Comcast, AT&T, Verizon jump the shark

[Caolela]

Here's the latest legal argument against Net Neutrality from Comcast's allies:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...it-ctia-116957

They're saying that Net Neutrality violates their First Amendment free speech rights - because according to this theory, the flow of data on the internet is THEIR SPEECH, and therefore they should be allowed to shut down speech they don't like.

In other words, Comcast's allies are claiming THEY have a First Amendment right to throttle OUR speech.

Modus Operandi Corporatatus: When desperately devoid of a coherent argument, just pull something...anything...out of your ass and hope it sticks. Repeat enough times and some neckbeards will start to believe it.

[Forgettable]

The love of money is the root of all evil.

[PizzaSHARK]

This is why monopolies should be destroyed. This is ridiculous.

Google is saying they are thinking about expanding to San Diego, if they do, I am switching without a second thought.

There's strong evidence they'll be moving into the Tulsa area within the next two or three years.

I can't wait.

[The Stormbringer]

Now now, it isn't our speech! We sign away that right by purchasing the use of their equipment! They own everything! /endsarcasm

But seriously, that's how they're going to play it. I really, really fucking hope they don't get away with this bullshit.

[Herecius]

Man, fuck Comcast.

[The Stormbringer]

I don't think this will play to even conservatives on the SCOTUS. This is like way out there in lalaland.

Yeah, but they'll probably try to change up their EULA agreements and contracts to make it so. Then it becomes a matter of whether or not the Supreme Court knocks that down so the FCC can actually enforce their rules.

[Stormdash]

Here's the latest legal argument against Net Neutrality from Comcast's allies:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...it-ctia-116957

They're saying that Net Neutrality violates their First Amendment free speech rights - because according to this theory, the flow of data on the internet is THEIR SPEECH, and therefore they should be allowed to shut down speech they don't like.

In other words, Comcast's allies are claiming THEY have a First Amendment right to throttle OUR speech.

Modus Operandi Corporatatus: When desperately devoid of a coherent argument, just pull something...anything...out of your ass and hope it sticks. Repeat enough times and some neckbeards will start to believe it.

It's an interesting line of argument -- and may be more fruitful than you think. The entire FCC ruling effectively ignores the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling that the 1st Amendment applies to the internet, after all. Regulating it's content or access to it therefore must survive constitutional scrutiny.

[Flutterguy]

The love of money is the root of all evil.

This quote is always hilarious because it ignores all that human history before currency.

[Chirri]

How can anyone be advising them that this is a good move? There must be other ways of bleeding customers dry that doesn't interfere with the Net Neutrality rules.

[Bluesftw]

Here's the latest legal argument against Net Neutrality from Comcast's allies:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...it-ctia-116957

They're saying that Net Neutrality violates their First Amendment free speech rights - because according to this theory, the flow of data on the internet is THEIR SPEECH, and therefore they should be allowed to shut down speech they don't like.

In other words, Comcast's allies are claiming THEY have a First Amendment right to throttle OUR speech.

Modus Operandi Corporatatus: When desperately devoid of a coherent argument, just pull something...anything...out of your ass and hope it sticks. Repeat enough times and some neckbeards will start to believe it.

you do realise that "neckbeard" in this case is you , cause all they have to convince are some old people that dont even know what interwebs is.

[Kujako]

Here's the thing... they're not wrong.

Many people consider the FCC to be unconstitutional since they are appointed by Congress to regulate communications, aka speech. The problem is that without the FCC, I could broadcast my manifesto on cellular and wifi frequencies. So if Comcast, AT&t, et al win and the FCC can not limit free speech, then Comcast, AT&T, et al's services stop working.

Put another way, if they can tell George Carlin what not to say on TV, they can tell Comcast not to throttle bandwidth.

[Forgettable]

This quote is always hilarious because it ignores all that human history before currency.

Shall I replace "The love of money" with "Greed" ? The concept is the same.

[Sky High]

hope they lose. but I'm curious how they will explain that access to data is "free speech". side note, fuck you AT&T. you pricks charged me 60+$ a month for 24megabits a data and you were barely able to piss in 12.

[Garnier Fructis]

This quote is always hilarious because it ignores all that human history before currency.

It takes very little effort to realize the core idea, and then to find a suitable extension to describe human history before money.

[Stormdash]

Yeah, but they'll probably try to change up their EULA agreements and contracts to make it so. Then it becomes a matter of whether or not the Supreme Court knocks that down so the FCC can actually enforce their rules.

The Supreme Court won't be of much help to the FCC in regards to its rules, because those rules tacitly ignore the fact that the content and delivery of the internet is 1st Amendment ground. You can't regulate even the content neutral aspects without at least intermediate scrutiny, would be how I'd expect they'll rule whenever it reaches them. And that's if you seriously think the FCC has any intention strictly content neutral regulation, which I do not.

[the game]

So glad the time warner deal fell through... Google fiber needs to develop faster and make it to ohio.

[Caolela]

It's an interesting line of argument -- and may be more fruitful than you think. The entire FCC ruling effectively ignores the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling that the 1st Amendment applies to the internet, after all. Regulating it's content or access to it therefore must survive constitutional scrutiny.

But that has little to do with the gist of their so-called argument here. The the law is clearly on the side of Net Neutrality, but they think they can bury the FCC in lawsuits and either get the rule blocked or delay its enforcement long enough for the next president to overturn it. We've seen the telecom industry use their armies of lawyers to block Net Neutrality before. Just last year, a federal court blocked an earlier version of Net Neutrality.

It's a desperation move to drag it out hoping they get a favorable stooge in D.C. after the elections, since they can't (or shouldn't) win on the merits.

[brimdog]

This quote is always pedantically hilarious because it ignores all that human history before currency.

fixed that for you

[Stormspellz]

This quote is always hilarious because it ignores all that human history before currency.

money always existed in form or another ever since civilization got out of the crib

[Karrotlord]

They... they didn't really claim they own everyone else's speech, did they?