Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling 391
HughPickens.com writes: Chris Matyszczyk reports at Cnet that Verizon has posted a message to the FCC titled: FCC's 'Throwback Thursday' Move Imposes 1930s Rules on the Internet" written in Morse code. The first line of the release dated February 26, 1934 in old typewriter font (PDF) reads: "Today (Feb.26) the Federal Communications Commission approved an order urged by President Obama that imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph." The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines in favor of new Internet service rules that prohibit blocking, slowing or prioritizing traffic. The rules, which have not yet been released, are opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment. "It isn't a surprise that Verizon is a touch against Thursday's order. In 2012, it insisted that the very idea of Net neutrality squished its First and Fifth Amendment right," writes Matyszczyk. "I wonder, though, who will be attracted by this open mockery. Might this be a sign that Verizon doesn't think the fight is over at all?"
Verizon's 'Throwback Thursday' move... (Score:5, Funny)
Stomp Feet (Score:5, Insightful)
...imposes 2000s (1990s?) Internet access speed!
More like they don't expect to win a real argument that the FCC's proposals are in any way bad, so they are trying to win by mocking the FCC.
It's a schoolyard bully's trick.
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's the idiot bully's trick at that; the clever ones don't provoke the playground monitors.
And now, I would like to sincerely and heartily thank Verizon for the initial lawsuit provoking the playground monitor that made net neutrality a reality. I strongly encourage additional attention and noise to the issue for full on public utility regulation. Here's to moving the US into a First World nation with First World utilities like power, water, and real broadband - wired and wireless.
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:5, Insightful)
" imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph."
Oh, you mean back in the days when giant corporations used their monopoly status to squeeze huge amounts of money out of their customers in the absence of competiton? Those days?
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:5, Informative)
It just drips Irony doesn't it?
Re: Stomp Feet (Score:5, Funny)
It gets better:
In 2012, it insisted that the very idea of Net neutrality squished its First and Fifth Amendment right,"
Someone should tell Verizon that the Bill of Rights isn't to be taken seriously either since you know they were written just before the time of steam locomotives and the telegraph!
They wouldn't want to be hypocrites after all.
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:5, Funny)
More like they don't expect to win a real argument that the FCC's proposals are in any way bad, so they are trying to win by mocking the FCC.
It's a schoolyard bully's trick.
The FCC should let'er rip and give Verizon their own 0.02 cents on the topic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:5, Informative)
Of course... that article is dated before the ruling.
Today, the front page reads this way.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
I case you don't choose to read the ruling.
Let me summarize:
EFF LOVES THE RULING.
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:5, Informative)
(the oft discussed "fast lane" has yet to actually happen)
I get about 5x lower bandwidth streaming movies from Amazon than from Netflix. I've stopped renting HD movies from Amazon because the buffering kills it. Netflix happens to have paid to AT&T (my ISP) to get preferred service [1].
Hmm... That sounds an awful lot like a "fast lane" to me.
[1] http://time.com/3059431/netfli... [time.com]
Re:Stomp Feet (Score:4, Informative)
So tell me... what's YOUR explanation for what happened?
The problem with this sort of thing not being illegal is they really don't have to even tell people they are doing it. And if they're smart, they can and probably are taking measures to prevent people from realizing they're doing it--rotating out the customers they throttle, throttling only at certain times of day, etc.
So, that's my thesis. It has existed for quite a while, but it's growing and starting to involve third parties so that it really isn't possible to hide it any more. Oh yeah, and ISPs were throttling P2P users (not pirates--ANY use of p2p, like sharing ubuntu ISOS) a LONG time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they do that anyway.
fees (Score:5, Insightful)
first complaint ive seen. they want to leave the average user with turtle slow speeds while charging out the ass for people and companies who can afford it. companies have gone from being reasonable 150yrs ago to outright blatant greed, and youre ridiculed if you speak out against it. fuck capitalism.
Re:fees (Score:5, Insightful)
fuck capitalism.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.
And this is almost laughably wrong:
The rules, which have not yet been released, are opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment.
I call BS. They don't "fear" it will do anything of the kind. What they fear is that it will put a stop to their monopolistic control, and monopolistic prices, and end their ability to pocket tax money given them for infrastructure.
I mean this literally: you can hardly believe a word they say anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hardly" is going too far. Why not just come out and say it - not a single word of truth is printed unless it benefits someone with power.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we believe you then?
Re:fees (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it has to do with Franchise agreements between _______ cable and the local municipalities, which is NOT Capitalism, but some bad version of utility.
Bring me fiber via local Municipality, and let me choose which set of services I can get, from whatever company that wants to offer for whatever price the market will bear. Municipal owned COLO that gives market access to any company that wants it.
Re:fees (Score:5, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.
That's actually everything to do with capitalism.
Your ignorance of history and economic systems is ... overwhelming.
If we're going to define capitalism as what was laid out by Adam Smith in On the Wealth of Nations (generally considered to be the founding document of capitalism), it certainly didn't praise corporate greed. Adam Smith takes a lot of time to bash on corporations, and how they need to be regulated. Not just that they need to be regulated, but exactly the manner in which they need to be.
Re:fees (Score:5, Interesting)
If we're going to define capitalism as what was laid out by Adam Smith in On the Wealth of Nations (generally considered to be the founding document of capitalism), it certainly didn't praise corporate greed. Adam Smith takes a lot of time to bash on corporations, and how they need to be regulated. Not just that they need to be regulated, but exactly the manner in which they need to be.
Agreed. If we're discussing "Adam Smith free-market capitalism", Smith laid out the need for a solid body of antitrust law way back then. He recognized that free markets could lead toward monopoly, but wrote that this is where the government's role started: to enforce antitrust laws, which keep everybody on the same level playing field.
Since the government has hardly been enforcing the antitrust idea AT ALL, much less well, the logical conclusion is that this situation is not Adam Smith free-market capitalism. Which is what most people mean when they say "capitalism", regardless of technical details.
But it's very obvious that over the last couple of decades, government has thrown much of the antitrust baby out with the other regulatory bathwater, as it were. Not very long ago at all, a merger like Comcast and TWC would have been just laughed at, and never considered at all. For very good reasons.
BUT... I also want to say that GP here still missed the point. The person I was replying to implied that the problem was capitalism. My reply was that the very same problem (and I'll say here: even worse) occurs in other systems. Therefore the root problem can't be capitalism, per se. It must be something else. The obvious "something else" is cronyism. GP essentially just said "bullshit" while making no argument of his own.
Re:fees (Score:5, Interesting)
Adam Smith wrote about free markets. Capitalism is something above and beyond a free market, first written about by Marx, who argued it was an inevitable consequence of free market and used that to criticize free markets.
When you conflate free markets with capitalism you're buying into a little bit of Marxist ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
Adam Smith wrote about free markets. Capitalism is something above and beyond a free market, first written about by Marx, who argued it was an inevitable consequence of free market and used that to criticize free markets.
You're arguing terminology over substance. Modern economists acknowledge that it was Smith who pretty solidly defined what we call "capitalism" as a socioeconomic structure. He didn't use the WORD "capitalism", but he defined everything we currently call free-market capitalism today.
Marx called it "captitalism". But we already knew what it was. Big fucking deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
companies have gone from being reasonable 150yrs ago ...
Let's not get carried away with false nostalgia. 150 years ago was the era of robber barons [wikipedia.org] that make Verizon and Comcast look like pussycats.
Re: (Score:2)
Your wikipedia link reads like a description of the current situation.
Neither Comcast nor Verizon has opened fire [wikipedia.org] on their opponents with live ammunition [wikipedia.org], so I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So don't use Verizon...
No can do. Verizon is the only option in my town.
Re:fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fees (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it isn't a public utility. It is a "franchise agreement" between the Local Municipality and the Corporation. The fact that this is the way things have always been done doesn't mean it has to continue this way.
I propose that instead, we bring FIBER to a COLO, from where the citizens can CHOOSE (market forces) the options and features they desire from the multitude of companies that offer these services.
BY moving the issue of "last mile" ... to a COLO rather than neighborhood corner, it solves all sorts of market issues.
Re:fees (Score:5, Informative)
Re:fees (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, you had to get the government to help you? And you're complaining that the government is trying to help you again? Jesus Christ.
Re: (Score:3)
Title II could make that happen, but it will be a few years until there are enough choices to make a market work half decently.
For example, back when dial-up was the best technology generally available there were dozens of ISPs to choose from, all connected to a highly regulated POTS network. Prices dropped like a rock and if there was an issue, you could actually get your call elevated to the actual network admin.
The big flub with DSL was not giving the regulations enough teeth to make access truly equal.
Re:fees (Score:5, Informative)
I propose that instead, we bring FIBER to a COLO, from where the citizens can CHOOSE (market forces) the options and features they desire from the multitude of companies that offer these services.
