SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges today as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry.
FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content.
Oral arguments were held today in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Audio of the four-hour-plus oral arguments is available here.) Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.
[...] The lawsuit seeking to overturn the net neutrality repeal was filed by more than three dozen entities, including state attorneys general, consumer advocacy groups, and tech companies such as Mozilla and Vimeo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday February 04 2019, @03:40PM (3 children)
Ajit Pai's and the FCC's corruption on this issue is blatant and transparent to anybody who looks at the issue. That's not really seriously in question.
The reason they're in court defending their decisions with complete nonsense is because the longer they can keep the anti-NN policy in place, the more money their corporate sponsors can make and the expense of everybody else. They'll make whatever stupid arguments they need to in order to keep the case running for as long as possible, knowing full well that they will lose but maximizing the amount of time their sponsors have had to legally commit extortion against Internet-based services.
This is something the bad boys of the legal industry know very well: If the status quo is good for you but you will eventually lose the case, stall, even if you're doing stuff that is legally absolutely bonkers and often unethical to do so. Frivolous motions, skipping hearings, failing to comply with orders, etc, skating just on the edge of being found in contempt of court. The reasons for this are (a) you're able to continue to do the wrong thing while the case is still pending, and (b) the other side may run out of money to pay for their lawyers, or if the lawyers are volunteers those volunteer lawyers might get fed up and quit, or the person/organization going after you might die/dissolve. That's why such travesties as SCO vs IBM lasted so long.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 04 2019, @06:20PM
A way to put a stop to that kind of bullshit right quick is to make the punishment 1) being stripped of all income, wealth, and assets and 2) being only allowed to work at minimum wage jobs, preferably one that "fits the crime" (so in his case, call center or salesperson at a seedy brick and mortar phone store).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04 2019, @06:24PM (1 child)
Yes, I can see what you are getting at. Question: How do we stop such unethical behavior? I would really like to see this kind of behavior punished in such a way that future would-be miscreants take note and decide that it is just absolutely a non-starter. Any thoughts?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 04 2019, @07:14PM
Some changes that would make a difference:
1. Expanding the number of courts and the people (including judges) to staff them. This would enable courts to both handle cases more quickly and give more time and attention to each case, which reduces the advantage to doing this.
2. More liberal use of what courts sometimes do now, which is known as a "preliminary injunction". That is when the judge gives an order that says "You have to stop doing the thing that the plaintiff says is a problem until we've sorted out the case."
3. Changes to legal ethical rules that would make frivolous motions and specious arguments grounds for disbarment or other sanctions against the lawyer making them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.