ISPs defend plans for two-speed tiered Net

“ISPs have defended their right to operate a two-speed internet, at a key debate into the future of the web,” Jane Wakefield reports for BBC News.

“Net neutrality – the principle that all net traffic should be treated equally – has been challenged in recent years as ISPs look to make a return on their increasingly expensive networks,” The Beeb reports. “They argue that if content providers want to pay to get their traffic prioritised on the network, then they should be allowed to do so. But some content owners and digital activists such as Open Rights Group argue that such a policy would do long-term damage to the internet, which was always conceived as a platform for everyone – not just those with deep pockets.”

“A spokesman for ISPA, the body that represents UK internet service providers told the BBC that ISPs ‘should be free to manage their networks as they see fit,'” The Beeb reports. “He added that it would make no sense to throttle popular services such as the iPlayer. ‘That is just going to annoy your customers and they will leave,’ he said. The code of practice drawn up by the BSG this week is aimed at making it easier for consumers to see how traffic is managed on different networks.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As always, we back net neutrality; it’s the various “Net Neutrality” proposals (and their unintended/paid for/intended effects) that worry us.

If people spent half as much time fixing things that need to be fixed as they do fixing what isn’t broken, we’d live in Utopia.


    1. yes they do have a ‘right’ to do this, and unless the zombies reject their ‘service’, it will happen. Why is everyone so hung up on regulation? If the zombies are too stupid to stand up for themselves, why should anyone else stand up for them? If fools will pay for these services, they get what they deserve.

        1. Every town that we service as an ISP has at least one, if not more, competitor for us.

          Every dam town we serve.

          In Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Mississippi.

          Once again, every town we serve.

          Populations range from 1,800 to 78,000.

          We go against DSL, fiber, and WiFi.

          These are NOT large metropolitan megalopolises with high median incomes.

          If you live somewhere with only one ISP provider, then you are more hick than many in these 4 Southern states.

            1. Then it is either dirt poor or it really is hick, meaning there are very few house counts per mile to substantiate a build-out.

              Thing is, it is hard for me to believe 5 miles out of Chicago is that low in numbers.

              We service that far out of some of our towns, so maybe she has been denied service for some reason.

          1. OK, I have two possible providers where I live. What happens when both of them start throttling Netflix or iTunes? You think it won’t happen? Of course it will.

          2. @towertone Your limited world view doesn’t always extrapolate out as nicely as you would think. Until you actually visit these areas and/or talk to the providers currently serving them then you are only making grand assumuptions based wholly on your own geographical sphere of influence. How about you leave it to the people who have direct physical contact with these areas to suggest why they only have one provider or still only have dial up before you dismiss everyone as more “hick than many in these 4 Southern states.” If someone lives in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, or Mississippi then feel free to act as the local ISP expert for them and leave the rest of us out of it.

  1. So if you’re big/popular enough, you don’t have to worry about being throttled. Ok.

    And if you’re not, you’ll have to buck up to join the “fast” internet like all your competitors. So much for letting the quality of your content speak for itself in the market of public opinion.

    1. Arnold, exactly what is wrong with maximizing profits? Or are you a “public servant” who intends to retire on a pension bought and paid for by the rest of us….

      1. No.

        I’m convinced Apple isn’t successful because they are focused upon maximizing their profits, rather they make a lot of profit because they design and manufacture products people like to use, which results in sales and then profits.

      2. Neil, nothing is wrong with maximizing profits. This goes beyond that. Without Net Neutrality, a very few corporations will be allowed to exercise ownership like control over the Internet. These are corporations that are already hugely profitable. As demand for access increases their profit will increase. In order to, as you say, maximize profit, they intend to change the entire nature of the Internet and render it a circus mirror reflection of the tiered and packaged pay television system and the capped and metered cellular networks.

        I don’t know about you, but I do not want an Internet where I have to figure out what bundles and packages to purchase and worry about every bit I download counting against my monthly quota.

        I don’t look forward to an Internet where MacDailyNews loads painfully slowly while The Huffington Post, the New York Times, and blast onto my screen at high paid super speed.

      3. “Maximizing profits” is code for “maximizing profits at any cost”, which is unconscionable. Big corporations have completely forgotten their social responsibilities in their zeal to make ever greater profits. Something’s gotta give.

