See feature article below: AT&T, Inc. (NYSE: T)
Broad Street Alerts recent profiles and track record, 642% in verifiable potential gains for our members on 3 recent small cap alerts alone!
May 9th, 2016-(NYSE-MKT: MGT) opened at .64/share and hit over $4.15/share within 8 days for potential gains of 548% for our members.
May 23rd, 2016 (NYSE-MKT: XXII) opened at $.78/share and hit $.94/share within 2 days for potential gains of 20% for our members.
May 26th, 2016 (NASDAQ: CETX) opened at $2.00/share and hit $3.50/share within 10 days for potential gains of 74% for our members.
***Get our small cap profiles, special situation and watch alerts in real time. We are now offering our VIP SMS/text alert service for free, simply text the word “Alerts” to the phone number 25827 from your cell phone.
Report For: AT&T, Inc. (NYSE: T)
AT&T, along with other Internet Service Providers have been embroiled in lawsuits with the FCC in an attempt to slow down the Internet to some customers so they can offer a multi-tiered Internet speed service to consumers at multi-tiered pricing. Yesterday the FCC and internet consumers scored a win.
A critical court ruling on Tuesday upheld long-contested rules that stop your internet provider from blocking or slowing sites — ”net neutrality,” in fewer words.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality rules is a weighty read, but for Big Telecom it boils down to eight words: You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
This means the FCC’s regulations stopping your internet provider and wireless carrier from blocking or slowing your access to a legal site, service, or app — or charging one for priority delivery — live on.
The argument over net neutrality does, too. But the odds of winning it got a lot worse for opponents of the FCC’s regulations and the general idea of stopping your internet providers from tampering with your connection to the online world.
Your ISP can still charge more for faster downloads, impose data caps and maybe even exempt some services from those limits. But first it must give you the internet, the whole internet and nothing but the internet. And on the other end of the connection, some new online startup doesn’t have to worry about being asked to pay extra to reach you.
How we got here
The conclusion of the 115-page ruling by Judges David S. Tatel and Sri Srinivasan in United States Telecom Association, et al., v. Federal Communications Commission shouldn’t have surprised anybody who read the same court’s January 2014 opinion that rejected earlier, weaker net-neutrality rules.
In that case brought by Verizon (VZ), the court essentially said that if the commission wanted to regulate internet providers as “common carriers” — a legal status that’s long governed telephone utilities but also railroads and taxis — it had to label them accordingly.
Which, in turn, would require the FCC to hit the Undo button on decisions a decade earlier to classify broadband providers as “information services,” not the simpler definition of “telecommunications services” that happens to match the usual understanding of what ISPs do — connect you to the internet.
After a prolonged public outcry over the possibility of the FCC caving — remember comedian John Oliver comparing FCC chair Tom Wheeler to a dingo? — the commission took the court’s hint. In February of 2015, it put wired and wireless broadband providers back in the utility-esque common-carrier bucket and then adopted net-neutrality rules.
Various telecom companies and organizations promptly sued to overturn those rules, and we now have the court’s word.
(Disclosure: I’ve spoken at events hosted by organizations on both sides of this argument; for about a year I wrote for a tech-policy blog, the Disruptive Competition Project, sponsored by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which filed a brief backing the FCC.)
Two words: dumb pipes
This 2-1 ruling (Tatel and Srinivasan’s colleague Judge Stephen F. Williams filed a dissent) focuses on the difference between “information” and “telecommunications” services as defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The former most closely describes AOL and other pioneering online services, which bundled not just a connection but software and services.
The latter matches today’s internet access, where you pay for the connection and then go to other sites — like, perhaps, today’s Aol, a division of Verizon that runs sites like Engadget and TechCrunch (and tends to a dwindling audience of dial-up users).
Internet providers may not appreciate being defined as “dumb pipes,” but the definition fits. They haven’t seriously tried to offer something like an “information service” since the 2001 demise of cable service Excite@Home.
How can the FCC make that call? Because, the judges wrote, the Supreme Court said so in a 2005 case. That might not matter had Congress since labeled ISPs as information services — but it hasn’t. And a 1984 Supreme Court ruling lets regulatory agencies like the FCC make their own reasoned calls in the absence of Congressional direction.
Good luck overturning this
One party to the just-decided lawsuit, AT&T (T), is already vowing to appeal this case to the Supreme Court, while others have not gone beyond moping about its unfairness.
Continuing this strategy of relentless litigation might not be smart. The court’s ruling stands on those two Supreme Court precedents — and Williams’ dissent accepts that the FCC worked within the outlines of the Telecommunications Act, while then faulting its logic.
Besides, appealing to the highest court in the land would mean a few more years of net-neutrality rules remaining intact.
While Congress could technically vote tomorrow to revise the Telecommunications Act, t hasn’t been able to do any such rewrite in over 20 years.
To be sure, an anti-net-neutrality candidate — namely, Donald Trump — could win the 2016 presidential election and then appoint FCC commissioners who would axe the net-neutrality rules.
