Net Neutrality

The Bad Argument Behind the FCC's Move to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

Chairman Tom Wheeler's Title II plan is a bow to political pressure.

|

Whitehouse.gov

Earlier today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed reclassifying broadband Internet service from a Title I "information service" to a Title II "telecommunications service"—essentially declaring that the FCC plans to regulate the Internet as a public utility.

It has been clear for at least a month that Wheeler planned to take some version of this approach. At a tech conference in early January, Wheeler, who had long resisted reclassification, said he had an "aha moment" when he looked at the regulatory treatment of wireless phone networks. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, wireless companies were officially regulated under Title II, but were not subject from some of its requirements, like rate regulation. "Under that for the last 20 years, the wireless industry has been monumentally successful," Wheeler said

In an op-ed for Wired today announcing the Title II proposal, he reiterated the argument, saying that "over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition."

The problem with that bit of reasoning, as Jon Healey of the Los Angeles Times pointed out at the time, was that in 2007, wireless data networks—which account for a significant portion of wireless industry investment and innovation—were exempted from Title II.

Wheeler is now pointing specifically to the voice component of the wireless industry as an example of a success. This seems at least a little odd: It's hard to imagine most people pointing to the voice component of the mobile industry as being particularly innovative or interesting over the last several years. In recent years, the mobile industry has seen voice use flatline and mobile data surge. That's not likely to reverse; data usage is growing not only because of new connections, but because each connection is using more data. So if anything, the voice component of wireless is on track to become far less relevant.

Yet the Times reports that Wheeler is not only planning to circulate a proposal that reclassifies broadband as a utility, he "may also suggest putting wireless data services under Title II and adding regulations for companies that manage the backbone of the Internet."

Wheeler, in other words, plans to significantly increase the regulatory burden on the fastest growing and most innovative segment of the industry he initially said was the model of a Title II success.

No doubt Wheeler and his backers would argue that the continuing growth and importance of wireless data service is the reason for changing the way it is regulated; the more important it is, the more oversight it requires. According to the FCC, mobile data now accounts for more than half of online traffic.

But that growth, and the relative stagnation of mobile voice usage, undermines Wheeler's argument about how the success of the wireless industry makes the case for Title II. Instead, it suggests that Wheeler wants to pursue reclassification not because the wireless sector has been successful under Title II, but because of the service that has been successful without it. 

It's possible that the argument doesn't hold up because Wheeler's story is better understood as cover for succombing to political pressure. It's more likely that Wheeler's original "aha" moment came not when he looked at the path of the wireless industry, but in November, when President Obama announced support for "the strongest possible rules" in service of net neutrality.

The Title II switch would give the FCC more power over the Internet broadly, and thus make it more likely that any net neutrality rules would pass legal scrutiny. Previous attempts by the FCC to set up net neutrality requirements have been thrown out in court.

Wheeler's proposal isn't officially available for the public to see immediately, but Wheeler spells out the basics of the plan in an op-ed for Wired. The five member commission will vote on the proposal on February 26. 

What seems clear enough, though, is that the FCC, technically an independent agency, is bent on radically overhauling the way it regulates Internet service after prodding from the White House. The weakness of its case for making the shift apparently matters less than the political pressure to make the change. 

(Updated to note details of Wheeler's proposal.)

NEXT: Kevin Bollaert and Craig Brittain: Two 'Revenge Porn' Cases, Two Very Different Outcomes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What a lovely photo. It doesn’t look staged at all.

    1. Has the white house never heard of a tablet?

      1. The FCC intends to ban tablets and mobile devices used for Internet access. See, websites are being designed to accommodate such devices, which limits their performance. Therefore, ban.

    2. Reckon Apl paid for product placement?

      1. No need to. They know that those fuckers would never risk their hipster cred by being seen with a nerdy PC.

        You know what, someone needs to make some decent Linux laptops with great branding so I can signal to the world how geeky I am. Sure I have linux running on my Lenovo laptop, but people in the Caribou coffee shop all think I’m a bland windows user.

        1. Sure I have linux running on my Lenovo laptop, but people in the Caribou coffee shop all think I’m a bland windows user.

          Is your neckbeard properly displayed?

  2. Another solution in need of a problem.

    1. The solution is government and everything else is a problem.

      1. “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.” –Sir Ernest John Pickstone Benn

        1. Stolen and posted on Facebook.

    2. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like clay pottery.

  3. It’s hard to imagine most people pointing to the voice component of the mobile industry as being particularly innovative or interesting

    Not only that, I dropped my phone plan years ago because it was too damn expensive and nobody was offering anything for an infrequent user like me. Gee I wonder why.

    Broadband is expensive too but at least I use a lot of it. Unfortunately now it’s going to get even more expensive. Thanks, goverment regulation!

  4. The Title II switch would give the FCC more power over the Internet broadly, and thus make it more likely that any net neutrality rules would pass legal scrutiny.

    I sort of get this from a political standpoint, but would someone *kindly* explain why the switch would make NN, um, more legal?

    1. The FCC has broad authority under its statue to regulate telecommunications services classified under Title II. It has more limited authority to regulate information services under Title I. The DC circuit said that Title I didn’t give enough authority to do net neutrality the way the FCC had initially proposed. Long ago the FCC determined that broadband was under Title I, but it has the legal ability to reclassify the service. So reclassifying broadband under Title II, while an awful idea, will let the FCC go mucking about however they want.

      1. So I guess you’re for Big Cable and the push to create a tiered system of internet delivery too.

        1. Sarc?
          You mean paying for what you get?

          1. I assume he was sarcastic. But regarding the real trolls, it’s amazing how they don’t get something so simple. Even assuming the worst about ISPs, rohibiting ISPs from quality discrimination among websites reduces their revenue (as they can no longer push their own sites by throttling the competition). It also is effectively a mandatory minimum quality of service requirement (hence why so many people want net neutrality). Lower revenue, higher quality service. What does that mean? Higher prices!

            Net neutrality is nothing less than a mandatory improvement in quality of service as measured by its equality toward clients (though likely will only mean everything will be equally) slow after NN), which comes at a cost, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers in higher prices. It’s that simple. You get what you pay for now; well, NN-proponents wan more, so now we’ll get to pay more.

            And the only argument they have is emotive bullshit amounting to “but it’s not faiiiir! I deserve the same speed on all sites!”

            Ultimately, what they’re really getting at, even if they don’t know it yet, is price controls. That’s where this thing will end up in a few years.

            1. equal qos is impossible; particularly when it is unclear if literal QoS routing will now be illegal under the new regulation

  5. Jimmy Fallon looks like a real doucher in that photo.

    1. I happened onto an interview with him just before he took over whatever show he’s on.
      It was sad; he was foaming at the mouth and simply said he’d do anything for a laugh. I got the feeling we were dealing with a soul truly desperate for approval from any human willing to give it.

      1. Jimmy is a pretty decent guy in person, I’ve met him several times.

        1. I’ll take your word on that, but that interview was embarrassing.

    2. Jimmy Fallon looks like a real doucher in that photo.

      FTFY.

    3. So he looks just like he always looks.

      I’ve never understood his popularity. I’m sure he must have done something in the past to get to where he is, but I missed it.

      1. It’s baffling to me too. It’s like letting Horatio Sanz host the Tonight Show except not as funny.

      2. I was tempted to say he was terrible compared to Leno, but I hate to compliment Leno ever since I found out what a retard he was.

    4. Missing alt text: “Oh, you wacky ISIS scamps!”

  6. Will we be invaded by the Net Neutrality Aspies?

    They seem to appear on every article expressing doubt or skepticism and bray on about Common Carrier until everyone else feigns death to shut them up.

    1. Probably. Though I can’t imagine too much cross-posting between here and Ars Technica.

      Speaking of which, I’m sort of scared to see what that site looks like. What’s the digital equivalent visual representation of an explosion of nerd-spooge?

      1. I used to be on Ars many years ago. Hell I even have the pride of being kicked off of it by the founder himself. Good times.

        It depends on the forum. I used to hang out in The Lounge to argue, but I got over it. The technical forums are pretty good, with a lot of very knowledgeable people in them. Avoid Battlefield at all costs.

        1. When I go over there, it’s mostly like how I work here: read interesting article, read comments attached to interesting article.

          The derp there can be pretty amazing. There seems to be some folklore that it has gotten progressively more…progressive in the last few years.

          So how did you manage to get banned?

          1. Techdirt.com is pretty good/libertarian site on most issues, but on NN they fail to see the government forest for the trees. I get that cronyism and corporate monopolies are really bad and a real problem, but…HELLO?…how did they get that way? It’s like they are looking at a vase that was just smashed by a hammer and they are trying to figure out how to fix it with a bigger hammer.

          2. So how did you manage to get banned?

            They ban for all manner of frivolous shit now.

            Disagree with AGW? Check. Too many downvotes? Check. Objectively, critical of an article? Check. Post in too many different forums (praise or not) in one day? Check.

          3. Oh, the derp is mind boggling, but it’s like that most anywhere now. That’s why I left. Too many fresh-faced idiots that you had to explain how the world worked, just you could discuss something. That got tiring. It was an interesting place around 2000-01.

            I got banned for accusing Ken Fisher (Caeser) of trolling in a thread, who had called everyone who disagreed with him racists. When he emailed me to warn me to not do that again, I doubled down on the insolence.

            I created a new account and went back about a year later. But I only lasted another couple years before bailing for good.

            1. This was back in 2001, BTW.

            2. I’m somewhat stunned (though I probably shouldn’t be) at the level of Apple fawning there.

              And if you disagree with Peter Bright about Microsoft, all the MS trolls will beat you senseless.

              It’s really weird. Both Apple and Microsoft have sets of establishment trolls there that operate in different comment sections enforcing the orthodoxy.

              I don’t get it sometimes.

              1. Yeah, the PC-Mac War was interesting about 10 years ago. Not so much, anymore.

                I like Peter, he knows Microsoft pretty well and took disagreement pretty well, back in the day. Not sure about now.

                1. Seems like he has proxies fight his battles. I doubt whether he actually wants that, though. I think it’s even weirder, because there seem to be articles where you would expect flamewars between the two camps, but where it just ends up being the appropriate “army” fighting criticism of the massive corporate monolith.

                  There are times where anyone even mentioning Linux gets brutally downvoted, but then sometimes criticism gets punished, too. It seems way too personality-based.

                  I’d jump in there, but I’d probably get banned for hating both MS and Apple and liking Linux.

            3. This reminds me why I categorically avoid the tech community for anything other than technical issues, even though programming is a lot of what I do. You would think working with software went hand in hand with being a rabid SJW socialist. Oh, you work with Python? How can you not hate your whiteness and maleness?

              I speculate it’s either an ongoing attempt by those guys to get laid by their female feminist friends or compensation for a nerd-inferiority complex.

              1. datacenters are where all of the libertarians are, man

  7. Fuck it. Impeach anyone who tries to nationalize the Internet. Thank you very much.

    1. Release the lawyers.

      1. Bluto: What the fuck happened to the America I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh?! This could be the greatest Internet of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst! “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well, JUST KISS MY ASS FROM NOW ON!!! Not me! I’m not gonna take this! Wheeler, he’s a dead man! Rosenworcel, DEAD! Clyburn?-

        Otter: Dead! Bluto’s right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. [Otter stands up.] We gotta take these bastards. Now, we could fight ’em with conventional weapons. That could take years and cost millions of lives. Oh no. No, in this case, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.

        1. And we’re just the guys to do it.

    2. “But we’re going to make it *free for everyone*! This is simply a reasonable tradeoff.”

      1. I’m also baffled by the insistence that this will increase competition.

        1. When people in government say they are going to increase competition, it means they’re going to subsidize their buddies who can’t compete in a fair marketplace.

          1. When, precisely, has the government increased competition?

            1. They haven’t.

            2. Usually, when they only get the feck out of the way.

              Gore was correct for opening up the Internet, but for all the wrong reasons. He thought it would be for a network of academic supercomputers; nothing at all like we have now.

            3. When, precisely, has the government increased competition?

              Oh yeah. When they deregulated telephone service, airlines, and truckers.

              1. And legalized microbrews. Carter’s greatest achievement.

              2. That’s true. Government has increased competition in the rare occasions it has released its stranglehold on an industry.

