SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The FCC's order to overturn net neutrality protections was officially published in the Federal Register today and soon thereafter, the attorneys general of 22 states and Washington DC filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC's order. The coalition filed a suit earlier this year, but agreed last week to withdraw it until the FCC published the order, Reuters reports. "Today, the FCC made official its illegal rollback of net neutrality -- and, as promised, our coalition of attorneys general is filing suit," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "Consumers and businesses in New York and across the country have the right to a free and open internet, and our coalition of attorneys general won't stop fighting to protect that right."
[...] The attorneys general say in their complaint that the FCC's order was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act." They also say it violates federal law and conflicts with the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. They're asking the court to vacate the order.
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/22/23-attorneys-general-challenge-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal/
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @08:12PM (7 children)
When exactly was this fictitious time to which you refer?
Telecoms were historically required to pass all "traffic" (phone calls, telgrams, etc.) without interference under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (as amended numerous times). This was extended to internet traffic as the Internet burgeoned.
In 2002 (cable) and 2005 (other telecom ISPs), The Bush (the younger) administration's FCC reclassified ISPs under Title I, removing those requirements.
It's instructive to note that after 2005, the rate of net infrastructure development by ISPs (notwithstanding the US$100 Billion in grants/subsidies for those ISPs during that time) actually slowed.
The Obama FCC tried (with the ISPs fighting tooth and nail) to right that wrong. And now the Trump FCC is licking ISP boots again.
I hear what you're saying, but it's important to include historical context if one wishes to understand the current situation.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Friday February 23 2018, @08:46PM (6 children)
So after asking when this time was, you turn around and show exactly when this time was. Good job.
Actually, you've shown no source for the 2005 slowdown in infrastructure development, at least none that was not due to the general economic downturn of that era. Carrying an umbrella does not cause rain.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @11:26PM (3 children)
Nope. I didn't.
However, the search engine of your choice should give you all the information you need to confirm it.
Did you have anything that actually adds value, or do you just want to be contrary.
Either way, carry on. Perhaps we'll get the former now that you've shared the latter.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:47AM (2 children)
Now that Google has reneged on "Don't Be Evil" I make a point of not saying "Google it". Rather I say the far-more cumbersome "Use the search engine of your choise"
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:33PM
"search that shit"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:59PM
'Evil-Search it' is moderately more compact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:00AM
ISPs did violate net neutrality on numerous occasions. [freepress.net] I'm not sure why people think that was ever a time when we didn't need net neutrality. It also amazes me that some people think that ISPs are spending massive amounts of money lobbying to overturn net neutrality regulations just because they want to respect net neutrality anyway; that's ludicrous. Of course ISPs plan to take actions that would violate net neutrality rules, or else they wouldn't be fighting so hard to get rid of them.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @11:45AM
He should know: he has a Nobel Prize.
While he never specifically mentioned umbrellas, he made quite a good case for his arguments that "Wet streets cause rain."
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]