That's how we do it in most of "socialist" Sweden. I.e. I have an "open city network" fibre to my house. ISPs are free to sell service on that fibre/network (for a small access fee that pays for the network infrastructure, now less than 10% of my montly fee). So I have a choice of eight different ISPs and pay about $40/month for 100/100Mbps + IP telephony (no subscription fee, but charged calls). I also get cable TV over the same fibre from a different company but that's extra, about $25 for the channels I get.
That's how you'd actually want it organised to enable a free market.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:fees (Score:4, Informative)
I'm paying $85 a month to get a "business class" DSL, just so I can get around the "bandwidth caps" AT&T has imposed on it's consumer accounts. If I hadn't, my bill would average $400-$800 a month just from usage. Some might say this is my apartment's fault; but I have been told b y management here that just recently several AT&T drones have come in and flat-out lied to to them about "future upgrades" that don't even exist to get better speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I moved away from Tulsa.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on your definition of a broadband provider is. In my area, outside of Boise, ID, we have a hand full of choices by a very loose definition. However when it comes down to it, there is only one, maybe two.
CableOne - Best option if you can get it. $60/mo for 30x2. Fast speeds (up to 75x5,) great service (especially with "business" plan) and decent coverage area in town. No enforced data caps on business plans, rate limits when caps exceeded for residential plans.
Century Link DSL - Second best
Re:fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Verizon is the only option in my town.
This is the real problem.
So-called "Net Neutrality" is a nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound, for two main reasons.
First of all, most internet users in the US of A have little choice between carriers. It's either cable, dsl or satellite. The cable market will be given to company A, and if lucky, company B for dsl. It is virtually impossible to start a new ISP under current regulations. This means that there is little to no incentive for incumbent operators to upgrade their networks.
In an ideal world, networks and subscriber access have sufficient bandwidth to accommodate all users. Yes, consumer cable/DSL will be oversubscribed a bit, but that will leave plenty of bandwidth for regular services, assuming a decent operator network. This is the real problem of the U.S. internet access market.
The second reason why I'm strongly against these regulations is that the government should keep its busy nose out of private companies' networks. If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to. If a subscriber does not like the way I operate my network, they are (should be) free to go elsewhere. Which is the part that is broken in the U.S.
So, what the FCC should really focus on is not so much the whining of Netflix regarding available ports on public peering exchanges, but to open up the broadband market to more competition. Works in Europe, works in Asia, works in Canada. Does not work in Mother Russia, for obvious reasons (in Russia, KGB^H^H^H internet connects to you).
In short, because the FCC is so defunct that they're unable to regulate a healthy competitive market, they force their big fat butt on the seat of the CEOs of current companies and tell them how to operate their networks.
Re:fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fees (Score:5, Insightful)
If you built a network using your own finances, then I say absolutely.
OTOH, if you take government subsidies ( The Universal Service Fund I think ) to help you build your network / infrastructure out with the conditions / goals of the USF, then you don't get to operate it completely by your own rules.
Eg:
Promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates for all consumers
Increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services
Advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas, at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas
Increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities
Provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs
Pay close attention to number three above. THIS scares the shit out of the big players who are in the broadband game. Currently they cherry pick where they build out their networks based on projected profit returns. They classify under Title II, they may lose that privilege.
That terrifies them as it eats deep into their already absurd profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC? :D
I kid. I kid. I see your point. Regulatory capture is a bad thing. The solution is NOT to get rid of regulation. That leads to monopolies. The solution is to get rid of the corruption.
Frankly, America barely votes and a large swath of the voters are fucking lemming morons. We have the corrupt government we deserve. Congress has a 14% approval rating. Most of them get reelected over and over. This isn't the government's fault. This is OUR god damned fault.
Re: (Score:3)
It's learned helplessness. Push lever A, push lever B, don't push any lever. It doesn't matter, the painful shock is coming anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This is great advice, where were you when they imposed emissions controls on cars!
People were like: "I'm tired of all the dirt in the air" ...and now we could be swimming through NY's atmosphere!
You could have been like: "So don't use air..."
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the real issue. These dickheads have a virtual monopoly and they joke about competition. Like there really is some. I hope the person at Verizon that wrote that snide shit has his asshole grow shut. The only company that treats it's customers worse than Verizon is AT&T. And it's not much difference on the shitty scale.
Re: (Score:3)
You're lucky. I'm have one option (comcast in silicon valley) of $79 for 20meg down/1meg up.
We can *just* do hd streaming for amazon/netflix videos. Some nights, it's too slow and we buffer every once and a while.
Re:fees (Score:5, Interesting)
to show how much variation there is, I am also in the bay area and I have a year of 'intro deal' pricing where its less than $50 for 100meg down and 10meg up. no shit, either; I do get those speeds.
well, one caveat. I run openvpn almost 7x24 and this pisses comcast off, even though they won't ever say it. I get disconnected almost every hour on the hour. I work around it with my own form of creative network mgmt (...) and I'm annoyed by them, but its not stopping me.
note, when I don't run my vpn, I don't see the disconnects coming. strange, huh?
anyway, when the intro 12mo deal is over, I'll have to find some other service. there isn't much else to pick from! I once had clear.com (clearwire) - a semi-4g usb 'mifi' dongle that would give me acceptable connectivity without any house wiring. when I was short-term renting, that did the trick. neat little dongle, too. maybe I'll look into that again.
I just need to leave comcast (when my year is up) for 3mos, then I can reset the clock, get a new intro pkg and start again, but this time it probably will only be a 6mo special.
if you don't play these games, you get stuck for over $100/mo!
THIS is why comcast needs to be bitchslapped. and the others, too, but in my area, comcast is the only choice you get.
silicon valley - where we pretty much DID invent the internet - and we have a single vendor to pick from. sigh ;(
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to understand just why so many here want federal solutions to their local market problem, which greatly stems from your local gov't (PUCo and such)
There are a few reasons. First, a federal solution makes sense because the problem is systemic throughout the nation. Further, these abuses of local/regional monopolies are happening at the hands of a handful of national companies. Finally, I don't think that local PUC's are able to understand and manage the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Verizon is not demanding the right to charge you more for faster speed.
They are demanding the right to IGNORE the contract they made with you to provide X speed whenever the people you ask content for refuse to pay them for X speed.
Which is total Bullshit. They can't charge me for X speed and then turn around and say "Sorry, but that speed only applies to o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment goes to show just how far the US has fallen by accepting the ISP's line that if they are not regulated, we will get better service and faster high speed roll out. Friends of my family in Japan pay about $30 per month for 100 GB/sec speeds (yes that is 100 GibaBits/second). I've heard the Koreans are putting government funds to ensure everyone in the country is up and running at 100 GB/sec for about $10/month.
Why can the US no longer compete?
What are we as consumers going to do about it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why don't you start a company that offers that service?
If you can do it profitably, you'll have investors falling all over themselves to give you money, since pretty much everyone will want your service....
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't you start a company that offers that service?
Here's an example [hyperoptic.com] (British, and £50/month, but £1 = $1 is pretty normal for technology...)
They're only installing into apartment buildings at the moment, and I think they ask the building owner to subsidise the installation, but I don't doubt it increases the rental value.
Re:fees (Score:5, Informative)
*unfortunately our last govt lost the last election and the new govt knocked the project on the head, despite every independent analysis backing up the claim it was a net gain for the economy and would've returned a profit to the govt as an asset once complete. Ah politics. never let the facts get in the way of chance to score points, even if it means fucking over the country in the process.
Re:fees (Score:4, Interesting)
I could do it, if I had access to the Telco rights of way that were "franchised" away to the local Cable monopolies during the early part of the 80s. We are 35 years later, and haven't improved the delivery model.
Re:fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why don't you start a company that offers that service?
If you can do it profitably, you'll have investors falling all over themselves to give you money, since pretty much everyone will want your service....
I would love to start an ISP. I have the resources to lay fiber through certain municipal areas that aren't well covered. It would take 10 years to start seeing profit, but after that, its almost 100% profit. I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.
But guess what? In our great "free" market that the telcos are trying to protect, I can't. You see, the telecos have convinced (see: bribed) many municipalities into signing deals which prevent any competitor from moving in. Google is attempting to deploy fiber nationwide, but they are forced to first spend insane amounts of money in lobbying themselves in order to be able to do it (they are forced to do other things as well, but this is a big problem). There are big truckloads of money that would dump into infrastructure in a heartbeat. The problem is that no one legally can because of how totally f-ed up the market has become with lobby $$$.
It isn't about money.
The market isn't free. It is a duopoly, and it is corrupt.
Old rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Old rules just suck. I mean, stuff like "Thou shall not kill"? How are we supposed to deal with terrorists with silly old rules like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them. [wikisource.org]
The rules have only been modified [wikisource.org] only twenty seven times [wikisource.org] in over 200 years.
Silly, antiquated regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with good information. The actual commandment is "Thou shall not murder" when properly translated from Hebrew texts.
The bit telcos could stand to remember this old rule (again, oft misquoted): For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. - 1 Timothy 6:10
There's nothing wrong with businesses making a profit, but there's a difference between that and profiteering. During WWII, the Chrysler c
Corporation != People (Score:5, Insightful)
The very fact that Verizon views themselves as having first and fifth amendment rights shows the ludicrous precedents Citizens United sets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but they feel no pain, like people. no ability to show remorse or ethics or shame.
they can't be jailed and they are almost never punished in any meaningful way.
they have all the good things we, people have; but none of the bad things.
"gee, dad, when I grow up, I want to be a corporation!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Rich people go to prison? Now you are talking nonsense.
Verizon is just following Alinsky (Score:5, Insightful)
When the fact are not on your side, use ridicule.
Re: (Score:3)
government control is a bad idea
As opposed to what? - Anarchy, tribalism, feudal warlords? An economic market is not a thing or a place, it's a set of rules that govern trade. The Fox News definition of "free market" = "free from regulation" is an oxymoron at best.
Clever. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show them up for what they are (Score:2)
Verizon is not a content creator (Score:3)
Verizon's arguments about controlling content are absolute red herrings. A content creator like a newspaper gets to determine the content and articles they publish or promote. The manufacturer of the paper it's printed on has no say.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that... I'd say that Verizon's been creating quite a bit of content lately, most of it false.
They fear it will curb internet growth? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Money is a form of speech thanks to citizens united so they are no bribes, they are "protected political speech!" FUCK YOU CONSERVATIVES!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have no rights! (Score:2)
The are incorporated meaning made corporeal as an act of state, they have no more inherent right to petition government than a my shoe. The share holders, employees, executives, and customers can petition on their behalf.
Perhaps a little history is in order (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Verizon is about 100 years behind the times.
Maybe (Score:3)
... rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph.
Yeah, and rules against wanton killing were written in ancient times. Maybe we should rid ourselves of such laws when telecom execs are the victims.
Fuck you, Verizon. (Score:3)
Yep.
If N.N. impacts Verizons 1st Ammendment rights (Score:2)
All those flavors... (Score:2)
...and Verizon chose to be salty.
Rob
This is a great time to switch carriers (Score:3)
Just tell them that you don't want to be with a company that feels like it needs to use morse code.
Oh, the irony.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony here is that Verizon makes full use of it's Title II status in other areas (wired telephony and mobile voice), and has used Title II benefits to build its FiOS network. The same Title II status it is now protesting against.
To add more fuel to the irony fire, the FCC would not have had to vote on net neutrality at all if Verizon hadn't sued them in 2012 claiming violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights.
So, Verizon forced the FCC to make a change, is now complaining that the the FCC has made that change, but behind the scenes has been profiting all along in other areas where that change is in place. Sorry, Verizon, no sympathy for you.
I love old laws (Score:5, Insightful)
AKA (Score:2)
... opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment.
Snooping for ad revenues and obscene profit margins
morse code? (Score:2)
sweet! does this mean they're going to upgrade my internet connection to morse code soon?
can't wait.
I just hope this isn't a Br'er rabbit move... (Score:2)
cause this isn't over yet... [fcc.gov]
A reply (Score:2)
dot dot dot dash dot dot dash dot dot dot dash dash dot dot dash dash dash dash dot / dash dash dot dash dash dash / dot dot dash dot dot dot dash dash dot dash dot dash dot dash / dash dot dash dash dash dash dash dot dot dash dot dash dot dot dot dot dot dot dash dot dot dot dot dash dot
Verizon go fuck yourself
Hissy fit (Score:2, Informative)
This "company" acts like a giant angry child.
At some point the united states is responsible for the idea and creation of the corporation. It would be nice to see that they can also impose a 'death penalty' on these immortal creations when they turn into giant sour monopolistic monstrosities.
I've no idea why Verizon exists. It's not healthy for the people, or the nation, as such given it's size and impact the only reasonable thing to do would be to protect the public by shutting them down and scattering th
I have an idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Maybe the regulations are reasonable, but so w (Score:2)
Easy the us constitution forbids states interfering with interstate commerce. Therefore the FCC has the right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did the U.N. meme come from? Citizens United is more of a threat than the U.N. Did oyu copy and paste this drivel from ALEC?