SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.
Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite Kavanaugh's dissent. (In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)
While current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated the net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh could help restrict the FCC's authority to regulate Internet providers as a member of the Supreme Court. Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal.
[...] Consumers generally expect ISPs to deliver Internet content in un-altered form. But Kavanaugh argued that ISPs are like cable TV operators—since cable TV companies can choose not to carry certain channels, Internet providers should be able to choose not to allow access to a certain website, he wrote.
"Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes."
Kavanaugh's argument did not address the business differences between cable TV and Internet service.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday July 15 2018, @08:47AM (4 children)
The first amendment has no implication here. This is purely about whether so-called ISPs will be able to engage in marketing even more deceptive than they're already allowed to engage in. Internet service? Sure! Just agree to charges! Then later "internet service? what are you talking about? you have connectivity to our approved sites and ad sponsors, that's all you are going to get!
I don't know a single US 'ISP' that actually lives up to the name anymore. The situation is beyond absurd. Give humanity the greatest gift you can imagine, come back in 25 years, I guarantee you we will have found a way to screw it up you could never have imagined.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday July 15 2018, @10:28AM (3 children)
There's plenty of real, old-school ISPs left — they're just not nationwide contenders with giant ad budgets, and in many cases only cover a county or state.
My ISP for the past decade (DSLExtreme) is that sort; I pay my monthly dues, and in return get a dumb unlimited/unmetered pipe and Usenet access. The ISP I used for the 12 years prior to that (Sonic.net) is the same, though I'm not sure whether Usenet is included these days.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday July 15 2018, @01:27PM
Usenet access, now that is something.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @02:31PM (1 child)
No there aren't. I'm not sure where you people get that idea from because it's not true.
Around here we have 2 options. 2. Any other option uses the wires from those 2 ISPs and they tend to be a lot more expensive. In many areas there's only one option or if you're extremely lucky 3, but it's just not true to claim that most of us have choices in which ISP because we really don't. And what happens when one of the ISPs sucks on one thing and the other sucks on another? We can't realistically vote with our wallets in a situation like that as we'd be potentially voting against one of the practices and for the other.
This whole ignorance that even in urban areas everybody has multiple options is just absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 15 2018, @11:26PM
Incidentally that is how Sonic.net got started, they charged $5 more than the DSL service they resold. I guess they ight now have their own infrastructure, but my guess is they are piggybacking on Google's fiber.
This magical belief in the free market is killing me, the markets are shrinking into mega-corps only yet we still have people trying to sell that fantasy.