks throughout the the period (and still does). This is all direct funding. I worked for one of these firms (mesh network technology) and 90% of all out money came from direct military, DOD or NFS grants, but we we were considered a private company. Every under-graduate, graduate and post-doc student in the sciences is usually funded through grants from the government.
If fact the federal and state governments have recently made money available to expand the internet to rural towns by providing infrastructure and cabling to expand fiber outside the major markets. The cable companies would not do this because they would not make enough money for their investment. In my state (Massachusetts) we have a project called 'Broadband 123' in which the government is funding approximately 1,200 miles of fiber-optic network connecting 123 communties in western and north central Massachusetts to high-speed Internet costing $89.7 million. In order to get connect you still go through a cable company in which they charge you for the 'last mile' of the connection and they make the profit.
For those of you outside the US, our appropriation system is too fucked up to explain (frankly, I'm too embarrassed to try) Suffice to say these bills are rarely passed until the fall and lately it is the last act before recess for the holidays, so if this amendment is attached and ends up on the bill that is passed and the president signs, net neutrality will have been law of the land for about six months already.
It may save Comcast and friends eventually, but it isn't going to delay the rule taking effect tomorrow.
"and would also stop the FCC from using any funds to implement its "protecting and promoting the open internet" order"
Question: if the American people kickstarterd a few tens of millions of dollars for the FCC to implement it's "protecting and promoting the open internet" order, would the Congressional fuckwittery still stop it? Can the people fund an agency that protects their ascii in the meantime and betweentime until this is all sorted/
Let's start with cutting the wires at your door. The article is about the USA and OUR laws and ISP's not overseas moron.
Europe has no say over American laws or regulations and we have no say over yours.
Get that straight and things will be a lot simpler. Then your already short attention span will be a closer match to subjects that you can comprehend.
because the Supreme Court will strike it out at the first opportunity it can. The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate internet services: the Telcommunications Act specifically says so. Go get a new Act, and quit posing.
Luckily there is one branch of the US system that Google can't buy.
Yet.
"Today simply marks the beginning of a protracted legal fight over the legality of the FCC’s takeover of the Internet,"
I am still trying to figure out how making the ISP's provide the service the customers pay for without any prejudice is somehow a takeover of the internet. I'm still trying to figure out how making the ISP's provide a service that they always did at one time and allowed the internet to grow to the size it is today until they became greedy is somehow a takeover of the internet.
This is why I hate politicians. They all screw you. The Republicans bow to their corporate overlords. The Democrats rob everyone, except themselves and their buddies, to buy votes. The end result is we are screwed.
People don't understand that this is an attempt to protect ISP customers from the unregulated rules of the ISPs.
Without these rules the company down the street can buy 60% of the bandwidth leaving everyone in your small town to share the remaining %40 because the ISP doesn't want to cut into their profits to lay down more lines. (under these rules everyone's traffic is equal, and if they want to sell a quality of service they have to invest in expanding the bandwidth for everyone)
Without these rules there is nothing to keep every ISP between a small upstart and their customers from throttling their traffic unless they give them a cut. (or Facebook, imagine Facebook being charged for the bandwidth you are already paying for or else they get blocked from sending it to you)
Without these rules there is nothing that says they even have to give that small upstart a chance to pay, they could just block their competing services outright.
Without these rules there is nothing that would keep the ISPs from throttling or outright blocking any kind of traffic that they don't like. The ISP is not a government agency and can do what they like without rules. (and if there is only one ISP in your area then I guess you don't really have a choice)
Without rules the ISPs will continue to merge until we have only one choice, and then your internet will be in whatever shape they choose for you. (They only merely collude to give you one choice now by not "expanding" into areas controlled by each other)
Without rules there will be no reason to ever expand bandwidth (aka cutting into profits), because whatever the bandwidth is now can simply be cut up into smaller and smaller packages, and once bandwidth is scarce they can charge whatever they want)
People are fighting against their own best interests because they are scared of "the gubberment", but they don't realize that at least in FCC government control they have a chance to have decisions made in their best interests, but in private hands, the choice legally will have to be whatever makes the ISP more money. (it is the legal requirement for a company to make decisions in the best interest of shareholders over customers in all cases)
Why can't people understand this?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