But while Trump opposes it — he called it a “top down power grab” in a 2014 tweet — he’s also widely loathed outside his Republican primary base.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, applauded the ruling in a tweet that called it “a big win for consumers, innovation, and freedom of expression on the internet.”
But the larger problem here is that fighting net neutrality looks like a political loser.
It requires believing promises of future online media services that couldn’t survive without paid prioritization over a documented history of large internet providers demanding that real online media services like Netflix pay for the data used by their own customers.
(Internet providers may yet all wind up giving up on improving their services because net neutrality eats into their profits, but the evidence for that remains thin.)
Net neutrality often comes with a side order of shrill extremism denouncing it as “regulating the Internet” — even though it doesn’t limit what you do on the Internet — if not outright Marxism.
And it not only requires taking the side of giant corporations, it demands standing up for cable and phone companies in particular, some of the less-liked firms in America. Are 2016’s candidates ready to nail their colors to the mast for all that? If so, I have two more words: good luck.
Source – Yahoo Finance / Rob Pegoraro
Broadstreetalerts.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of Small Cap Specialists LLC, herein referred to as SCS LLC.
Our reports/releases are a commercial advertisement and are for general information purposes ONLY. We are engaged in the business of marketing and advertising companies for monetary compensation. Never invest in any stock featured on our site or emails unless you can afford to lose your entire investment. The disclaimer is to be read and fully understood before using our services, joining our site or our email/blog list as well as any social networking platforms we may use.
PLEASE NOTE WELL: SCS LLC and its employees are not a Registered Investment Advisor, Broker Dealer or a member of any association for other research providers in any jurisdiction whatsoever.
Release of Liability: Through use of this website viewing or using you agree to hold SCS LLC, its operators owners and employees harmless and to completely release them from any and all liability due to any and all loss (monetary or otherwise), damage (monetary or otherwise), or injury (monetary or otherwise) that you may incur. The information contained herein is based on sources which we believe to be reliable but is not guaranteed by us as being accurate and does not purport to be a complete statement or summary of the available data. SCS LLC encourages readers and investors to supplement the information in these reports with independent research and other professional advice. All information on featured companies is provided by the companies profiled, or is available from public sources and SCS LLC makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of the disclosure by the profiled companies. None of the materials or advertisements herein constitute offers or solicitations to purchase or sell securities of the companies profiled herein and any decision to invest in any such company or other financial decisions should not be made based upon the information provide herein. Instead SCS LLC strongly urges you conduct a complete and independent investigation of the respective companies and consideration of all pertinent risks. Readers are advised to review SEC periodic reports: Forms 10-Q, 10K, Form 8-K, insider reports, Forms 3, 4, 5 Schedule 13D. SCS LLC is compliant with the Can Spam Act of 2003. SCS LLC does not offer such advice or analysis, and SCS LLC further urges you to consult your own independent tax, business, financial and investment advisors. SCS LLC has been compensated twenty thousand dollars cash via bank wire by star media llc for a two day investor relations campaign of STEM. SCS LLC does not hold any positions in STEM. SCS LLC has previously been compensated twenty thousand dollars cash via bank wire by DF Media for the mention of MGT. We do not hold any positions in MGT. Investing in micro-cap and growth securities is highly speculative and carries and extremely high degree of risk. It is possible that an investor’s investment may be lost or impaired due to the speculative nature of the companies profiled. We have not been compensated nor do we own positions in the company/companies that are in the featured article.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides investors a ‘safe harbor’ in regard to forward-looking statements. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact may be “forward looking statements”. Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates, and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through use of words such as “projects”, “foresee”, “expects”, “will”, “anticipates”, “estimates”, “believes”, “understands”, or that by statements indicating certain actions & quote; “may”, “could”, or “might” occur. Understand there is no guarantee past performance will be indicative of future results.
In preparing this publication, SCS LLC has relied upon information supplied by its customers, publicly available information and press releases which it believes to be reliable; however, such reliability cannot be guaranteed. Investors should not rely on the information contained in this website. Rather, investors should use the information contained in this website as a starting point for doing additional independent research on the featured companies. The advertisements in this website are believed to be reliable, however, SCS LLC and its owners, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, representatives and agents disclaim any liability as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in any advertisement and for any omissions of materials facts from such advertisement. SCS LLC is not responsible for any claims made by the companies advertised herein, nor is SCS LLC responsible for any other promotional firm, its program or its structure.
Please Note: We do NOT accept free trading or restricted securities as payment for our services.
SCS LLC is not affiliated with any exchange, electronic quotation system, the Securities Exchange Commission or FINRA. SCS LLC is not a Broker/Dealer and does not engage in high frequency trading.
Hot small cap stocks
small cap stock picks
FDA approval stocks
Become a day trader
Day trade stocks for a living
PDUFA date set
micro cap stocks
Best stocks 2016
Hottest small cap stocks
Best stock picks
Who to follow for stock picks
Apple news stock picks
Stock picks on apple news