DO you know why AT&T won that case? Its because they argued they were about to be a 'common carrier' under Title 2 and therefore not under the FTC's juristication. They won the case because of TItle 2.. The article you posted sure did choose its words carefully. That author sounds pretty dishonest.
The gentlemen in the CNN clips you posted made the argument that FTC will protect consumers (since now ISP are no longer classified as common carrier as of yesterday). That is indeed now the only regulation/laws left that could protect the users after yesterday votes. Unfortunately, we will be back to court to figure out if they are EVEN able to. And even if they are, how effective can they be? EDIT: and to be clear, the FTC only deal with anti-competitive behaviors. There are many other ways that ISPs can abuse consumers.
The next FCC can reverse again. But who want to see this yoyoing back and forth potentially every 4 to 8 years? The much prefer solution, as it was back in 2015, is for Congress to get off their ass and actually pass a good legislation based on facts, experts inputs and in a bi-partisan manner. Yea, not going to happen either.
Holy crap I've never voted in any midterm election but i sure as hell am voting against this guy in 2018.
This is not true. WE know they will be able to. They have in the past. This should be clear to you as the only example that author gave was nonsense and he was very misleading about it. this is also false. FTC mission statement - Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices They deal with consumer protection.
Your fix was odd. Are you saying that large internet based companies aren't businesses? Or that they are less of business than the large corporations that provide internet?
Net Neutrality seems like a great issue for Democrats to run on. I feel like Millenials get more worked up about net neutrality than tax cuts that will screw them over. You can take the most apathetic voter and when you bring up net neutrality, you can just see the rage in their eyes. This is just a stupid fight for Republicans to start.
These giant ISPs are intelligent enough and have enough self awereness to know that the entire American public has their eyes in them. They gonna do **** as subtly as possible for the time being.
If there is a way to fk people and get more money for these companies, they will find it, to quote the greatest president ever "trust me on this". So many how should we say fools think these large companies have consumer interest in their heart, lol.
Just to point out how moronic your statement was. Just a few posts up you posted an article mentioning the FTC suing AT&T for throttling customers who use too much data on their unlimited plan, an issue that has nothing to do with competition. FTC would of won too if TItle 2 and NN hadn't been decreed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...dec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.686ba43aa42d "But as someone who spent more than 25 years enforcing the law at the FTC, I know there's a serious problem with touting the FTC as a substitute for the soon-to-be-repealed net neutrality rules. Putting aside the question of whether the FTC has the resources and rulemaking powers to adequately address this important issue (it doesn't), there's the more fundamental question of whether the FTC even has legal authority over Internet providers. Buried in the FTC's founding statute is something called the "common carrier exemption," which excludes from the FTC's authority any company engaged in "common carriage" (think telephones, railroads, etc.). When the law was passed, these companies essentially did one thing — such as provide phone service — and the idea was that other federal agencies with industry-specific expertise, such as the FCC, would monitor this specialized activity. In the digital age, however, the definition of "common carriage" has become increasingly murky. As telecom conglomerates have expanded their offerings beyond phone service, what does the common-carrier exemption now apply to — the telecom company as a whole or its individual product offerings? For years, Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as the courts, generally said it was the latter, with the FCC having exclusive jurisdiction over phone service and the two agencies sharing jurisdiction over everything else a company provides, including broadband service. But when the FCC reclassified broadband service as common carriage in the 2015 Open Internet Order, providing the legal basis for the net neutrality rules, it eliminated FTC jurisdiction over those services. After all, broadband was now going to be governed by strong net neutrality rules. Unfortunately, as the FCC chairman well knows, reversal of the 2015 order won't simply restore the FTC's broadband jurisdiction. That's because, separately, the question of whether the FTC has jurisdiction over any services offered by a telecom company is under serious challenge in the courts. In 2014, the FTC sued AT&T; before the current net neutrality rules were enacted — for advertising "unlimited" data plans to consumers but then "throttling" their data use if they reached a certain limit. AT&T; argued that the FTC had no jurisdiction to sue because AT&T; was a common carrier. At the time of the lawsuit, though telephone voice service offered by AT&T; was clearly a common-carrier service, broadband service wasn't and the FTC prevailed in the lower court. But in a surprise ruling last year, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, deciding in favor of AT&T.; It ruled that if you're a common carrier, you're exempt from FTC enforcement even if you offer non-common-carrier services. What is the status of this case now? Unresolved. The 9th Circuit has agreed to rehear the case before the full appeals court. But its impact on the repeal of net neutrality can't be overstated. If the court again rules in favor of AT&T;, then Pai's assurance that the FTC can and will protect consumers from Internet providers after the rollback of net neutrality is simply not true. The current reality is that relying upon the FTC to assume enforcement power over Internet providers is a giant gamble. Depending on what happens in a courthouse in San Francisco, millions of broadband customers could be left without any regulator or enforcer to act on their behalf after the repeal of the current net neutrality rules. At the very least, wouldn't prudence dictate we wait and see what happens in this case before charging forward with repeal?"
Wall Street Journal's editorial today https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405 The Internet Is Free Again Killing Obama-era rules will remove the FCC as political gatekeeper. Opinion Journal: Net Neutrality: Not a Problem Opinion Journal Video: Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. on what the media gets wrong about the FCC’s announcement. Photo credit: Getty Images. By The Editorial Board Dec. 14, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET 481 COMMENTS Disney’s deal announced Thursday to buy some premium 21st Century Fox properties for $52.4 billion underscores how technology is remaking the media landscape. This discomfits some, but the Federal Communications Commission is right to let markets steer competition and innovation. The FCC on Thursday voted 3-2 to approve chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to repeal “net neutrality” rules backed by the Obama Administration that reclassified internet-service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II prohibits “any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.” By effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman Tom Wheeler turned the FCC into a political gatekeeper. The rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking, throttling and favoring content, which Mr. Wheeler ostensibly intended to help large content providers like Google and Netflix gain leverage against cable companies. But as always in politics, treatment under the rules would depend on ideology and partisanship. Even as liberals howl that the Justice Department’s lawsuit to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner is motivated by President Trump’s animus to CNN, they want FCC control over the internet. The left’s outcry at Mr. Pai “killing” internet freedom has been so overwrought that the FCC meeting room had to be cleared Thursday for a security threat. Bans on throttling content may poll well, but the regulations have created uncertainty about what the FCC would or wouldn’t allow. This has throttled investment. Price discrimination and paid prioritization are used by many businesses. Netflix charges higher prices to subscribers who stream content on multiple devices. Has this made the internet less free? Mr. Pai’s rules would require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheeler’s power grab. *** Mr. Pai’s net-neutrality rollback will also support growth in content. Both content producers and consumers will benefit from increased investment in faster wireless and fiber technology. Apple is pouring $1 billion into original content to compete with Amazon, Netflix and YouTube. Disney is buying the 21st Century Fox assets to compete with Netflix and other streaming services, build leverage with cable companies and establish a global footprint. Netflix has more than 47 million international subscribers and streams in nearly every country. Fox (which shares the Murdoch family’s ownership with our parent company, News Corp.) will keep its news and main sports channels, which can offer “live” content to consumers. The antitrust concerns should be negligible. Consumers will also benefit from the slow breakdown of the cable monopoly as they customize “bundles” like Hulu or a Disney stream that may cost less. Americans will also enjoy new distribution options, which could have been barred by the net-neutrality rules. This week T-Mobile announced its acquisition of Layer3 TV, a Denver startup that streams high-definition channels online and will compete with AT&T’s DirecTV Now. Verizon Wireless last month said it will start delivering high-speed broadband to homes over its wireless network late next year. Google and AT&T are experimenting with similar services that will be cheaper than digging dirt to lay cable. This could be a boon for rural America. By the way, Google has vigorously promoted net neutrality in theory but less in practice. While Google says it remains “committed to the net neutrality policies,” the search engine uses opaque algorithms to prioritize and discriminate against content, sometimes in ways that undercut competitors. Net neutrality for thee, but not me. Google ought to be transparent about its practices. Technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation, which Ajit Pai’s FCC has recognized by taking a neutral position and restoring the promise of internet freedom. Appeared in the December 15, 2017, print edition.
"By the way, Google has vigorously promoted net neutrality in theory but less in practice. While Google says it remains “committed to the net neutrality policies,” the search engine uses opaque algorithms to prioritize and discriminate against content, sometimes in ways that undercut competitors. Net neutrality for thee, but not me. Google ought to be transparent about its practices." This guy doesn't know what net neutrality is.
Who said it wouldn't? So: are you in favor of the ruling or just mocking fellow Americans or both? Try having a take and contributing content.
