Internet Unites to Protect Net Neutrality as Netflix Tells FCC: "See You in Court"

[Bob the Slob]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-see-you-court

The lobbying group that represents some of the nation's largest companies in Silicon Valley—including Google, Amazon, and Netflix—announced Friday that it would act as "intervernor" in a lawsuit against the FCC's recent decision to dismantle rules that enshrine net neutrality protections that have governed the web since its creation.After the FCC submitted its final order on Thursday evening, the Internet Association said it would back legal actions to prevent it from going into effect as well as offering support to legislative efforts also underway.
"The final version of Chairman Pai's rule, as expected, dismantles popular net neutrality protections for consumers," said Michael Beckerman, the group's president and CEO, in a statement. "This rule defies the will of a bipartisan majority of Americans and fails to preserve a free and open internet. IA intends to act as an intervenor in judicial action against this order and, along with our member companies, will continue our push to restore strong, enforceable net neutrality protections through a legislative solution."
In a tweet, Netflix said the "Internet is united in defense of #netneutrality." As for the FCC, the popular video-streaming company added, "We will see you in court."

Looks as though Trumper's Russian supporters have sparked a HUGE democracy action against Trumper decisions. Corporations don't seem to like the dictator Putin as much as "I used bankruptcy to rip off Aemrican banks and make me rich" Trumper does.

This is a good thing.

[Grokmaster]

Confused again, as always, we see. You are on the side of GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET.

Iran just exercised "net neutrality" there, by CUTTING OFF THE INTERNET to stifle the Freedom protestors communications. That is what you are arguing in support of.

[Kacper]

don't see how they could possibly win without a crooked judge

[Grokmaster]

The big internet companies are fighting to STIFLE competition, and continue their hold on our information.

[Chris]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-see-you-court



Looks as though Trumper's Russian supporters have sparked a HUGE democracy action against Trumper decisions. Corporations don't seem to like the dictator Putin as much as "I used bankruptcy to rip off Aemrican banks and make me rich" Trumper does.

This is a good thing.

What you're saying is you support corporatism (modern meaning) where corporations rent seek favors and protections from the government through regulation.

[Grokmaster]

What you're saying is you support corporatism (modern meaning) where corporations rent seek favors and protections from the government through regulation.

What ACTUAL fascism is, as per Mussolini's Italy...

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says it'd be cheaper to keep net neutrality neutral...


21 States Sue to Keep Net Neutrality as Senate Democrats Reach 50 Votes
January 16, 2018 - A group of 21 U.S. state attorneys general filed suit to challenge the Federal Communications Commission's decision to do away with net neutrality on Tuesday, while Democrats said they needed just one more vote in the Senate to repeal the FCC ruling.

The attorneys general filed a petition with a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., to challenge the action, calling it "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion" and saying that it violated federal laws and regulations. The petition was filed as Senate Democrats said they had the backing of 50 members of the 100-person chamber for repeal.


Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement that all 49 Democrats in the upper chamber backed the repeal. Earlier this month, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she would back the effort to overturn the FCC's move. Democrats need 51 votes to win any proposal in the Republican-controlled Senate because Vice President Mike Pence can break any tie.


Override would be difficult


Trump backed the FCC action, the White House said last month, and overturning a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers. A two-thirds vote would be much harder for Democrats in the House, where Republicans hold a greater majority. States said the lawsuit was filed in an abundance of caution because, typically, a petition to challenge would not be filed until the rules legally take effect, which is expected later this year. Internet advocacy group Free Press, the Open Technology Institute and Mozilla Corp. filed similar protective petitions Tuesday. The FCC voted in December along party lines to reverse rules introduced in 2015 that barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.

After a meeting voting to end net neutrality, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai answers a question from a reporter, Dec. 14, 2017, in Washington.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the issue would be a major motivating factor for the young voters the party is courting. A trade group representing major tech companies including Facebook, Alphabet and Amazon said it would support legal challenges to the reversal. The FCC vote in December marked a victory for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon Communications and handed them power over what content consumers can access on the internet. It was the biggest win for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in his sweeping effort to undo many telecommunications regulations.


Disclosure required


While the FCC order grants internet providers sweeping new powers, it does require public disclosure of any blocking practices. Internet providers have vowed not to change how consumers obtain online content. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, said in an interview Tuesday that he planned to hold a hearing on paid prioritization. He has urged Democrats to work constructively on a legislative solution to net neutrality "to bring certainty and clarity going forward and ban behaviors like blocking and throttling."


He said he did not believe a vote to overturn the FCC decision would get a majority in the U.S. House. Representative Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said Tuesday that his bill to reverse the FCC decision had 80 co-sponsors. Paid prioritization is part of American life, Walden said. "Where do you want to sit on the airplane? Where do you want to sit on Amtrak?" he said.


https://www.voanews.com/a/states-sue...y/4211210.html

[Shady Slim]

Confused again, as always, we see. You are on the side of GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET.

Iran just exercised "net neutrality" there, by CUTTING OFF THE INTERNET to stifle the Freedom protestors communications. That is what you are arguing in support of.

Forgive him . . . as he is a liberal/lefty/prog and knows not what he does. It is instinct as when a baby knows how to only suckle and cry to continue living.

[waltky]

Small Business Owners: Internet Sales Tax ‘Devastating...

