Net neutrality update

[Undertoad]

I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.

The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.

Verizon says they failed to apply the conditions for an emergency provider to the plan. If this is a net neutrality thing, aren't they supposed to just brazenly change their policies? Not, like, make a customer support mistake and then fix it.

I mean, anyone use Verizon Wireless? Anyone ever have 'em make a mistake? Okay then.

But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.

Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.

It doesn't mean that it has merit. Doesn't mean anything at all really. It appears to be lawyer money, spent by public officials in pro-net-neutrality land, using public funds to make sure they get re-elected by their pro-net-neutrality voters.

Ordinarily, a pro-plaintiff lawyer making an addendum is not really newsworthy. But if you are Ars Technica, you are part of the process and you can write not just one, but two stories about it.

Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.

The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.

The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.

But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.

Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.
...
Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.

Indeed. Hence my initial "not directly", and my follow-up to the story that described the connection fully.


I'lll add one errata for my last post: When I initially said it was Santa Clara County's lawyers, it was actually 22 state attorneys general (nice to see a couple of Republican states in there), the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission, in the case MOZILLA CORPORATION, et al. v. FCC.