Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States

US Court Blocks Biden Administration Net Neutrality Rules (ksl.com) 103

schwit1 writes: A U.S. appeals court on Thursday blocked the Federal Communications Commission's reinstatement of landmark net neutrality rules, saying broadband providers are likely to succeed in a legal challenge. The agency voted in April along party lines to reassume regulatory oversight of broadband internet and reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015 that were rescinded under then-President Donald Trump.

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which had temporarily delayed the rules, said on Thursday it would temporarily block net neutrality rules and scheduled oral arguments for late October or early November on the issue, dealing a serious blow to President Joe Biden's effort to reinstate the rules. "The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations," the court wrote. "Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Court Blocks Biden Administration Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:
  • We have an openly corrupt court. I still think Biden's doing the right thing fighting this out, the public needs to see the courts in action striking down legal rules with obviously flimsy grounds.

    And no, we don't need a law from Congress. The FCC has had the authority to result this under both existing statues and the obvious interstate commerce clause since the Internet became a thing. The courts will have to tie themselves in knots to rule in favor of the corporations, but have you seen "Justice" Tho
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      We have an openly corrupt court. I still think Biden's doing the right thing fighting this out, the public needs to see the courts in action striking down legal rules with obviously flimsy grounds.

      While I can seem "some" valid arguments about potential corruption...with the gifts and trips and stuff.....WTF is corrupt here?

      This is going back to the basics of how the US is supposed to run.

      Being that you are foreign, I try to give you a bit of a break in that you don't understand, but after awhile, it gets

      • by rta ( 559125 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @01:17PM (#64675916)

        +1 the specific legal question appears pretty clear cut. (though it's "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit" decision rather than scotus right now)

        A good synopsis of the court opinion (which itself runs through the relevant legal history of the issue)

        https://reason.com/volokh/2024... [reason.com]

        the Title 2 attempt was always a stretch and without Chevron it's extra dead.

      • They over turned Chevron that was built on 200 years of precedent. Neither of the plaintiffs in Dobbs or the Biden v Nebraska.

        Dobbs was especially terrible. They cited a witchfinder general from the 1600s in the ruling. This may shock you, but the 1600s was a wee bit before the US constitution...

        Oh, and there's that absolutely batshit Immunity ruling. They've basically declared Trump our weird King. All he needs to do is use Project 2025 to replace anyone who would stop him and he can literally ord
      • I admit to not having read the initial "Major Questions" decision, but I'd think there's a potential simpler argument here.

        This policy, with it's reversal and re-reversal, feels as it should violate the Administrative Procedures Act, "arbitrary and capricious" rule.

      • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @02:13PM (#64676098)

        Let me try and understand this. Since this is the FCC and the supreme court says they lack the authority to actually enforce anything does that mean if a transmitter tower is operating incorrectly and spewing harmonics into the wrong band, congress now has to debate and pass a law in order for the tower to be fixed?

        • by wgoodman ( 1109297 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @03:42PM (#64676268)

          If the person running the tower can afford the legal battle..

          At this point you could probably start storing nuclear waste at daycare centers and tell the EPA they don't have to right to trample your freedom.

          • Yep, and that means the US has completely failed as a nation.

            It's no longer able to pass even the most basic laws without an instant judicial battle between people who don't want toxic waste dumped all over them and their homes VS. some jackass with money who thinks everyone else should take his dick and be grateful for it.

            The real question at this point is: "What happens next?" To be frank, probably a watering of the tree of liberty. You just can't fix these kinds of issues without bloodshed in any re
        • You hit the nail on the head. Chevron basically makes it so that anything corporations want to do they can just do unless Congress word for word specifies they can't do it.

          It's also possible that a political appointee judge will rule against the corporation but I wouldn't hold my breath for that unless you're maybe trying to breathe some of that "Freedom Air" there is selling.
        • > Since this is the FCC and the supreme court says they lack the authority to actually enforce anything

          The Supreme Court hasn't said any such thing. All the Supreme Court has said is that they have to enforce what the law says, and not just make things up on their own if the law doesn't say what they want. The problem is that in reality, that's pretty much what the FCC has been doing with ISPs for years.

          The law tries to make a clean delineation:

          • A "common carrier" just provides communication. If (for e
          • "All the Supreme Court has said is that they have to enforce what the law says"

            The law says the FCC has the authority to make and enforce regulations, so that's horse shit. That's literally what they were invented for.

            • The law says the FCC has the authority to make and enforce regulations

              I don't believe the FCC mandates stated it could "make regulations"...ie new laws in areas other than by legal writ.

              Enforce...yes, create/make...no.

          • by nasch ( 598556 )

            They want to continue to hold ISPs responsible for user's content

            How is the FCC doing that?

            Once they've made their choice, the FCC makes sure the abide by the consequences of that decision (e.g., if they decide to be a common carrier, they can't be held responsible for users' content, but they also can't provide or control content).

            The FCC would never state "Comcast, you're a common carrier, Google you're not". They would set rules for what qualifies an entity as a common carrier, like with all regulations.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @12:15PM (#64675708) Journal

    As much as I would love to see net neutrality - and I'd even go further to declaring internet service to be common carriers and subject to the same rules as DSL / phone providers, this really is something Congress should sort out, rather than it flipping back and forth at the whims of whichever bum got elected President.

    We need an open internet, but we also need market stability.

    • congress is so broken at this point that they can't sort anything out, anything they pass can be unpassed when the other party gets in power. It is unfortunate because I agree that this is clearly something worth regulating, but, well, the reality is our 100% party partisan politics is destroying any semblance of 'do the right thing' that may exist here, if it ever had existed.
      • by galabar ( 518411 )
        It's very simple. If congress doesn't or can't pass something, it isn't law. You may not like it, but that is what the Founders designed, and it's been working so far. You want the court and the president to do something that wouldn't be passed in Congress. Think about that.
        • Uh, that isn't what I said. I was whinging about how congress is being dysfunctional, not about trying to sidestep them. My main point was that it seems we are in the position that whichever party is in power tries to undo all the work done by the party that was in power last time.

          Yes, I more than get it that the way our system is designed, compromises must be made and no one is going to agree with all of the laws passed, but regardless we are bound by them.

          I never said, "You want the court and the pres

      • congress is so broken at this point that they can't sort anything out, anything they pass can be unpassed when the other party gets in power. It is unfortunate because I agree that this is clearly something worth regulating, but, well, the reality is our 100% party partisan politics is destroying any semblance of 'do the right thing' that may exist here, if it ever had existed.

        Well, we can start by trying to vote everyone out that is ingrained, embedded.....hell, let's push our congress critters to enact t

        • I approve of that and have been trying to do so for a while now, the problem is all those people who say, "My congressweasel does a good job, it is everyone else's that doesn't!"
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      I would send the GOP a long e-mail outlining my views on this subject. But unfortunately, they have not paid my ISPs access surcharges and messages and donations are unable to reach them.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, we need LLU [wikipedia.org] and real competition, not toothless net neutrality regulations that don't even apply to wireless. I'd support real net neutrality law (which should be simple and without loopholes for prioritization and such), but it shouldn't be left to the whims of non-elected agency officials.

    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      As much as I would love to see net neutrality - and I'd even go further to declaring internet service to be common carriers and subject to the same rules as DSL / phone providers

      DSL providers were never common carriers. They were required to license the lines to other carriers, but that's unrelated.

      And common carriers for networking would be very bad. Common carrier rules would prevent any sort of traffic shaping, which means my massive ping flood is as important as your livestream uplink. The law should require that an ISP provide comparable service quality (bandwidth, jitter, and latency) at least as far as the first peer outside its network, regardless of the destination, and

      • People who are not in the business and have not been exposed to traffic engineering do not understand the realities of the internet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      If you want to see net neutrality, then the Net Neutrality bills are not it.