                It’s like calling a guy trying to choke you a death a hero for stopping and going to choke someone else in your family.

            4. Oh, they do all the time. Their tax policies and regulations make countries all over the world compete vigorously for the diaspora of American businesses and capital.

        2. It won’t. They’re either delusional or just plain lying.

        3. I’m also baffled by the insistence that this will increase competition.

          A large competition involving every American voter will be held. Subsequently, a regular competitions between random citizens, whether they voted or not, and the byzantine regulatory environment will be held. Local, state, and regional competitions will be held at regular intervals as well.

          Competition increased!

    3. Fucking with people’s access to pr0n might just be the trigger of the next revolution.

      Which would be great when they write about it for future history text books. How do they delicately write that the root cause of the Civil War II was due to the government banning Brazilian Fart Porn?

      I’m guessing that they will boil it down to “slavery” just like the first Civil War.

      1. Given the current zeitgheist; I’d guess more along the lines of female and ‘other’ sexual revolution.

        They were finally able to cast off the sticky keyboard shackles that had oppressed them for so many generations.

  8. It’s truly remarkable that NN mongoloids continue to pound away at this. The rate of penetration, adoption and innovation re the Interet and the connected economy is staggering. Has any other technology *ever* performed the way this has for the past 20 years? The wheel? Fire? Porn?

    Somehow, this all happened without the guiding fist of the FCC. How is that possible?

      1. Some vague thing might happen!

        1. If there’s a one-in-a-trillion chance of some minor problem, that justifies total control of everything forever! Everyone knows markets have no mechanism for self-correction.

          What problems there are right now almost all stem from government interference in the marketplace. Local monopolies, bullshit regulations, the whole works.

          As usual, government makes things worse, then proposes itself as a solution, even when those “worse things” are actually pretty good, over all, like Internet access.

          1. Everyone knows that a private business misstep is a market failure.

            MARKIT FAILUUR!!!1!

    1. The mongoloids will tell you that there has been too much innovation, too fast. You see, government is a moderating force. Government is comprised of selfless people who are endowed with the ability to make perfect decisions, despite having no knowledge or understanding of what it is they are deciding. You see, the alternative is to allow rich business people to make decisions that will affect them personally. This is terrible because the rich put profits before people. Government puts people before profits. So what if some of their decisions cost rich people a bunch of money? They’re rich. They can afford it.

      1. Parasites do slow down the host–weakening it, sucking the life from it.

      2. THIS IS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE

    2. But, but, but, the government INVENTED the Internet! We wouldn’t have it AT ALL if the KKKAPITALIZMZ were in charge!

    3. The rate of penetration

      Has there been continuing affirmative consent to penetration? If not, then obviously the federal government must step in!

  9. I’d like to make a preemptive “Fuck Net Neutrality” before the aspies from reddit or some other bastion of internet retardation show up talking about how there’s monopolies, ISP’s could block websites, and we need to do something, blah, blah, blah.

    What they’re really saying is: that it’s not fair that AT&T wants to charge me more because my iphone, ps3, and wicked sweet computer are all using up bandwidth at the same time. I should be able to pay the same as grandma down the street who only checks her email once a day.

    1. Don’t forget the fucking Comcast hard in the ass.

      It always come s down to that.

    2. That, and a handful of large content generators can buy the cheapest internet access they get and then piss and moan when the “eyeball” ISPs (providers for mainly end users) start balking at what amounts to a free ride on their network.

      Instead, all customers of an ISP should have to pay for the browsing habits of some, while also effectively subsidizing the business model of companies like Netflix, etc.

      I love when people tell me that cable companies can afford to keep upgrading because they have billions, yet they get pissy when I point out that companies like Netflix, Hulu, etc. can afford to buy transit directly from the provider networks because they too have billions.

  10. “The Bad Argument Behind the FCC’s Move to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility”

    And there’s a good one?

  11. What seems clear enough, though, is that the FCC, technically an independent agency, is bent on radically overhauling the way it regulates Internet service after prodding from the White House.

    Does it really surprise anyone that the White House and the FCC want to regulate any and all communication?

    But the most important question is: If the FCC decides to regulate the internet like a utility, what will happen to my ability to stream obnoxious amounts of pornography?