      4. “Or are you a “public servant” who intends to retire on a pension bought and paid for by the rest of us….”

        Wrong. A lie planted in you head by the Republican chorus.

        Truth: I paid into and paid for my pension over 32 years with 6.5% of my salary. The money went into a management entity that was/is independent of the state coffers. That money was invested and managed, by that entity and MY money increased and decreased in value over the years along with the stock market. By law that entity was/is self-sustaining and is not allowed to pay out more than it has in it’s coffers. But that did not stop the Republican assholes from raiding my pension and diminishing it by at least 30% while telling the public the lie: Teachers are leaches who intend “to retire on a pension bought and paid for by the rest of us….”. So they proceeded to STEAL MY MONEY!

        You further insult me by putting your words “public servant” in quotes as if I did NOT serve the public in my 32 years teaching in public schools, likely teaching your misbehaving kids who did not want to learn. Also my job did not end when I got home each evening. There were papers to grade and lessons to plan. Furthermore I paid for, earned, and continuously upgraded my college education throughout my career on my own dime. My first year salary was $9000 which very slowly increased to $65,000 over 32 years time. So might I just say F*CK YOU for perpetuating the LIE that MY pension is YOUR MONEY and that I did not SERVE the PUBLIC.

        1. correction: leeches

          And by the way. I am doing well in my retirement not because of my meager pension, but because I remortgaged my house back in 1998 and invested all the cash I could get out of it in Apple stock. I now have millions. Seriously.

          1. Moral of the story: Socialism failed Thomas. Capitalism made him rich.

            Social Security is a farce. That is YOUR money they steal and waste. DEMAND CONTROL OF YOUR MONEY.

            1. Not quite. Had there been anything resembling socialism, Thomas would not have been forced to try and fend for himself and find a way to supplement pension income. Make no mistake, folks: by putting his meagre money he got by re-mortgaging his home into AAPL, he hit the lottery jackpot. That is exactly what happened to him. Had Steve jobs been killed in an airplane crash ten years ago, Thomas would be flipping burgers today. What made Thomas rich was definitely NOT capitalism: it was sheer (dare I say dumb) luck (with maximum possible respect for a public servant who gave his whole life for educating others).

      5. You’d either be a fool or not a true Apple user to not realize Apple is all about maximizing profits. Apple has traditionally built an incremental upgrade system throughout its products. Even with it’s traditional upgrade boxes, Apple has done all it could to prod users,clients to upgrade through them, either with it’s software requirements which limited the use of swapping out graphics cards to even memory with quality requirements. And the era of CPU swaps ended with the G4.

        Of course it can be argued that since Jobs came back, Apple’s switch back to an almost entirely closed ecostructure is Jobs ensuring the longevity of HIS company which came as close to death as is possible. MS had too big an advantage for Apple to move into Scully’s strategy of a Coke vs Pepsi war — Windows vs OS would have ensured its demise in the 90s without letting PC companies takeover hardware development.

        Still, that cannot justify Apple’s low end specs for memory, drives and graphics cards when coupled with it’s high prices.

        It should have been made clear to Apple, both its Board and Jobs, that it’s not just the brilliance of its iOS line beginning with the iPod that has led Apple to dominance in the marketplace: The accessibility of those products by low price is really the driving component coupled with a great user experience.

        All Apple has to do to finally compete with MS is now attack it with aggressively lower prices. Imagine the penetration of a slightly upgraded minimac (4G of ram which is almost a necessity) at $500 with KB/MS. An iMac at $899 and its laptop line cut $200 across the board.

        Apple would smother MS in a decade, making it a Commodorian fossle. But that’s not what Apple wants. Apple is not just a greedy company, but an elitist one as well. It sees itself as the BMW of PCs and has no desire to be a Ford.

        Now, I have nothing against greed. If I want something badly enough, I will make that sacrifice. Or not, if I can’t justify the level of decadence to which I must succumb. And only a fool says he doesn’t want more money to ensure his security.

        So you see, it’s so silly to pretend Apple is not what it is: A typical greedy corporation hell-bent on success on its own terms.

        In other words, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!