      Are you not paying attention, or have you never heard of things like the Patriot Act and other similarly-named con jobs, which do the opposite of what they propose?

      Net Neutrality has always been about regulatory capture, nothing more.

  • Hopefully blue states can implement some form of it state-wide without the Court inventing reasons to stop it.

    • as long as the courts are controlled by people of one stripe, doesn't matter which stripe, then they will be trying to thrust issues down people's throats claiming some obscure legal rationale as they do so.
    • the blue states cannot implement what was sold as "net neutrality" because it was about title 2 regulations and the FCC approving what plans an ISP can offer. if you look into the examples of net neutrality abuse you'd see that there really isn't any issue impacting people at all.
    • Texas kinda-sorta does with their power system. How's that working out for them?
    • The court doesn't have to: "State's Rights!" *snicker*

      Oh, Did you try to actually use the power of the state to enforce a law we don't like? Quick! Big Daddy Fed! Make a law to banish those foolish wrongs of the other states!

      Oh, Did you try to actually use the power of local county / city government to enforce a law we don't like? Lol, like we give a shit about what the proles want, here's a state law that forbids your laws from being effective! HAHAHAHA!
  • net neutrality was not a good description of what the regulation is. nor were the issues that proponents used to justify the massive change. if there was some sort of actual net neutrality issue, it would likely fall under FTC's purview to police anyway. at least this time we didn't have to suffer through the phony online campaign from eff/mozilla/john oliver.
  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @12:45PM (#64675784) Journal
    "The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations,

    No it doesn't. It's very simple: you can't give preference to one stream of data over another. How difficult is that to understand?

    "Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization."

    The FCC already has Congressional authorization [congress.gov]:

    The FCC operates under a public interest mandate first laid out in the 1927 Radio Act (P.L. 632, 69th Congress), but how this mandate is applied depends on how âoethe public interestâ is interpreted. Some regulators seek to protect and benefit the public at large through regulation, while others seek to achieve the same goals through the promotion of market efficiency. Additionally, Congress granted the FCC wide latitude and flexibility to revise its interpretation of the public interest standard to reflect changing circumstances and the agency has not defined it in more concrete terms. These circumstances, paired with changes in FCC leadership, have led to significant changes over time in how the FCC regulates the broadcast and telecommunications industries.

    Do people not read any more? This is like that moron throwing out the classified documents case claiming an invalid appointment of the special counsel. Apparently they couldn't be bothered to read the federal code [cornell.edu] on the matter. Or, as the Attorney General said [cnn.com]:

    Do I look like somebody who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don't think so.

    Til now, every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of special counsel appointment has upheld it.

    Clearly the judges on the Appeals Court are just legislating from the bench rather than reading what the FCC mandate is as given by Congress.

    • by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @01:05PM (#64675878) Homepage Journal

      "The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations, No it doesn't. It's very simple: you can't give preference to one stream of data over another. How difficult is that to understand?

      It does when you conflate it with Quality of Service dictating bandwidth needs, which is what many people do. Video conferencing requires a high rate in both directions. Video streaming or downloading major software installers requires a high download rate. Browsing the web requires low rates most of the time and will need some burst speeds here and there to acquire some content. Those are basic needs to provide proper QoS for the services requested.

      As long as the endpoints are effectively anonymous, then you meet what is needed. If, however, I choose to pay for expanded services because I do a lot of video conferencing, that's on me... not on federal regulators. If Comcast (example) elects to speed up their VOD services within their own network, that's on them... not on federal regulators. If Comcast (example) purposely decides to slow down direct connections to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc, that becomes an anti-competitive practice and is certainly already within the realm for federal regulators to hand out penalties.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        "The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations, No it doesn't. It's very simple: you can't give preference to one stream of data over another. How difficult is that to understand?

        It does when you conflate it with Quality of Service dictating bandwidth needs, which is what many people do. Video conferencing requires a high rate in both directions. Video streaming or downloading major software installers requires a high download rate. Browsing the web requires low rates most of the time and will need some burst speeds here and there to acquire some content. Those are basic needs to provide proper QoS for the services requested.