    1. what will happen to my ability to stream obnoxious amounts of pornography?

      Depends. If you’re with the government – nothing. Otherwise, it will be taken away before you’re placed on the sex offender list.

    2. What’s hilarious to me is that if you even suggest that the government might use regulation and power over the internet to do things in the future they don’t like (you know like how china blocks citizens from googling tienamen square) you’re looked at like some tinfoil wearing crackpot.

      (They do the same thing when you point out that if the government pays for your healthcare, the government will decide what healthcare you can get.)

      1. What’s hilarious to me is that if you even suggest that the government might use regulation and power over the internet to do things in the future they don’t like (you know like how china blocks citizens from googling tienamen square) you’re looked at like some tinfoil wearing crackpot.

        I’m pretty sure some around here are in the same boat when you make this point about bitcoin.

        At least, I’ve been reprimanded for my low-brow idiocy when I dare speak about how its clothing might be somewhat transparent.

      2. The fact that they trust the FCC to make clear, unambiguous policy based on a reasonable definition of what ‘equal’ service to all clients entails is, in in of itself, a symptom of insanity.

        Add on the fact that, for all the complaints about Comcast owning the FCC, it does not occur to them that Google also can influence regulatory policy so as to make it more difficult for ISPs to charge them more for good reasons, like using more bandwidth, passing google’s incurred costs onto consumer regardless of how many youtube videos they watch.

        Comcast=evil, but google is pure as an angel.

  12. Imagine if they did this in other industries:

    All the seats at an NFL game would be the same price. You know who would get the best seats – someone with connections.

    All the seats on an airplane are the same price. Most ticket prices would increase dramatically because business and first class are subsidizing the coach crowd.

    All the beers in the store are the same price. The only thing available would be Bud or Miller or PBR …. ie pis.

    All cars are the same price. We’d be driving Yugos.

    1. Look at the Soviet Union. The party elite got all of the (relatively) nice stuff. It was all about your political status and connections. Is that really a good basis for a political or economic system?

      1. Is that really a good basis for a political or economic system?

        It is if you fancy yourself to be a member of the party elite. The people who moan and cry about inequality don’t really care about inequality. They care that people are rewarded on merit, and these people have no merit. So they prefer a system that rewards ass-kissing and making connections, which are the only skills these people have.

      2. It is if you think you’ll be one of the elite.

        1. I’d let these retards find out that they aren’t, but then I’m fucked too.

      3. It might not be a perfect basis for a political or economic system, but it is better than others…

        Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

        1. I dunno, we could use the Lady of the Lake right about now.

    2. In other words, we’d be living in East Germany. Yay!

      1. I do love the color gray…

    3. Socialism is a race to the lowest common denominator.

  13. We’ve always had high def streaming movies from multiple providers via smart tvs.

  14. I for one am happy that the government is helping push people into the brave new world of peer to peer mesh networking.

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs…..revolution

    So when they make the current internet suck, how long before they realize that the rest of the people simply move on to a new networking paradigm?

    1. So when they make the current internet suck, how long before they realize that the rest of the people simply move on to a new networking paradigm?

      Probably shortly after you see the ‘Tested to comply with FCC standards’ sticker on the bottom of your wireless (mesh) network device(s).

    2. True; progs’ championed minimum wage laws also helped usher in the era of self-checkout grocery stores, and I’ve managed to discover that, like cooking, bagging food is another thing I’m better at than middle aged women.

  15. my classmate’s mother makes $73 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $13860 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit this site right here……………..
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  16. Democrats have taken more than a few hard hits due to the Internet making it very difficult for them to keep their activities hidden from the public. They just can’t control the Internet the way they have controlled the news “information” media.

  17. [T]he more important it is, the more oversight it requires.

    IOW, the more important it is, the more the government wants to control it. For your benefit, of course.

  18. What authority does the FCC have to determine its own jurisdiction? If the FCC wanted to declare a newspaper to be a public utility, why couldn’t it do so under the arguments it is currently making about the internet?

    1. For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio [nternet]so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio [nternet] communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire [cable] and radio communication[wireless], there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.

