Are you trying, poorly, to suggest that the intelligence agencies should share their back door (aka 'golden key') with the RIAA and MPAA?
Or would it be too much work for the **AA-holes to monitor and decrypt all traffic looking for copyrighted bits? Would it be better for the intelligence agencies to simply send notices to the **AA-holes that they found a copyright infringement? Or would even that be too much work? Maybe the intelligence agencies should just send an infringement notice directly to the ISPs and cut out the middle man?
Oh, wait. I know what the **AA-holes would like best. The intelligence agencies simply show up in the middle of the nigtht and secretly arrest and 'disappear' anyone they suspect of copyright infringement, with no due process. Why bother the ISPs?
> We can't afford to let pirates and other > copyright violators hide behind encryption.
I just suggested the answer for you. And it's just as evil as 'golden keys'.
Just like Cryptographic Golden Keys ARE Back Doors
If someone can pay to get better routing of their packets, then someone else's packets are being throttled unfairly.
If not, then there is sufficient network capacity and no Sponsored Data would be necessary.
So which is it? Is AT&T not building sufficient network capacity to deliver what its own customers pay for (eg, Netflix to my home)? Or is AT&T going to unfairly throttle other internet services to favor those (like Netflix) who might pay AT&T to buy what AT&T's customers already are paying for: getting netflix to my living room.
AT&T, here is a free clue: Build out your netnwork capacity to deliver what your customers are paying for. Charge your customers enough to deliver what they want, and to make a profit. Isn't that simple? That almost seems like how all businesses should operate.
Maybe the judge is trying to destroy Uber and Lyft?
Just suppose. The judge doesn't like these ride sharing services, and despite his obligation to impartially judge the case on the facts before him, he sees this as an opportunity to destroy ride sharing services.
Just think how would this work for Uber if their drivers were now employees. Would Uber now need a payroll? HR? An accounting system, paying employer share of payroll taxes? Benefits? There would need to be documentation of people hired and terminated.
It would be a burden. Maybe that's what the judge wants.
> Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time > is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time would be unnecessary if you were doing your job.
Your Job: to route packets closer to their destination.
Not Your Job: inspecting them, 'prioritizing' them, mis-routing them, playing games with DNS, being the copyright cops for a private industry that has it's head so far . . . well, let's just say it's not your job to do anything but route packets.
As for your lawsuit. Boo Hoo. You brought all of this on yourself.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that several members of the household might use their TVs to watch Netflix.
(Now just watch the cable tv industry say it isn't reasonable while at the same time saying that it is reasonable to expect to watch several cable tv channels at the same time. Of course, these are the dinosaurs who seemed to think there should be a monthly fee per cable tv outlet rather than a one time installation fee per outlet. Maybe you should have to pay your cable provider per Netflix stream you use -- after all you are using their network service?)