        The rules should still be simple. You can't give preference to one stream of data over another stream of data that has the same quality-of-service class or equivalent.

        As long as the endpoints are effectively anonymous, then you meet what is needed. If, however, I choose to pay for expanded services because I do a lot of video conferencing, that's on me... not on federal regulators. If Comcast (example) elects to speed up their VOD services within their own network, that's on them... not on federal regulators.

        Comcast is within the margin of error of being a monopoly in most of the markets in which it operates. If Comcast speeds up their VoD services while effectively throttling Netflix because their peering point is overloaded, that's unfair competition, and should be prosecuted quickly and decisively. Nor should Comcast be allowed to throttle N

      • If Comcast (example) purposely decides to slow down direct connections to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, etc, that becomes an anti-competitive practice and is certainly already within the realm for federal regulators to hand out penalties.

        It sounds like you think business competition is the only thing that should be protected on the Internet. What are regular customers supposed to do when the consumer protection agencies are fully gutted and they want to do something that does *not* require sending money to a corporation?

        • What they can do is vote differently, hopefully based on facts instead of BS. So that those consumer protection agencies and regs don't get gutted.

      • If Comcast (example) elects to speed up their VOD services within their own network, that's on them... not on federal regulators.

        Speak English bro. What you said is nonsense. Networks work at max speed all the time. There is no "speeding up" of any stream, there is only the slowing down of other streams.

    • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @01:20PM (#64675926) Homepage

      "Legislating from the bench" is what you call a court ruling that goes against what your political party wants. Republicans have been yelling about this for years. Democrats are now starting to catch on.

      If Congress would start, you know, *legislating,* court rulings like this could be easily undone, where thy should be, by Congress. Instead, both sides are so busy yelling at the other side about their pet peeves, that they are paralyzed, giving the courts way too much power.

      • If Congress would start, you know, *legislating,* court rulings like this could be easily undone,

        You are dead wrong sir. Human languages are designed such that they are fully incapable of specifying anything with enough specificity that there will be no further questions. In other words, it is literally impossible for what you want to occur. It absolutely *IS* a nice idea though... it belongs in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy realm.

        • I think what you are suggesting, is that it's impossible for legislators to anticipate every future nuance of the wording of the laws they crat. If that's your point, then I agree with you, but it doesn't negate my point in any way.

          What I meant when I said that "court rulings like this could be easily undone" is that, after a court interprets the law in such a way that the interpretation conflicts with the actual will of Congress, Congress could easily pass a clarifying law to undo the court's "misinterpret

          • I think what you are suggesting, is that it's impossible for legislators to anticipate every future nuance of the wording of the laws they crat. If that's your point, then I agree with you, but it doesn't negate my point in any way.

            I was not saying that nor was I trying to invalidate your point. Your point might get invalidated...

            What I am saying is that words are fluid in definition. Look at the 2nd Amendment. Initial reading says that it should be interpreted the exact way it was written, and yet people are still trying, and sometimes succeeding, in redefining what EXACTLY was meant with those words.

            In other words, your proposal only works if everyone has honest intentions. "Give me six lines written by the most honest of men and I

            • Fine, so people, even judges, can intentionally misinterpret laws. How does that negate the ability of Congress to clarify them? Whatever the original words meant isn't what's important. What's important is that Congress has the ability to redefine those words if they choose to, it's literally their job to update laws as needed. Sticking to the original intent is not important for Congress, it can modify laws by providing NEW intent.

              For the courts, sticking with the original intent is more important. They d

    • I don't think they are legislating from the bench, they were legislating to get the most in legalised bribes. They would probably do that just as well from their luxurious sofas, yachts or whatnot....
    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @02:23PM (#64676116)

      The recent supreme court decision was part of a long game to undermine the authority of regulatory agencies. These agencies are nothing but a thorn in the side of private industry and large corporations. Take the EPA for example, created and signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1972. Now suddenly the EPA powers are too broad and must be reigned in. Instead of the EPA and the knowledge of scientists and experts who work for it we have to get congress involved to debate on whether mercury and leaded gasoline are toxic. Congress, as in the "series of tubes" guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] or the human thumb masquerading as a woman who shows dick pics to congress during IRS hearings. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    • Congress gave them wide latitude on community standards about the content of the communications, but that isn't the issue. It's more that Congress didn't give the FCC equally wide latitude to determine what kinds of communications they can regulate. Effectively, the problem is you have a commission created to oversee radio and TV transmissions over the air for things like public decency standards in broadcasts and now faces the problem of regulating network transmissions that may never be broadcast on the
    • Clearly the judges on the Appeals Court are just legislating from the bench rather than reading what the FCC mandate is as given by Congress.

      So what? Legislating from the bench appears to be very effective and, apparently, there is nothing that can be done about it. Have fun, it is going to be a WILD ride. :)

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @12:57PM (#64675830)
    There are zero federal laws with the words "net neutrality", and that means the executive branch has exactly "zero" power to regulate it. That's the consequence of Loper Bright. If it isn't EXPLICITLY spelled out in law, the power lies with the legislative and judicial branches, and the executive branch can do exactly "nothing"

    Before all the nerds get pissed about this, keep in mind that this will affect the next president as well, which is very likely to be Trump. That dud and his posse have a ton of super-bad ideas on how to run the country, and they're gonna get blocked at every step by the courts.

    Loper Bright made the potus a MUCH weaker position, at least as far as domestic policy is concerned.
    • There are zero federal laws with the words "net neutrality", and that means the executive branch has exactly "zero" power to regulate it. That's the consequence of Loper Bright. If it isn't EXPLICITLY spelled out in law, the power lies with the legislative and judicial branches, and the executive branch can do exactly "nothing"

      A major point of having agencies within the executive branch is that they hire employees who understand a particular industry very well and can create regulations that will prevent c

      • Good or bad, it’s gonna be like this for the rest of our lives. A ton of important regulation is gonna get shredded by special interests. Nothing will happen until a few important people get killed by poisoned food or unregulated cars. Then, congress will have to re-learn how consult with experts and actually pass laws. But that’ll take decades because currently congress is mostly a place where elected officials scream loudly to make short-form videos. It will require a total culture shift, and
    • Before all the nerds get pissed about this, keep in mind that this will affect the next president as well

      You still believe in "right and wrong". You still think anybody cares about right and wrong. What you don't seem to realize is that the definition of right and wrong depends on who is judging and who is being judged. So one president could get away with murder and numerous other crimes while another president gets analyzed deeply for handling of classified documents while trying to honestly do their job. It all depends on who controls the 'story'.

      Most of us have no idea at all at how fucked we are as a nati

  • When Net Neutrality was conceived, bandwidth was way, way lower. It really mattered whether one type of connection got priority over another. These days, speeds are so fast that, in general, everything can get through, (nearly) all the time. Maybe we can now move on to more important issues?

    • No, because without this Net Neutrality your Netflix will only stream at 720p, while your ISP's service will stream at 8K.
      Your federated XMPP video chats will experience packet drops, while well known expensive (or ad-ridden) solutions will work fine.
      Your indie online game will experience lag, while games going through EA/Steam will work fine.

      This will also allow pricing data "per service" : limited to 100GB/month, for $5 extra monthly Spotify/Netflix doesn't count in that balance.

      Don't put it past ISPs to

      • I'm not so sure that ISPs will be quick to "degrade" service. They know that customers expect that fast connection to be...fast. If Netflix streams at 720p, the customer won't complain to Netflix, they'll complain to the ISP. And complaining customers are more likely to jump ship, especially now that customers have more options, such as a fiber service or 5G home internet. The higher the promised speeds, the less tolerant customers will be, of bandwidth issues.

        So far, the main things ISPs have done, is remo

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          I'm not so sure that ISPs will be quick to "degrade" service. They know that customers expect that fast connection to be...fast. If Netflix streams at 720p, the customer won't complain to Netflix, they'll complain to the ISP. And complaining customers are more likely to jump ship, especially now that customers have more options, such as a fiber service or 5G home internet. The higher the promised speeds, the less tolerant customers will be, of bandwidth issues.

          It wasn't too long ago when it was happening, a

          • You've got a point about cellular internet, which hasn't yet reached speeds and capacity rivaling cable or fiber internet. As bandwidth improves with each new generation, I predict these kinds of restrictions will go away, with or without the law.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          I'm not so sure that ISPs will be quick to "degrade" service. They know that customers expect that fast connection to be...fast. If Netflix streams at 720p, the customer won't complain to Netflix, they'll complain to the ISP.

          And the ISP will roll their eyes, because what are you going to do, use satellite Internet?

          I already have frequent periods of multi-second outages doing video conferencing for work, and that's *without* any clear competitive motive, and with business-class cable service. They're more than happy to degrade service right up to the point where federal regulators start throwing around phrases like "unfair competition" and "antitrust breakup", and they've demonstrated that willingness often enough to make that

          • Hanlon's razor applies to your situation: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

            There is no clear connection to your "multi-second outages" to the lack of net neutrality.

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              Hanlon's razor applies to your situation: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

              There is no clear connection to your "multi-second outages" to the lack of net neutrality.

              I didn't say there was (though it can't be ruled out). What I said was my issues are evidence that ISPs don't have a good reason to care, because they pretty much have a monopoly, and there's even more reason for them to not care when they are throttling a competitor unless the government takes action.

              • That's the thing, their monopoly is eroding. I now have three choices for home internet: XFinity, AT&T, Ezee Fiber, plus 3 cell carriers that offer 5G home internet. And Cellular internet is becoming more and more generous. My $30 a month AT&T plan, and my wife's $20 a month Boost Mobile plan, both come with 30 GB at 5G speeds. Cellular internet isn't yet where home internet is, but it's getting there quickly. Just a couple of years ago, our plans each only offered 5 GB at full speed.

        • by nasch ( 598556 )

          more options

          This is what will fix the problem, as well as most other problems with ISPs. We really need regulations to promote competition.

  • by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Friday August 02, 2024 @01:35PM (#64675984)
    To let it be kept in the private hands of monopolistic telecoms,, the world needs to have net neutrality and plenty of competition to keep the price reasonable, kids need it for school, adults need it for almost everything from shopping to medical, for job hunting to remote work, the internet is not a luxury it is a necessity for almost everyone,
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I suppose the gist of the matter here is the fact that the Supreme Court has decided that Federal Agencies are starting to push the boundaries of what they were created to do beyond merely enforcing the existing laws enacted by Congress.

    While they are typically allowed to enforce existing law, many of them are blurring the lines a bit by trying to " reinterpret " said laws or even trying to change them altogether.

    The most blatant examples would be the BATF trying to reinterpret the official definition of a

  • It starts off with a very interesting history summary showing how the FCC has ping-ponged on the Net Neutrality issue and seemingly in response to Court rulings that are cited in this Stay Order. The links in TFS are useless since they do not show you the actual Court Stay Order.

    https://static.foxbusiness.com... [foxbusiness.com]

  • "major questions" is a magic phrase to look for these days. In new laws and bills Congress keeps adding "Major questions doctrine does not apply to this provision". this is a power grab by the judicial branch. It doesn't come from any law passed by Congress at all.

    What does this mean? For totally unspecified reasons -- no particular boundary or edge, a hand wave about “vast economic and political significance” and nothing can be determined in the executive branch agency regulations. It is unfals

  • Net Neutrality doesn’t matter anymore. The next battle is CENSORSHIP and WE ARE LOSING it! The only way out is to apply the antitrust laws we have. Reagan ordered his A.G. not to apply these laws and every administration since has continued the practice. It’s time to curb the power of mega corporations over defenseless consumers.

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!

Working...