      1. So some made-up shit that sounds like it might mean something?
        That’s what I thought.

      2. I was wondering when the NN Aspies would show up.

    2. It’s like FDA determining whether something’s a food, food additive, dietary supplement, drug, medical device, cosmetic, etc. Theoretically they’re just making a determination of fact as authorized by statute using the statute’s definition, and any reasonable group of people would come to the same conclusions.

  19. The internet isn’t broke, and big brother can’t fix what isn’t perfect about it.
    USA or any country should never control our free speech or our access to it.

  20. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    == ?W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  21. This article misses the point completely. The positions that ISP’s should be regulated as monopolies, and that they should be allowed to charge differently for levels of service are not mutually exclusive. I wish like hell I could give inefficient, money-grubbing, privacy-violating Comcast the boot, but they are an effective monopoly in my town. If we privatize the roads, that old libertarian chestnut, we’d all agree about charging 18-wheelers more than passenger cars, but do we allow “owners” to exclude or charge by race or bumper sticker content? If monopolies are not in some way regulated, we promote corporate tyranny while decrying government tyranny.

    1. Comcast is an effective monopoly? Lay off the booze please.

      It’s not a question of discriminating based on race et al. It’s more like, the owner of the road gives you a toll discount if you’re driving to the restaurant he also owns. Make that illegal, fine, prices go up a little for everyone regardless of where they’re going.

      You pay one way or the other, the only question is how.

  22. Eh. ISPs brought this upon themselves. By providing shit internet for high prices while other countries do it better for cheaper, they were just asking for it.

    Not unlike the health system…we pay more than anyone else, yet have shit coverage.

    Not that this will fix things anymore than Obamacare did, but….when something is so crap for so long, people are going to demand a change, even if it doesn’t actually help.

    1. JeremyR|2.4.15 @ 7:01PM|#
      “Eh. ISPs brought this upon themselves. By providing shit internet for high prices while other countries do it better for cheaper, they were just asking for it.”
      MARKUT FAILURZZZZ! Bullshit.

      “Not unlike the health system…we pay more than anyone else, yet have shit coverage.”
      Bullshit again.

    2. You are too stupid to be a functional adult. You live with your parents and blame others for the fact that you are a fuckup.

      “Shit internet”? Most of the (socialist) world has never heard of the internet. But that’s how you collectivists like it, you have to keep your slaves in the dark.

      “Shit healthcare”? Really? This bullshit again? You must be one of these drooling leftoid morons who claim that fucking Cuba has better healthcare than the country where all healthcare innovation and development comes from–the gloriously capitalist US.

      You don’t deserve to live in this country–not even in its current state. You dare to claim we have “shit healthcare and internet” for one reason: because it isn’t free. Guess what snowflake: nothing is free, nothing comes without a cost, and no one owes you anything. Any honest adult knows this.

    3. Lol, on what planet do I have “shit internet”? I can watch any HD movie I want through amazon, have any porn I want through xhamster, and haven’t had a network outage in 5 years. Fuck you, aspie.

  23. Time for the Congress to put a crimp in the FCC’s funding by forbidding them to regulate the internet, and voice/data wireless services.

  24. Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (14-3447)
    Brief Supt. Summary Judgment & IFP
    Complaint p9 links to pron

    From p11 of complaint.

    2. Plaintiff/Appellant also prays for immediate injunctive relief such that all violations of 18 U.S.C. 2511* and all violations of Ark Code Ann. 5-41-103* are ordered ceased immediately for Plaintiff/Appellant’s name and seeks orders for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate “online” wire communications as a Title II common carrier and require ratings of all “obscene, indecent, or profane” JPG files communicated in interstate or world-wide commerce before indexed as soon as possible because this is already required by clear wording of U.S. law in 47 U.S.C. ?151*.
    * = linked to statute in PDF and in html linked above

    1. Hats off to you: you prove again that sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from idiocy.

  25. My last pay check was $ 9500 working 10 hours a week online. My Friend’s has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 21 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out
    OPEN THIS LINK IN YOUR BROWSER,,,,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  26. The biggest problem is the guy they nominated to be Secretary of the Internet: http://xkcd.com/496/

  27. absolute nightmare scenario when combined with nsa surveillance and key theft.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.