Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Judges on Jan 14th

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Judges on Jan 14th

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Kalman posted:

The telcos are against falling under title II and under regulatory requirements of net neutrality because regulatory compliance requires oversight and that does cost money.

The FCC claims they left out the burdensome regulatory stuff, though. Are you saying they're lying about that? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the law to fact check them but I assume they couldn't get away with a bald-faced lie.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 22:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:33

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Pauline Kael posted:

Nah, it'll be used as a bludgeon against the Right when the Left is in charge and visa versa. The right will love being able to use and expand federal control over the internet to go after pornographers, but by then this is going to be so set in stone that no amount of internet outrage will make any difference.

Yeah, just like how every phone call from an Obama campaign office was blocked while Bush was in office

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 23:03

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Pauline Kael posted:

I'm thinking more like the FCC gets used as a blunt instrument for culture wars on both sides. It's a very lovely possibility, but whatever, I already use VPN to get an IP address from elsewhere.

Hahahah yeah I'm sure if the US government goes full China on the internet your VPN will save you :allears:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 23:10

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Kalman posted:

They left out a bunch of regulatory requirements but, and this is important, there's a huge difference between leaving it out by forbearance (the process they used) and leaving it out by saying they don't claim that authority or didn't create rules to apply it (the process they could have used under 706.)

Forbearance is essentially "you are legally required to do this but for the time being we have decided not to make you do it." The requirements on the FCC if they change their mind are much, much lower than the requirements on the FCC to make new rules or find new authorities. The requirements are also statutory here, rather than rulemaking based.

And even with respect to the non-forborn portions, the oversight obligations are a lot higher now than they were because the telcos are going to need to be able to produce evidence they aren't doing things against the rules, instead of just not doing it.

From the telco perspective, it's basically "here are new rules we have to be able to prove we are following even though we were already following them. And here are some rules that are Swords of Damocles over our heads that the FCC claims it won't apply but could much more easily apply now than before and we would have a much harder time arguing that applying them is improper."

The right way to do all of this would have been a new telco act and write a new title designed to deal with the unique issues ISPs face. That's hard to do, but it also could have avoided the negatives on both sides.

I sort-of understood and am OK with the Sword of Damocles, though. "Yeah I know you don't like this but we could always make you loving hate it" seems like it'd be a not-terrible way to keep them in line, assuming everything holds up in court.

Yes, obviously having a bill that's not a copy+past of Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/TW's corporate slashfic would be great, but I'm not holding out hope.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 23:43

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Kalman posted:

If that was true, we wouldn't have gotten a title II vote, they'd have gone ahead with 706 regulation.

I'm not going to claim that one is better than the other because I don't have a good understanding of the law, but isn't it reasonable for the FCC to claim this authority under both Title II and 706 and hope one of them sticks even if the other doesn't just in case?

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 08:02

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I'm seeing people claiming that carriers are defined as conduits (or something like that) which would them immune to copyright lawsuits and somehow protect end users from the kind of suits that the content industry lawyers were using to get the identity of file sharers. Does anyone know if that's just a bunch of internet lawyering or is there some truth to it?

# ¿ Mar 12, 2015 22:14

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Kalman posted:

Internet lawyering on the second part, sort of accurate on the first part.

So they're not liable for what their end users do? I guess I can see how that would indirectly help end users of a company that gives zero fucks about its business relationship with content producers. Not Comcast or TW users, though.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2015 03:23

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Nintendo Kid posted:

You've never used Windows (Windows update uses CDNs) or YouTube or Netflix or Facebook or major news sites or many major image-hosting sites or Steam or other games with online patches from a major publisher? I find that hard to believe.

It's obvious from the context that used means "pasted a CDN URL into a source file while building a website"

# ¿ Mar 13, 2015 03:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 00:33

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Kalman posted:

The first part is just a restatement of the DMCA safe harbor and has gently caress all to do with anything this thread is about. E: the immunity isn't absolute, it's conditioned on you behaving and taking down infringing content.

I wasn't talking about providing content, though - just acting as a carrier to get anything available on the internet to end users. I assumed DMCA still applied to hosts, but I've seen claims that there are now more protections for carriers, but I think you're saying that's also just the DMCA at work, right?

Nintendo Kid posted:

That is not how using a CDN usually works. The CDN url would usually be generated on the fly by the CDN serving your page's images and such. Many don't even use special urls, they simply redirect the browser to the proper place (the CDN Imgur uses works like that).

If you yourself are claiming you're familiar with writing a website, you should be aware of this.

Yes, I'm aware of how CDNs work but you don't have to have a sophisticated understanding of them to copy+paste something from https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide and use a CDN for somewhat loose definition of 'use'

# ¿ Mar 13, 2015 07:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Net Neutrality was struck down by 3 Judges on Jan 14th