        1. Let’s hope Apple does not become like BMW: a company that has become the antithesis of what it once was. BMW sells a nice 20k car for 45k and so on, where as they used to make sports sedans that kicked the competition at a more reasonable price.
          It’s a yuppie brand for those who think they are getting a bargain by overpaying for mediocrity.

      6. Maximizing profits without adding any real value is what this is about. It’s about restriction, not expansion of capabilities.

        Meanwhile, they have gigabit internet in Hong Kong and 100 mbps in South Korea. Go USA!!! WE’RE #29 WE’RE #29!!!!!

      7. Neil, you ignorant slut! If the public is paying for public employee retirement benefits that is as it should be. Who benefitted from the services performed? Retirement is a standard part of compensation in our society. In the case of public servants, one takes a lower salary in return for better benefits, including retirement.

        The really sad part is that the Republican hucksters have convinced you to argue and vote against your own best interests. You’re actually arguing for the demise of Social Security, which is a safety net for you in your old age. You don’t realize that they will get an immediate substantial tax cut if SS is ended. What will you get? Nothing. You’ll get the same 401k you were getting before, and you won’t have SS to sweeten the retirement pot. You’re an idiot.

        1. Underpaid!?! Pay on average is higher for public employees, and when adding the benefits it becomes grossly so. Don’t try to claim ‘lie’ with a lie! That’s just dumb.

          Your argument of benefiting the public is a stronger one, specially with teaching, the military, cops, firefighters and on – except for the ones that are bored with their job and don’t give a shit about making you wait in line while they chat on the phone, or those with inflated important ‘authority’ and bully you, or those spineless superintendents afraid of lawsuits unwilling to enforce discipline and responsibility, or those who think they can implant personal beliefs on students by chanting their governor is evil.

          And SS s not about security – it’s always been about redistribution of wealth. Otherwise, they’d have put the money in a national investment plan run by real investors where the fund’s account could grow naturally and reflect the investers’ actual investments instead of making up payments out of thin air (not to mention letting politicians using it as a ponzi scheme and illegally borrowing from it).

          And it’s likely many of those that have paid in WILL get NOTHING!

          Are you really that incapable of think, or just so indoctrinated you’re that stupid!?!

          1. Perhaps you should do some fact-checking first before repeating the talking points.
            1. Public employees in general have lower pay scales than *equivalently educated/qualified* private sector employees.
            2. My retirement is in one of the highest rated national investment plans available and it lost 35% of its value in the 08/09 debacle.
            3. The name Social *Security* is not an accident. If it’s about redistributing wealth, then why are earnings over about $110k exempt from the tax.

            “Are you really that incapable of think, or just so indoctrinated you’re that stupid!?!” Go look in the mirror.

  2. If people spent half as much time fixing things that need to be fixed as they do fixing what isn’t broken, we’d live in Utopia.

    That’s so perfectly true it hurts.

  3. Here’s a clue, bozo: billionaires undeserved tax cuts are bought by the rest of us too.

    If you think billionaires deserve more money, but people who toil directly for your state or city should live in poverty, you might be a Republican.

  4. Exactly.

    This is why when the ISPs and their Republican cohorts say that abolishing Net Neutrality will promote innovation, they are lying through their teeth.

    These people are counting on creating **artificial bandwidth scarcity**. They see the demand increasing. Their response in a rational and logical world would be to invest more in infrastructure to support the growing need, and if demand exceeds supply, charge more as they see fit. How much they charge would be governed by the quality of their service and competition.

    Instead they are creating plans to RATION, LIMIT, THROTTLE, BLOCK, and METER. This is not network management, this is simply corporate avariciousness. No bit will travel on the Internet that they are not paid for. No bit will travel on the Internet that they do not control the destiny of.

    It’s artificially manipulated supply and demand. Normally supply and demand are the forces that govern the free market. The difference here, for all of my fellow conservatives that don’t understand, is that with Internet bandwidth, THERE IS NO FREE MARKET. There are few big ISPs, and individual consumers have precious few choices as to where they will get their service.

    I for instance can only choose Time Warner. If Time Warner sees that a large amount of traffic is going to NetFlix, without Net Neutrality to stop them, they can both charge NetFlix more for unfettered access to me, and charge me more for unfettered access to NetFlix and if you don’t think they will, than you seriously need to get a clue here.

    The argument that they won’t tamper with large popular services makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The ability to leech profit off the popularity of those services is their entire goal!

    When people use words like “freedom” to explain why Net Neutrality is important, it’s vague and hard to understand. They are referring to the end-to-end nature of the Internet, in which the network in the middle does nothing to tamper with a packet sent from any destination to any other.

    “Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally.”

    That is all. So when the FCC proposes Net Neutrality, it isn’t heavy handed government regulation of the Internet, it is on the contrary simply establishing a code of conduct that is attempting to preserve the Internet as we know it, i.e. the most fertile ground there is for the development of new products and services as well as the greatest resource ever for the exchange of information.

    Without Net Neutrality, the Time Warners, and COMCASTs, and AT&Ts become the “R E G U L A T O R S.” They effectively become the OPEC of bandwidth, a cartel as they have no competition and they will cooperate to screw YOU and ME because they can.

    1. I’d rather be screwed by a corpration than the government. If a corporation upsets enough people, they go out of business, and some else takes their place. If the government upsets enough people….. they don’t have to do jack squat.

      Putting government in control of the greatest force for free speech and democracy (the web) and not expecting there to be no consequences for free speech is incredibly short sighted and naive.

      Corporations aren’t perfect but there is literally nothing they can’t do better than a big, bloated, over-reaching, power-hungry federal government.

      Republican cohort.

      1. Regardless of your sexual preference, know this: your thinking is merely the product of the Republican Chorus. You repeat their sound bites verbatim as thought they are your own thoughts. Truth is, the ideology you embrace is contrary to your own best interest. Yes, you will be screwed. You ARE screwed … by you. You screw yourself because you are unable to discern that which is and is not in your best interest.

        1. Thanks ZombieKiller for repeating sound bites yourself.

          I think MDN nailed it….Net neutrality is good, but the proposals that our inept gov’t has come up with so far have been stupid, if not dangerous.

          This shouldn’t be so difficult. Just focus on net neutrality and nothing else in the damned bills!

      2. That makes no sense. Who or what do you think “the government” is? Did we suddenly have some sort of alien force impose a government on us, with no recourse or option to change it?

        This is what the VOTE is for! The government we have is the one we put there. The reason our government exists is to server OUR interests.

        Corporations exist to serve the interest of their shareholders, often represented by huge private interests in the form of mutual funds and other entities that, in turn, are driven by profit motives that are frequently influenced by greed and other self-serving directives.

        Yes, we can “vote” with our wallets to influence corporate decisions – sometimes it works, sometimes not. But we can also “VOTE” at the ballot box and not just influence, but outright change our government. And that’s a guarantee – whatever the outcome of the vote, we know it will be honored (usually!)…

        It’s baffling to me how the marketplace is so often seen as a great and open forum, while government is painted as the enemy and beyond our control. I believe it’s nearly the opposite – government BY THE PEOPLE, etc.

      3. @rjcylon

        Ordinarily, I’d agree with you, but your premise is based on competition. A company that has competition might go out of business, but big ISPs will not. They have no competition. So without Net Neutrality they effectively become the Government of the Internet. No one can oppose them. Everything you fear about big Government will come true with these corporations. They will be in control of the “greatest force for free speech and democracy,” which is no better than the government. Please consider that all the FCC is saying is that the rule is essentially leave the Internet alone. In terms of regulation, it’s like saying the 1st amendment is speech regulation. Please pull off the ideological glasses and look very closely at what is going on.

      4. Considering how corporations have become inextricably enmeshed with the government due to lobbying, it really doesn’t make a difference which one is screwing you.

        You’re basically saying you prefer tomatoes over tomahtoes.

      5. Really, what at are you smoking? Or have you just bought the CNBC free market bullshit hook line and sinker?

        GE, the current part owner and former complete owner of CNBC, got a bailout under both TARP and the Fed’s free money window in order to stave off bankruptcy. At the same time CNBC was pushing the Ayn Rand bullshit that is the parent of what brought the economy to this mess in the first place. That’s like finding out the guy running your AA meeting drinks a 24 pack every night.

  5. “…If people spent half as much time fixing things that need to be fixed as they do fixing what isn’t broken, we’d live in Utopia….”

    That which isn’t broken is most often so because it is *maintained.* If people spent more time caring for the things that work, maybe we wouldn’t keep waking up to the disaster of the week or wondering “Gee, how did that happen?” so much.

    1. You’d think that, after what happened in 2008, americans would finally come to their senses and realize that the “self-regulating market” destroys whole economies in the process of “self-regulation” after dumbass corporations abuse the freedom they get.

  6. When these ISPs buy and pay for the Internet, they can charge what they like for it. Since they don’t own the Internet and they can’t buy it, they can’t pick and choose what parts cost more to use than others.

    You can’t dam a river and charge the towns and cities downstream extra for their water source.

    Keep the Internet free from greedy bastards.

  7. Corporations rule the USA. What they want, they get, much like NFL teams who blackmail states and cities into building newer stadiums for them, or “we’ll find another state to play in”..

    It doesn’t have to be this way.

    HONG KONG residents can enjoy astoundingly fast broadband at an astoundingly low price. It became available last year, when a scrappy company called Hong Kong Broadband Network introduced a new option for its fiber-to-the-home service: a speed of 1,000 megabits a second — known as a “gig” — for less than $26 a month.

    In the United States, we don’t have anything close to that. But we could. And we should.

    Verizon, the nation’s leading provider of fiber-to-the-home service, doesn’t offer a gig, or even half that speed. Instead, it markets a “fastest” service that is only 50 megabits a second for downloading and 20 megabits a second for uploading. It costs $144.99 a month. That’s one-twentieth the speed of Hong Kong Broadband’s service for downloading, for more than five times the price.

    1. Hong Kong also has the dubious pleasure of having the most densely populated neighborhoods in the world. So running fiber to each apartment in a tower is affordable. Compare that cost to connecting the scattered houses in a modern American subdivision. That’s why Verizon’s fiber is only available in a few big cities.

      1. Population density, the lack of or the presence of it, doesn’t explain why Verizon’s fiber is still slower and more expensive than in Honk Kong. This is not a ploy to say that the USA will EVER have that kind of service to every household that wants it, no one, including me is that naive, but now where, NO WHERE in the USA does anyone have an ISP with speeds and prices as in Hong Kong. Any why not? Clearly it’s doable, as its been done by a whole city, so why don’t we have that here?

        Corporate Greed. That want to charge Netflix for streaming movies to you, and charge you for watching Netflix movies.

        1. Not true. Fiber doesn’t have an unlimited run length; the equipment necessary to run fiber for a longer distance is very much more expensive than the fiber itself. But of course that explains only the expense – not the speed. Or lack thereof.

  8. Yea, they want to charge everyone more for less speed. Greedy like the record industry comes to mind. There in the business to provide network service, so why don’t they do what there supposed too.

      1. The consumer will find no way around this. Once again, you must look at how the consumer found a way round the music industry. The consumer had choices. Most people have at the most 2 choices for broadband. Their area DSL provider and their area cable provider. Some people have just one. A choice between two cooperating members of a bandwidth cartel is no choice at all.

  9. The ISPA spokesman claims that if an ISP annoys its customers they will leave. In my community the ISP has a monopoly and they know there is no place for a dissatisfied customer to go. If the ISP industry consolidates, as almost all industries have over time, there will be fewer and fewer places to go. That will almost certainly destroy any chance for net neutrality. “Please don’t take it personally sir; we screw everybody.”

  10. My ISP has offered multiple tiers for several years. It works well. My parents don’t pay as much as I do because they don’t need or want the higher speed access for what they need the internet for.

    1. But the point is this. You, the end user, decide how much bandwidth you want to buy. That is OK. What Comcast wants to do is charge varying prices to the content providers, not the same price for all and the same performance for all. So those providers with deep pockets will deliver to you high speed access. At that point, who is deciding what you get over the internet, you or the guys with enough money to push their content to the front of the line?

      1. That’s not really what the net neutrality debate is about. What the debate is not about how fast you receive content, but how fast you send it. If companies can throttle certain websites so they don’t load as fast as others, then people will visit the sites that load faster and not the ones that frustrate them, thus giving ISPs preferential treatment for their customers to view sites _they_ want them to see, not what they themselves want to see.