Small Business Owners: Internet Sales Tax ‘Devastating,’ ‘Would Put Us Out of Business’
May 18, 2018 - At a small business expo hosted by eBay in Washington D.C. on May 16, several small business owners told CNSNews.com that they opposed the idea of an Internet sales tax, calling the idea “devastating” and saying it would “put us out of business.” In April, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in South Dakota v. Wayfair.

This case dealt with a South Dakota law, passed in 2016, which would require online companies that do more than $100,000 of business in the state, or more than 200 transactions annually, to collect a sales tax, even if they do not have a physical presence in the state. “It’s just not fair for the heavy burdens that it places on small businesses like us to have to reach out to 9,600 different jurisdictions to file tax,” Michael Swoape, the owner of One4Silver told CNSNews.com. “It would really be devastating.” “I’m hoping the Supreme Court gets it right,” he said, “but, if not, I’m confident that our legislators they’ll pull through for us in the end.”

Norb Novocin, owner of Estate Auctions Inc., told CNSNews.com, “And we would be liable for audits in all of those places, liable for doing the paperwork for all of these places. It would put us out of business. We can’t afford to do that.” “And if I were to have to go out and collect and remit sales tax to 9,600 different tax jurisdictions -- I’ve heard as high as 12,000 -- it could potentially sink my business,” Mac Griffiths, owner of MDG Sales, told CNSNews.com. “I have little time to sit and work out kinks in order to send envelopes to all these different places.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that states could not force mail-order catalog companies to collect sales taxes unless the company had a physical presence in the state. They reaffirmed that ruling in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota in 1992. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down South Dakota’s law, a ruling that is expected by the end of June, these small business owners say Congress needs to take action. “Well I’m optimistic,” said Griffiths. “Some of the things that have been said, I’m hopeful. At the same time, I think whether it’s decided or not, Congress is going to have to make some movement here to make a decision.” “I think if we end up with a patchwork of different laws from every state, it’s going to be very harmful as well for a small business,” he said.

A proposed bill in Congress, the Marketplace Fairness Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), would set a minimum threshold for online companies to collect sales tax at $1 million in total sales. Several small business owners told CNSNews.com that they would like the threshold increase to at least $10 million in total sales. Another issue small business owners told CNSNews.com they were concerned about is the de minimis value, or the value below which goods can be shipped into the country before duties and taxes are assessed. “Anything under $800 into the United States is not taxed,” said Griffiths. “Yet, if we ship to Canada, anything over $16 is taxed. And so this huge disparity -- we’re here to say, listen, they’re talking about NAFTA right now, if they can put some pressure on Canada and say if we can make this a bit more level of a playing field when it comes to our cross border trade, I think it opens the floodgates to small businesses within our country.”

MORE

See also:

New internet laws pledged as social media firms snub talks
20 May `18 - The culture secretary has agreed he does not have enough power to police social media firms after admitting only four of 14 invited to talks showed up.

Matt Han$#@! told the BBC it had given him "a big impetus" to introduce new laws to tackle what he has called the internet's "Wild West" culture. He admitted self-policing had not worked and legislation was needed. But Labour's Tom Watson said the government had "squandered" chances to "get tough on the tech giants". Mr Han$#@! told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show, presented by Emma Barnett, that the government "just don't know" how many children of the millions using using social media were not old enough for an account and he was "very worried" about age verification.

He said that as part of the Data Protection Bill currently going through Parliament, firms could be fined up to 4% of their global turnover - which could run to more than £1bn for the biggest firms. Asked what the threshold would be for firms to be hit with fines, in terms of underage children on certain platforms, he said: "I'm not going to give a figure because we are going to consult on it." He told the programme he "hopes we get to a position" where all users of social media users has to have their age verified. Code of conducts would be examined he said as existing "terms of reference" were often not enforced properly. Asked how many of the 14 firms invited to attend government talks had showed up, he replied: "Four."

Analysis

Governments love to talk tough, but sooner or later they have to back it up with action. The culture secretary has admitted that calling on technology companies to "step up" and "do more" has only got ministers so far. But efforts to regulate the internet have had limited success. A plan to introduce age verification for all porn sites was due to come into force in April, but has been delayed with no details given about how it might work. An "opt in" system where internet service providers ask people if they want to access adult content has seen sex education and suicide prevention advice inadvertently blocked. A new law in Germany forcing social networks to remove hate speech within 24 hours is being revised after complaints that too much content was being blocked. Two government departments are working on the new laws aimed at holding technology companies to account. They have a difficult, if not impossible, task.

He said: "One of the problems we have got is that we engage with Facebook, Google and Twitter and they get all of the press, they get all of the complaints in the public debate but there's now actually a far greater number of social media platforms like musical.ly. "They didn't show up and the companies, they have now got over a million on their site." He said that this, and the difficulties getting Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to answer MPs' questions showed Britain did not have the power needed: "That's one of the reasons we are legislating. "The fact that only four companies turned up when I invited the 14 biggest in gave me a big impetus to drive this proposal to legislate through." Pushed for details of how quickly social media firms would have to remove terrorist content to avoid a fine, he said: "We should be very ambitious," but said a set timescale could mean companies "work up to that timescale", while he would prefer them to do so "as quickly as possible".

'Embarrassing'

[Peter1469]

Paid for by large global business that can't compete with the Internet retailers.