Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

User avatar
Brentai
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Brentai » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:44 pm

Having watched the video where he stole IP before it got taken down for having stolen IP, I'm pretty sure Ajit Pai's motivation isn't greed but sheer malice and spite. He simply hates the internet.
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Thad » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:38 pm

Man, why you gotta put me in a position where I have to defend Ajit Pai?

His terrible video was fair use. The DMCA takedown was abusive. "Stealing IP" is a nonsense phrase.

The legal justification for repealing net neutrality is shaky. The legal justification for the transformative use of a small excerpt of a copyrighted work in a noncommercial context is a lot firmer. There is no "unless it sucks" exemption in fair use analysis.

User avatar
Friday
Posts: 2848
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm
Location: A user of Sosuns

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Friday » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:59 pm

"Stealing IP" is a nonsense phrase.


but thad what about that time you went and recruited MCE because they were stealing your IP
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Büge
Posts: 2995
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Büge » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:33 pm

Image


User avatar
Thad
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Thad » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:21 am

Pai is blaming it on a subordinate. Party of personal responsibility!

User avatar
Brentai
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Brentai » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:22 pm

Ars: Verizon throttled fire department’s “unlimited” data during Calif. wildfire

Best to just read all the correspondence laid out in the article. The number of bait-and-switches, blatant deceptions and bluntly shaking down firefighters is quite a piece of work. This is what Verizon will do to our best. Anybody who thinks they're going to get the better end of it is delusional.
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 12075
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mongrel » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:57 pm

Brentai wrote:Ars: Verizon throttled fire department’s “unlimited” data during Calif. wildfire

Best to just read all the correspondence laid out in the article. The number of bait-and-switches, blatant deceptions and bluntly shaking down firefighters is quite a piece of work. This is what Verizon will do to our best. Anybody who thinks they're going to get the better end of it is delusional.

Crassus would be proud.
Image


User avatar
Thad
Posts: 6462
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Thad » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:04 am

The DC Circuit heard oral arguments in the (first) lawsuit against the FCC for overturning net neutrality today. Here's a headline for you: FCC struggles to convince judge that broadband isn’t “telecommunications”

That's one of the things that's been kind of astonishing about this whole exercise: for all that the FCC's Republican majority in general, and Pai in particular, took control with the express purpose of overturning NN...they don't actually seem to have put any thought whatsoever into actually legally justifying the decision. They did an incredibly unpopular thing, told easily-disproven lies about multiple irregularities in the comment period, stonewalled FOIA requests...and now they're being sued for it and haven't managed to come up with a better justification for claiming ISPs are information services than "because they include DNS and caching." (Oh, okay. So if I'm using a third-party DNS and a VPN, does that make my ISP a telecom service?)

And of course there's the most half-assed and easily disproven justification of all:

[FCC General Counsel Thomas] Johnson also had trouble explaining why the FCC claimed that net neutrality rules were harming broadband investment, given that broadband providers themselves told investors that the rules did no such thing.

Johnson called those statements to investors "ambiguous." [Judge Patricia] Millett was not convinced.

"What is ambiguous about, 'it's not going to affect us, we're going to keep going ahead [with investment],'" Millett asked. Statements to investors "have to be true," she continued. "It's almost like someone doing something under oath. That's pretty good evidence, if there's a penalty if they're lying or even engaging in misleading puffery."

As Millett pointed out, publicly traded companies are required to give investors accurate financial information, including a description of risk factors involved in investing in the company.

Johnson said the FCC relied on "comments by Charter and Cox that they were stopping work on projects on account of the Title II [net neutrality] order," and similar statements made by small ISPs.

Johnson did not mention that Charter increased broadband capital investment in 2017 while net neutrality rules were in place, and is decreasing capital spending now that the rules have been repealed.

Johnson argued that increasing broadband competition will prevent harms to consumers. Millett pointed out that the increase in competition cited by the FCC occurred while net neutrality rules were in effect.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests