Courts Strike Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A federal appeals court just struck down the Federal Communications Commission's rules for net neutrality.

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate how broadband providers manage traffic on their networks in a decision that is certain to shake up the fixed broadband and wireless industries.
Click to expand...
 
I think the FCC just needs to go back to the drawing board and classify ISPs as common carriers (like cable tv) vs going to the SCOTUS. I think the SCOTUS, if they hear the case, will just fuck it up even more.
 
Although their heart was in the right place place I think they (the FCC) did over reach on this one ... since the most critical portions of the Net Neutrality concept is concerning commerce (or the blocking of commerce) I would prefer they have a better process for people or corporations to air their grievances rather than imposing blanket Net Neutrality restrictions
 
FLECOM said:
that's pretty funny since the FCC gets its power from the... wait for it...

commerce clause
Click to expand...

My point was there are other venues to allow B2B complaints to be aired ;) ... the FCC is a little bit of a relic on the regulatory front ... I would prefer they return to the hardware side of the regulatory front (licensing spectrum and testing against FCC specifications) but leave the commerce side to the open market or one of the many other commerce focused agencies :cool:
 
I bet Netflix will be #1 on the list of services that get a Much Lower Priority.
Followed by non-ISP VoIP, Video Streaming, torrent traffic, usenet, steam... ETC.
 
Great another ruling that will be detrimental to all of us. A ruling that will only be changed after all the money hungry ISPs really start fucking network traffic up, and even then it might still be fucked up.
 
TMCM said:
I think the FCC just needs to go back to the drawing board and classify ISPs as common carriers (like cable tv) vs going to the SCOTUS. I think the SCOTUS, if they hear the case, will just fuck it up even more.
Click to expand...

Exactly this...

Internet service has basically replaced both telephones and television as the most used, and most necessary, means of communication in the modern era... and it will become even more ubiquitous for basically everything we do as time goes on.

ISPs *should* be common carriers with a strict division maintained between the access providers and content providers.
.
I'd also go a bit beyond common carrier for just the ISPs, and force an expanded version of it on the cell phone companies as well. Make them all move towards a universally compatible network where any phone with any network (which at it's core should be internet based, turning all cell phones into basically SIP devices) and apply all the old access rules that applied to the landlines (that the old TelCos are desperate to get rid of) to the new cell phone/internet networks as well.

Getting any of this to ever happen with the amount of money these companies pay for their politicians (and judges apparently) will be next to impossible... but it needs to happen for the sake of consumers, and to push business and innovation forward in this country in a time when we are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the modern world.
 
The way I read this, the court essentially told the FCC exactly what they need to do. Reclassify broadband providers as common carriers.

Do it. Now.

If ISPs are allowed to shape traffic however they want, Net Neutrality is dead. End of story.
 
To the people that support this ruling, don't come back here next year when Verizon and Comcrap start to throttle bandwidth to Netflix and Amazon and bitch about the service slowing down.
 
The Cobra said:
To the people that support this ruling, don't come back here next year when Verizon and Comcrap start to throttle bandwidth to Netflix and Amazon and bitch about the service slowing down.
Click to expand...

I think the greater risk is that Netflix and Amazon will be able to pay ISPs for preferred access preventing any new competitors from coming into play rather than out and out blocking of services or throttling ... you are either for the Nanny state or against it ... we can certainly have a government like Singapore (one of the ultimate Nanny states) if that is what voters want ;)
 
kbrickley said:
I think the greater risk is that Netflix and Amazon will be able to pay ISPs for preferred access preventing any new competitors from coming into play rather than out and out blocking of services or throttling ... you are either for the Nanny state or against it ... we can certainly have a government like Singapore (one of the ultimate Nanny states) if that is what voters want ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, and then prices are passed to the consumer even more. You have just proven my point. You are are statist. Why can't I have 5 or 6 different cable companies competing for my dollar in the same city instead of having the illusion of choice in any given market between a shitty cable company providing cable internet or a shitty phone company providing DSL (Really only two choices)?

Oh, that's right...because said cable companies pay the city a huge fee to be allowed to carry the charter for said town...Capitalism indeed...
 
kbrickley said:
I think the greater risk is that Netflix and Amazon will be able to pay ISPs for preferred access preventing any new competitors from coming into play rather than out and out blocking of services or throttling ... you are either for the Nanny state or against it ... we can certainly have a government like Singapore (one of the ultimate Nanny states) if that is what voters want ;)
Click to expand...

Asking for Net Neutrality is hardly asking for a Nanny State.

Since most ISPs are vertically integrated, they most certainly will give priority to their own traffic at the expense of their competitors. The ones that are not will extort content providers for bandwidth. The end result is that prices will rise for users and innovation will suffer.
 
tiered-internet.jpg
 
The market will fix this, in any case. They'll quarrel a bit, move things around, but in the end the prices will settle to what the products are worth. That's the way of a free market.
 
dgingeri said:
The market will fix this, in any case. They'll quarrel a bit, move things around, but in the end the prices will settle to what the products are worth. That's the way of a free market.
Click to expand...

Free market is open, it's has a multitude of options, it's good for the consumer and bad for individual companies but good for the market itself as a whole.

What we have is mostly regional monopolies, only good for the company that controls a given market, bad for market itself and the consumers in it. When that changes we can agree.

A glimpse of a free market can be seen in places where Google is experimenting with its Fiber stuff for example, companies react by halving prices and doubling speeds etc.
 
Wierdo said:
Free market is open, it's has a multitude of options, it's good for the consumer and bad for individual companies but good for the market itself as a whole.

What we have is mostly regional monopolies, only good for the company that controls a given market, bad for market itself and the consumers in it. When that changes we can agree.

A glimpse of a free market can be seen in places where Google is experimenting with its Fiber stuff for example, companies react by halving prices and doubling speeds etc.
Click to expand...

it has*

No edit button strikes again.
 
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:
Exactly this...

Internet service has basically replaced both telephones and television as the most used, and most necessary, means of communication in the modern era... and it will become even more ubiquitous for basically everything we do as time goes on.

ISPs *should* be common carriers with a strict division maintained between the access providers and content providers.
.
I'd also go a bit beyond common carrier for just the ISPs, and force an expanded version of it on the cell phone companies as well. Make them all move towards a universally compatible network where any phone with any network (which at it's core should be internet based, turning all cell phones into basically SIP devices) and apply all the old access rules that applied to the landlines (that the old TelCos are desperate to get rid of) to the new cell phone/internet networks as well.

Getting any of this to ever happen with the amount of money these companies pay for their politicians (and judges apparently) will be next to impossible... but it needs to happen for the sake of consumers, and to push business and innovation forward in this country in a time when we are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the modern world.
Click to expand...

You sir, win the prize. I believe the phone companies were denoted as common carrier in the early 1900's. Basically, anything that is deemed "necessary to be a functional member of today's society" should be considered common carrier. That would include internet access and cell phone service in 2014.

And I'd also agree that corporate influence will make this an uphill climb. Sigh.
 
dgingeri said:
The market will fix this, in any case. They'll quarrel a bit, move things around, but in the end the prices will settle to what the products are worth. That's the way of a free market.
Click to expand...

This is not free market. Free market would actually be what they have in most European cities, where the city owns the infrastructure, and the cable companies pay the city a small fee in order to compete with all the other cable/phone companies that have access to said network. What we have here is a cable company paying a town to become a virtual monopoly in the illusion of a "Free Market"
 
PantherBlitz said:
Asking for Net Neutrality is hardly asking for a Nanny State.

Since most ISPs are vertically integrated, they most certainly will give priority to their own traffic at the expense of their competitors. The ones that are not will extort content providers for bandwidth. The end result is that prices will rise for users and innovation will suffer.
Click to expand...


This. You want to fix the problem? Force the large ISP to lease out their government subsidized infrastructure to other providers at reasonable rates (Rates that allow them to resell and still make profit) to give us the option. They have a monopoly and they know it. If you have no provider to leave them for, there is nothing from preventing them from continuing to raise their rate and providing shittier service (As we are seeing now).
 
Good old USA, where you can buy a judgement if the actual governing body refuses to listen to your lobbyists.

There is only one ruler in this country, and that's corporations. Govt/courts etc are just a facade.
 
MrCrispy said:
Good old USA, where you can buy a judgement if the actual governing body refuses to listen to your lobbyists.

There is only one ruler in this country, and that's corporations. Govt/courts etc are just a facade.
Click to expand...

Not every judgement that doesn't go the way you want is someone being bought out ... the FCC did a little bit of a reach here ... they wanted to hold the cable companies and ISPs to common carrier restrictions without reclassifying them as common carriers (since they knew that congress wouldn't support that) ... the court simply sent them back to the drawing board ... if they can persuade congress (who in all likelihood may be bought off as you suggest) to allow all telecom providers to be classified as common carriers then they can implement the restrictions ... or they can find other ways to manage this ... everyone is up in arms for the NSA to be penalized for violating their charter and boundaries but they then propose the FCC do the same thing

Personally I am not happy with the government's us vs them attitudes ... since this is an interstate commerce issue I would like to see industry, the Feds, and the States all step up and establish a competitive consortium to deal with this issue ... although the FCC has its heart in the right place they are still part of a cumbersome federal bureaucracy ... although a consortium might still be bureaucratic it would at least have all the right players in the discussion and be looking for compromises that benefit all the parties :cool:
 
and once Netflix, Hulu and Amazon prime are throttled, block or forced to pay an extreme fee to use an ISPs network and thus making their service unaffordable. I bet they would sue the ISP for anti-competitive practices.
 
kbrickley said:
My point was there are other venues to allow B2B complaints to be aired ;) ... the FCC is a little bit of a relic on the regulatory front ... I would prefer they return to the hardware side of the regulatory front (licensing spectrum and testing against FCC specifications) but leave the commerce side to the open market or one of the many other commerce focused agencies :cool:
Click to expand...

There is no open market. In markets where Comcast is the monopoly, for example, they can completely fuck you without net neutrality regulation.

Fucking "open market" dogma.
 
MrCrispy said:
Good old USA, where you can buy a judgement if the actual governing body refuses to listen to your lobbyists.

There is only one ruler in this country, and that's corporations. Govt/courts etc are just a facade.
Click to expand...

The hardwire monopolies granted by municipal governments is why this situation exists. Its also the State & Feds allowing those anti-competitive arrangements to exist. The 'ruler' of this country is an overly powerful or unaccountable government in coitus with financial interests of varying shapes and sizes, in this case because of the mass consumption angle the financial interest here is a corporation.
 
kbrickley said:
Personally I am not happy with the government's us vs them attitudes ... since this is an interstate commerce issue I would like to see industry, the Feds, and the States all step up and establish a competitive consortium to deal with this issue ... although the FCC has its heart in the right place they are still part of a cumbersome federal bureaucracy ... although a consortium might still be bureaucratic it would at least have all the right players in the discussion and be looking for compromises that benefit all the parties :cool:
Click to expand...

1. "The Feds" is government.
2. A State has no jurisdiction over the commerce of another State. Interstate commerce is the role of the Fed hence FCC.
3. If you think State government can't screw things up then you've never had Comcast. Until FIOS, Comcast was the only thing you could buy in some states. Why? Because Comcast bought off the local government and bought exclusivity rights when it just wasn't necessary.
4. The industry getting together to do anything is the reason why Net Neutrality is done for. They aren't going to get together and just decide to do something that the consumer wants. Not when they can take away the consumer's ability to choose.
5. If by consortium you mean, a group of people selected or elected to make decisions that affect a large amount of people you are describing government.

The one thing I will agree with you on is the reason this is screwed up. It is because of prior decisions of the FCC. However, the blame doesn't lay entirely on them. The Congress played a role in pressuring the FCC to make mobile and internet carriers something other than common carriers.
 
Boy would I love the option to switch ISP's if mine gets too greedy, but I can't. Comcast has an iron clad lock on mine and the surrounding areas.
 
kac77 said:
4. The industry getting together to do anything is the reason why Net Neutrality is done for. They aren't going to get together and just decide to do something that the consumer wants. Not when they can take away the consumer's ability to choose.
5. If by consortium you mean, a group of people selected or elected to make decisions that affect a large amount of people you are describing government. .
Click to expand...

Consortiums like SEMI, IPC, JEDEC, and SEMATECH have done well, as have other industry type groups ... sometimes industries do things that benefit them and the consumers, especially when there are nationalistic concerns ... all the key telecom players are American ... if they really piss off the government the FCC and congress could change the rules to allow foreign companies unfettered access to the US market ... the states have a vested interest in this since generally the internet pipe is in more than one state (source in one state and destination in another)

I just find it amusing that people have so much distrust in industry fixing this problem while they have blind faith in the federal government fixing it ;)
 
The Cobra said:
To the people that support this ruling, don't come back here next year when Verizon and Comcrap start to throttle bandwidth to Netflix and Amazon and bitch about the service slowing down.
Click to expand...
The opposite is likely the case, and Netflix and Amazon would LOVE this service, as it favors large corporations that can pay for preferential treatment. The carriers love it as they can charge for this special treatment. The problem is that being small already has a plethora of disadvantages in the market place, making it difficult to survive if not being outright bought out and consolidated into mega-corporations in their infancy. Without net neutrality, that is just another barrier into penetrating the market place, and consumers will suffer because of it.
 
And the US diggs it self further down the hole. Less information, more control and less education means less competivness in the future...

sorry to see it

Just my 0.02€
 
Frallan said:
And the US diggs it self further down the hole. Less information, more control and less education means less competivness in the future...

sorry to see it

Just my 0.02€
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to be focusing on this being a USA only issue but do other countries actually prohibit this or have they not yet committed themselves legally one way or the other? ... Just curious as sometimes these issues come up in the USA first because we have more internet users than every country except India and China ... people like to dig the USA on our speeds is it actually easier to start an internet company "successfully" in Europe, Asia, or South America
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top