Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
- Brantly B.
- Woah Dangsaurus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
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.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
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.
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.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
"Stealing IP" is a nonsense phrase.
but thad what about that time you went and recruited MCE because they were stealing your IP
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Pai is blaming it on a subordinate. Party of personal responsibility!
- Brantly B.
- Woah Dangsaurus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
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.
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.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21397
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
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.
- beatbandito
- Posts: 4314
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:04 am
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
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:
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.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Ajit Pai wins (and loses) in court as net neutrality repeal is mostly upheld
The court upholds the repeal, but says Pai has to go back and come up with a better justification for it. Crucially, it rejects the preemption claims -- the FCC can't institute a blanket ban on state NN laws, states can pass their own NN laws and if the FCC wants to stop them, it has to sue them individually.
California has agreed not to enforce its NN law until the litigation is finished -- that includes the aforementioned requirement that Pai submit new justifications, then a possible appeal to the full court and then the Supreme Court.
Why Ajit Pai’s “unhinged” net neutrality repeal was upheld by judges
The judges basically acknowledge that Pai's reasoning is complete horseshit, but their hands are tied by Supreme Court precedent. They're obligated to defer to the FCC's classification decisions. This means the odds that they'll reject Pai's next round of justifications and throw out the repeal after all are slim; he doesn't have to come up with good justifications; half-assed ones will probably do. Which is lucky for him, because there are no good justifications.
The court upholds the repeal, but says Pai has to go back and come up with a better justification for it. Crucially, it rejects the preemption claims -- the FCC can't institute a blanket ban on state NN laws, states can pass their own NN laws and if the FCC wants to stop them, it has to sue them individually.
California has agreed not to enforce its NN law until the litigation is finished -- that includes the aforementioned requirement that Pai submit new justifications, then a possible appeal to the full court and then the Supreme Court.
Why Ajit Pai’s “unhinged” net neutrality repeal was upheld by judges
The judges basically acknowledge that Pai's reasoning is complete horseshit, but their hands are tied by Supreme Court precedent. They're obligated to defer to the FCC's classification decisions. This means the odds that they'll reject Pai's next round of justifications and throw out the repeal after all are slim; he doesn't have to come up with good justifications; half-assed ones will probably do. Which is lucky for him, because there are no good justifications.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
In news that is as infuriating as it is unsurprising: brobdingnagiest ISPs paid for 8.5 million fake FCC comments opposing net neutrality
Motherfuckers appear to have managed enough plausible deniability to avoid being sanctioned for it, which is the most infuriating part of all. Every single ISP that put money into this scheme should have its assets seized and nationalized. I'm not exaggerating or engaging in hyperbole here; not only is that exactly what I think should happen, it's just the first step of what I think should happen. The next step is breaking up the telecom companies that own them.
The lack of evidence that broadband companies "had direct knowledge of fraud" means that the AG "has not found that they violated New York law," the report said. "That said, red flags were ignored by the campaign organizers and the way that they conducted their campaign—hiding the broadband industry's involvement, relying on lead generators that used commercial incentives to lure people to comment, and paying dubious vendors for volume rather than quality—is troubling and raises important policy questions."
Motherfuckers appear to have managed enough plausible deniability to avoid being sanctioned for it, which is the most infuriating part of all. Every single ISP that put money into this scheme should have its assets seized and nationalized. I'm not exaggerating or engaging in hyperbole here; not only is that exactly what I think should happen, it's just the first step of what I think should happen. The next step is breaking up the telecom companies that own them.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
I'm just going to keep saying "we're in a Information War" right up till the point the fucking nukes come down.
"Okay, now we're in aaaa --" *vaporized*
"Okay, now we're in aaaa --" *vaporized*
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Net neutrality-adjacent topic: if you want to tell the FCC how you feel about data caps, there's a form for that.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests