followed tags: 5
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 11
member for: 558 days
Except what you're describing isn't how the court system works.
- The FCC will file in the 12th for a summary stay against any injunctions ordered by the 9th, and will win.
No. One federal circuit cannot summarily override another.
Following up on what OftenBen said, it is significant IMO that so many thinkers in the last couple hundred years were worried about this. It's certainly something that comes up in sci-fi (Stand on Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up by John Brunner, for example), and Huxley saw it as a huge threat when he wrote Brave New World Revisited.
Technology has helped a lot, but at what cost? Hive worlds only "work" (and by that I mean "are hellscapes but don't fully collapse") thanks to entirely other planets devoted to farming.
Briefly, on the legal footnotes: these cases are virtually always filed in the DC Circuit. It's pretty much the go-to when it comes to regulatory stuff, and it's unlikely anyone would file elsewhere given that all the major caselaw on NN and regulatory agencies generally is from DC.
Also, a lawsuit isn't as long of a longshot as you might think.
Others have replied, but I'll add my $0.02 (which is worth about that much).
1, 3, 4
Lawsuits will doubtless ensue in the short term. Beyond that, things get fuzzier.
I think this will be bad for consumers overall. ISPs have to be a tad careful; they need to not piss people off enough that they actually get worked up about it and revolt and/or elect more regulation-friendly politicians. Whether they already have remains to be seen, but the ISPs evidently decided it was worth the risk.
kleinbl00 mentioned that ISPs want to go after Netflix, but I think he understates the effect on consumers. The ISPs didn't spend this much money on lobbying and risk the consumer backlash without some expectation of a payout. Netflix getting charged more is the least of our worries; that actually happened already, back before the FCC's now-repealed Title II classification. But it's inevitable that those charges will get passed on to us. And somehow I don't think that the ISP market is going to suddenly become cheaper or more competitive. Plus, it's going to make it that much harder for a competitor to Netflix to enter the market.
Plus, the landscape has changed. Comcast has an ownership share in Hulu, and I expect we'll see some kind of prioritization. At least initially, I imagine it'll be more like what AT&T did, where they had mobile data caps except for specific services. So at least at the beginning, it'll be stuff like that.
Cable companies are worried. As The Consumerist pointed out back in 2015, traditional cable service is on its way out. Not only that, but (based on those numbers, at least), those cable subscribers were much more profitable. So they have to find a way to recoup those losses somehow, and they're going to find increasingly subtle and numerous ways to do it here.
They're betting that despite the backlash online, too few people actually care to reach a critical mass that could force changes.
I doubt much. ISPs don't have any real reason to be worried about cryptocurrency, and I'm not sure that big businesses in general are unhappy about the idea of a non-government currency.
I mean, this had been a foregone conclusion every since it was proposed. It was obvious that no matter how the comment period went, they were going to vote this way. Now we just have to hope Congress does something, and that this doesn't fuck up the midterms.
I've enjoyed Current Affairs' take on it, an article titled "A Victory For Basic Standards Of Human Moral Conduct". But I think snoodog is basically right; this is a sign of how far the Republicans have fallen, but stupid Republicans make stupid Democrats.
If it were possible to get videos as tattoos, I'd have a hard time convincing myself not to get that one.
I'm having a hard time following the EFF's argument on the first point. They're saying that the FCC is wrong that "[e]nd users do not expect to receive (or pay for) two distinct services—both Internet access service and a distinct transmission service, for example." But this doesn't seem like an incorrect statement: I don't think consumers do expect to pay for these as separate services.