        1. Exactly. 50Mbps fiber to your home won’t help at all if Netflix is throttled by your ISP. This is a key issue in my opinion – rate (Mbps) versus volume (MB or GB). Even if you don’t use the internet 24/7, you still want decent speed when you do use it. If you want to consume large amounts of data, then high speed is virtually a necessity.

  11. “As always, we back net neutrality; it’s the various “Net Neutrality” proposals (and their intended/paid for/unintended effects) that worry us.”

    What would your proposed solution be then?

    1. To restate the painfully obvious from MDN’s Take above:

      If it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it.

      Just as with “global warming,” you are being sold a bill of goods. “Net Neutrality” is a solution in search of a problem.

      1. In NYC, we have a choice of about 4 ISPs. Today, they all offer similar packages for similar money ($45 will get you about 20Mbps down, 5-15Mbs up). 20Mbps down is plenty good for full HD real-time stream from NetFlix. But no. Today, EVERY ISP in NYC is throttling specifically Netflix to below 1.5Mbps, which is well below minimum for a decent stream. That’s because all NYC ISPs are also offering their own VOD service, which sucks big time and costs arm and a leg. Netflix is far superior, so it is shut out.

        Meanwhile, Netflix pays big money to bring their stream to ISP’s backdoors (avoiding public pipes), so all ISP has to do is just open the door and send that stream directly to the consumer. Absolutely NO burden on THEIR (or anyone else’s) network.

        THIS is the problem in search of a solution. And it seems to me, conservatives in America would rather enjoy this problem at home than allow any entity representing democratically elected government fix that problem for them.

        There is this strong preference among American conservatives to enjoy being screwed by big business and corporations over allowing government to do ANYTHING at all that might for just one moment benefit ordinary population, at the expense of those big businesses. I could never figure this out why is it so.

  12. yes ISPs should not a permitted to throttle, but who do we trust to enforce that…? The government? …. NO


    The government should break up monopolies only and ensure that way the the free market and competion will regulate.

    1. What monopoly? While a particular local market may have only one choice, nationwide there is no monopoly. What does the government “break up”?

      What needs to happen is we, as a nation, need to recognize the internet, the information superhighway, as infrastructure and make the decision if it will be a bunch of privately owned toll-roads or a national resource. The countries that go with national resource will win.

      1. Consumers have no choice. Each area is under the control of one or two major providers creating a monopoly for those consumers. I live in Downtown Los Angeles. In the building I live, I have one choice. Time Warner. In the area you can generally get Time Warner or AT&T. AT&T and Time Warner are in complete accord about Net Neutrality. They hate it. They want to be able to control, meter, and do as they please with every bit on the Internet. This gives the two of them ownership of the Internet in Los Angeles. Yes you can go to 3rd parties, but they in turn must deal with the major ISPs who own the wires.

        What if I owned all the roads in the area that connect to your house. What if you had to pay me in order to drive your car out onto the Interstate Highway? You can’t just pick your house up and move it can you? Moving to another part of the country where someone else owns the roads will just be moving to another monopoly.

        So unless the government seizes the “roads” (which no one wants) they will likely always be in the hands of a local monopoly. So the only solution is to lay down some ground rules. I.e. Net Neutrality.

        There is a distinction between the wires and the Internet. The company owns the wires but they don’t own the Internet. Unfortunately the Internet “lives” on the wires, so they effectively own the Internet.

        I believe that unless we want the Internet to wind up looking like a packaged, controlled, tiered, mess like cable tv and a capped charged, surcharged, bunch of fees like the cell system, that we must support Net Neutrality no matter how distasteful having the government as an ally in this may be.

        No kill switches on the Internet, not in the hands of ISPs or the Government.

      2. Talk about fixing things that are broken…

        We don’t remember or even know the meaning of the United States of America, we can’t even agree on who or what is a true American.

    2. I don’t see the government grabbing control here.

      Here is the gist of the FCC proposal, for those of you who have not read it.

      What is the FCC actually proposing in the 170 page document?

      i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

      ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

      iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

      That’s what Republicans are so afraid of. Beats the crap out of me.

      1. We’ve heard all about “transparency” from your do-nothing, empty suit, bullshit artist.

        Smart people didn’t buy it the first time around, we’re certainly not going to now.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.