FCC Sued Over New Internet Rules

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
An internet advocacy group called the Free Press has filed a lawsuit over the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules.

A media and Internet advocacy group sued the federal government Wednesday over its new rules covering Internet traffic, saying they don't protect wireless traffic from interference by phone companies.
Click to expand...
 
Under what authority does the FCC make up these rules in the first place? And who is supposed to enforce them?

The Courts already informed the FCC that they CAN'T DO THIS ... I like the idea of a rogue government agency less then the idea that a private company can do what it wants to its own infrastructure.
 
Taldren said:
The Courts already informed the FCC that they CAN'T DO THIS ... I like the idea of a rogue government agency less then the idea that a private company can do what it wants to its own infrastructure.
Click to expand...
That "rogue government agency" is fighting for you to a free and open internet.

Reminds me of that phrase, "There oughta be a law!" Congress is letting U.S. citizens down by filling their own coffers with telecom bribes and doing nothing to protect consumers. At least the FCC is getting some discussion about it going instead of doing what congress does--turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the needs of the citizens.

We should be glad that there is a government agency who will stand up to monopolies and help keep things like this from happening.
 
Taldren said:
The Courts already informed the FCC that they CAN'T DO THIS ... I like the idea of a rogue government agency less then the idea that a private company can do what it wants to its own infrastructure.
Click to expand...

:confused: Last I heard the courts threw out the case since the rules weren't in place at the time.:confused:
 
fattypants said:
That "rogue government agency" is fighting for you to a free and open internet.

Reminds me of that phrase, "There oughta be a law!" Congress is letting U.S. citizens down by filling their own coffers with telecom bribes and doing nothing to protect consumers. At least the FCC is getting some discussion about it going instead of doing what congress does--turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the needs of the citizens.

We should be glad that there is a government agency who will stand up to monopolies and help keep things like this from happening.
Click to expand...

No, what that rogue government agency is doing is ignoring the restrictions it has which is far more dangerous then what a private company does with its own infrastructure. I don't give a damn if I would personally profit from it or not, I don't think in the here and now ... I look out for the long term and so should you.

The paranoia doomsday theories are just that. Every go "well they could do it!" ... well yeah, and every car manufacture out there could decide to charge 10x the amount for their cars too. You know what that does in a free market? Puts them out of buisness because someone with the means will charge normal prices and profit from their own stupidity.

It's funny that you are pro-government intervention as you complain about monopolies created by government intervention.
 
Wonder if I made it in before a FUD post?

fattypants said:
That "rogue government agency" is fighting for you to a free and open internet.

Reminds me of that phrase, "There oughta be a law!" Congress is letting U.S. citizens down by filling their own coffers with telecom bribes and doing nothing to protect consumers. At least the FCC is getting some discussion about it going instead of doing what congress does--turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the needs of the citizens.

We should be glad that there is a government agency who will stand up to monopolies and help keep things like this from happening.
Click to expand...

Nope.

for me to a free? have you ever to a free so far as to look more want like?

What significant harms in the status quo do the FCC rules address?
I ask that question a lot and nobody seems to have any idea.
It seems like people aren't so good at the "what does this legislation do?" part, but really good at the "repeat what I was told to" part.

<s>
I mean it's the internet freedom rules! It says freedom right there on the box, so it means there's more freedom with it. And freedom == good, herp derp. </s>
 
Taldren said:
... well yeah, and every car manufacture out there could decide to charge 10x the amount for their cars too. You know what that does in a free market? Puts them out of buisness because someone with the means will charge normal prices and profit from their own stupidity.
Click to expand...
There are two dozen car dealerships in a ten mile radius from me. There are two ISPs, and boy do they know it. If it were the other way around, I'd see your point.

Taldren said:
It's funny that you are pro-government intervention as you complain about monopolies created by government intervention.
Click to expand...
The government should intervene when one citizen is abusing another, regardless of whether or not that citizen is part a corporation.
That goes double for monopolies and duopolies.
1 company controls my electricity
1 company controls my gas
1 company controls my garbage pickup
1 company controls my cable line
I am perfectly happy with how government intervention is working with the three other monopolies.
 
fattypants said:
That goes double for monopolies and duopolies.
1 company controls my electricity
1 company controls my gas
1 company controls my garbage pickup
1 company controls my cable line
I am perfectly happy with how government intervention is working with the three other monopolies.
Click to expand...

Those monopolies exist only BECAUSE of government intervention. Either the government made regulations and requirements so strict that it road blocked all competition in the field, or they gave out exclusive contracts.

