"...the requirement to not block content violated ISPs' First Amendment rights"
To consider a company's amendment rights BEFORE the peoples is... today's world...?
The US Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the net neutrality rules that were introduced in 2015, and which have since been rescinded. The decision [PDF] removes one piece of a jigsaw of legal cases working their way through the law courts that challenge both the 2015 rules – introduced during the Obama …
Even more importantly, if the ISP is allowed to enforce such editorial freedoms over the content running over their network, then they would no longer be allowed to claim the "we don't control the stuff on our network" defense & would immediately shoot themselves in both feet as far as NN is concerned.
If you want common carrier status then you *can not* do anything with said traffic, because the moment you prove you can & do have any such control you no longer qualify for common carrier.
Be careful of the blade you use to cut through counter arguments, it may be the same one the other party uses to slit your throat.
"Be careful of the blade you use to cut through counter arguments, it may be the same one the other party uses to slit your throat."
One of the water authorities on this side of the Atlantic narrowly dodged such a blade when they tried to press ownership of rainwater being collected off of people's roofs. They started to argue that they owned and were responsible for all the water that fell out of the sky, in the streams and rivers and to the sea (and were quite strangely being egged on in these claims by the other side) before one of the company barristers realised that prevailing on that claim would be painting a big FAT target on them, turning the water company into a sitting duck for unlimited liability claims over flood damage, etc.
At that point the water companies quickly folded their tent, vacated all claims on rainwater collecting and got the hell out of the courtroom.
One FCC commissioner just said
"Municipal broadband networks have engaged in significant First Amendment mischief,"
""Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or 'threatening'."
Kavanaugh said that forbidding telco to do the same (this time for pure profit reasons) violates the same Amendment.
Maybe they should talk to each other first, preferably when they are sober?
the only 'nonsense' was Pai's decision not to publish them.
Federal rules only come into force a certain time after they're published in the Federal Register, unless in that publication they're given an even later start date.
Pai chose to hold off publishing them, and then set a later start date than the minimum required, which put the start date in June.
However, they are, and always will be '2017 rules', as that's when they were passed. If he'd chosen to set an effective date of 2021, you wouldn't call them the 2021 rules, would you? And in the same way, we refer to the 2005 rules, the 2010 rules that superseded them, and the 2015 rules, based entirely on their date of passing, rather than their effective start date.
I’m bored of morons like you who try to assert control over the development of the English language by insisting on the use of archaic forms while railing against modern usage. Get over yourself, you don’t own English and your opinions about what is or isn’t correct usage have about as much value as the opinion of any other self-important twat.
"The Internet Monopoly.
As of December 2016, more than 129 million Americans have only one option for broadband internet service in their area – equating to about 40 percent of the country.
Out of these 129 million customers, about 52 million are forced into obtaining internet from known Net Neutrality violators."
the idiotic defence of removing net neutrality in the US will have a massive knock on effect on the rest of the planet that quite frankly opposes giving ISP total control of what they allow on their networks and throttle users unless they pay a fee for faster speeds. Total open internet is what this world needs and the right to decide for ourselves what we want to view and how fast we view it.
Anyone against open internet and likes the idea of ISPs gaining control over premium speed services should be ashamed of themselves and need culling right now!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019