SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a bit of good news for the Obama administration (and most Americans), the U.S. D.C Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC's Open Internet Order rules:
High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled, a decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users.
The court's decision upholds the F.C.C. on the declaration of broadband as a utility, the most significant aspect of the rules. That has broad-reaching implications for web and telecommunications companies and signals a shift in the government's view of broadband as a service that should be equally accessible to all Americans, rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision.
The court's opinion can be found here.
takyon: Also at Tom's Hardware. Alternate link for the Appeals Court decision.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday June 14 2016, @10:38PM
There are a lot of regulations that stopped at the parts I like. And some that went too far, but are better in their too-far state than no regulation would be.
Seat-belt laws for instance seem good. What's wrong with those regulations? Most financial regulations seem to not go far enough, but even if there were some that went too far, I much prefer a regulated system to the 1920's free-for-all.
That's not a reason to try to avoid fine-tuning the system by shrinking regulations that are wrong-headed, but it is a reason to not use "OMG regulation --> the evilz" as an argument.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Tuesday June 14 2016, @11:06PM
And some that went too far, but are better in their too-far state than no regulation would be.
Spoken like the bureaucrat's whore.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:34AM
Hold on dearie, I need to file a Request for Cunnilingus application before we can get down to business.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @12:31AM
Seat-belt laws for instance seem good. What's wrong with those regulations?
The fact that they exist. They are just yet another excuse that cops can use to screw with people in other ways. Pull them over for not wearing a seat-belt or appearing to not wear it and then scare them into 'consenting' to a search, and all sorts of lovely things can happen from there.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday June 15 2016, @01:44AM
Seat belt violations, at least everywhere I've lived, are not a valid reason to pull someone over. They've only been able to be enforced after the officer had already pulled you over for another reason, e.g. speeding.
Now, did that mean if you didn't wear a seatbelt, and were speeding alongside to someone who was, that you were more likely to get pulled over for speeding? Possibly.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 15 2016, @03:27AM
Well, in typical regulation creep, seatbelt use (or lack there of) is now legally defined as sufficient cause for a citation all by it self in the majority of US states.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html [ghsa.org]
34 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have primary seat belt laws for front seat occupants.
15 states have secondary laws. In many of these states, the law is primary for younger drivers and/or passengers.
New Hampshire has enacted neither a primary nor a secondary seat belt law for adults, although the state does have a primary child passenger safety law that covers all drivers and passengers under 18.
Rear Seats: 28 states, D.C., Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, have laws requiring belt use for all rear seat passengers. In 17 of these states, D.C., Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, the law is primary.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @05:53PM
exactly. nothing but excuses for theft.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 15 2016, @02:46AM
I'll reiterate the position I've had on numerous other issues about the scope of government regulation: To think that government can do no wrong is stupid. To think that government can do no right is equally stupid. If either or both beliefs are widespread in a population, you get bad government policy, because those who create the policy know it won't change anyone's opinion on their performance.
The reason regulation is bad is that it forces people and organizations to be less efficient - filling out forms, extra expenses, extra equipment, insurance payments, etc all eat into the ability to do useful stuff. The reason regulation is good is that it forces people and organizations to do things that are annoying and/or expensive but also prevent harm to other people e.g. businesses who have to take steps to ensure their employees don't get maimed or killed at work. Sometimes the good outweighs the bad, sometimes it's the other way around, and often it's a matter of opinion which one you're looking at.
In this case, I think there's a pretty strong argument that regulation is good: The telecoms were very publicly trying to force everybody who wanted a reasonably fast load time for their stuff on most consumer endpoints to pay them protection money. That's bad for all businesses who can't afford to or are unwilling to pay the protection money, and also bad for all the people that wanted whatever services those businesses are providing. The population harmed (telecom company shareholders and management, and possibly the shareholders and management of Netflix, Google, etc who benefit from reduced risk of competition) is significantly smaller than the population helped (everybody else), and the cost to the population harmed is that their quarterly earnings numbers aren't quite as good as they'd otherwise hoped.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.