Highest Rated Comments


mattfwood19 karma

It totally makes sense for other states to pass laws, yes, and we'll all be working to do that in different ways.

On California's law, the federal government sued to try to stop them; California agreed not to enforce until this preemption question settled by yesterday's decision came out. So now that the federal appeals court here in DC said the FCC was wrong, and that it cannot just blanket prohibit California and other states from adopting their own laws, the federal lawsuit back out in California can move forward.

In other words, yesterday's court decision cleared a huge hurdle for California to move ahead and enforce its own law, but there's still another court case specifically about the California statue, cuz lawyers.

mattfwood15 karma

Hi all - hello from the hearing room! Ourari, what you can do now is call your member of Congress and tell them to let the FCC do its job. Don't let this bill -- or talk of it stalling the FCC -- handcuff the agency and let the broadband duopoly operate unchecked by any oversight, all just in exchange for a few overly narrow and loophole-ridden Net Neutrality protections.

mattfwood11 karma

You have the right to say what you want and go where you want online. To protect that right, we need our communications access networks to be free from unreasonable discrimination by the people who own those networks. Net Neutrality rules keep the ISPs from blocking, interfering with, or discriminating against your speech and your choices.

mattfwood11 karma

Net Neutrality decidedly does not limit content choices, and nondiscrimination protections are vital even in competitive communications spheres. Again, would you be happy if AT&T blocked your wireless calls because you could always switch to Verizon? Increasing competition and reach of broadband competitors is the explicit aim of several provisions in Title II: interconnection, universal service, disabilities access laws, etc.

mattfwood10 karma

Nope, that's all wrong. No fear mongering here. ISPs have blocked and they will continue to look for premiums.

You want a faster flight to Tahiti? Great. Pay for more speed. You can do that with your ISP too, by buying a higher speed tier.

But should someone else be required to pay for your ticket too? Or should they be able to pay to speed you up or slow you down?

The correct analogy in your tortured comparison is that one competitor can pay to slow down SOMEONE ELSE's traffic or flight.

I feel like I've answered a lot of your questions, even though your concern troll tactics at first have now switched to a more straight up (yet still flawed) attack.