More government regulation is not the answer ... more competition by reducing regulations and allowing for competition is.

Especially when you get caught in the trap of needing regulations for non-existent "theories" of what could happen thanks to other regulations the very same government made in the first place.

That is what this all comes down to ... a "theory" of what could happen because of what a company "wants" to do. You don't think car companies "want" to increasing the cost of their cars?

As for your linked article ... I am very wary of government run utilities ... even on the local level. Sure, they can make it so the "cost" is lower than other ISP costs ... but then they can tap into the general tax fund to cover the "loss" they would of had that any private company would of had at the same price point. By doing so everyone is paying for a product that not all of them would use or have access to. Kinda like GM and the Chevy Volt. So yeah, I can understand how a private company would want to block their ability to do so ... sort of like Ford vs Government Motors.


Especially when you get caught in the trap of needing regulations for non-existent "theories" of what could happen thanks to other regulations the very same government made in the first place.
 
Taldren said:
Those monopolies exist only BECAUSE of government intervention. Either the government made regulations and requirements so strict that it road blocked all competition in the field, or they gave out exclusive contracts.

More government regulation is not the answer ... more competition by reducing regulations and allowing for competition is.

Especially when you get caught in the trap of needing regulations for non-existent "theories" of what could happen thanks to other regulations the very same government made in the first place.

That is what this all comes down to ... a "theory" of what could happen because of what a company "wants" to do. You don't think car companies "want" to increasing the cost of their cars?

As for your linked article ... I am very wary of government run utilities ... even on the local level. Sure, they can make it so the "cost" is lower than other ISP costs ... but then they can tap into the general tax fund to cover the "loss" they would of had that any private company would of had at the same price point. By doing so everyone is paying for a product that not all of them would use or have access to. Kinda like GM and the Chevy Volt. So yeah, I can understand how a private company would want to block their ability to do so ... sort of like Ford vs Government Motors.


Especially when you get caught in the trap of needing regulations for non-existent "theories" of what could happen thanks to other regulations the very same government made in the first place.
Click to expand...

What does have to do what the FCC did, which was free open internet? That's a GOOD thing. The companies don't want us to have good things, cause they want to charge us.

Do you want companies to regulate the internet, cause look at what cell phones companies did already. They screwed over so many people. What's that, I can't tether without paying for it? Screw that, I just hacked my phone and not I tether. It's my internet, I do what I want with it.

The FCC is just saying for ISPs to butt out. They supply the connection, and shouldn't have a right to control what goes through it. How can anyone see this as being a bad thing? Without regulation the companies will rip apart the consumer, and charge them an arm and a leg.
 
There's only so much space on the pole (or underground) for power lines, cable lines, and so forth. It is impractical for there to be 20 cable companies running 20 sets of cable lines to be available at every home in any given country. It simply makes no sense and would make a mess of things. So, yes, cable companies and telephone companies that provide internet over those lines will have rules smacked on them because of their exclusive access to the lines that the government allowed them to setup on those poles. In many cases, those poles are setup by your local power company, a government controlled or heavily regulated entity. Not everyone can just go stringing wires on those poles for whatever justification they may have. So, if rules from the government come with the ability to run those wires to homes ... so be it. Price of doing business.

Same thing applies to the radio spectrum. It is simply not free from regulation. The government has to ensure you don't get 20 companies all trying to hog the same spectrum and trying to out-power each other. Same reason they make you drive on a specific side of the road and obey traffic rules. Order is required for a well functioning economy.

They agree to government regulation when they run those wires or buy that spectrum. They just whine and bitch when the regulation doesn't go their way. Don't forget, they also benefit from regulation as well, they just don't like talking about that very much.
 
Taldren said:
No, what that rogue government agency is doing is ignoring the restrictions it has which is far more dangerous then what a private company does with its own infrastructure. I don't give a damn if I would personally profit from it or not, I don't think in the here and now ... I look out for the long term and so should you.

The paranoia doomsday theories are just that. Every go "well they could do it!" ... well yeah, and every car manufacture out there could decide to charge 10x the amount for their cars too. You know what that does in a free market? Puts them out of buisness because someone with the means will charge normal prices and profit from their own stupidity.

It's funny that you are pro-government intervention as you complain about monopolies created by government intervention.
Click to expand...

Free Market doesn't apply to most ISPs though, for the most part they enjoy monopolies or duopolies at worst. The cost of entry into the field is ridiculous and even if someone could cover it, there is a mountain of red tape to build any kind of infrastructure. That is assuming their monopoly isn't protected by law (in Canada for example, if there is a local cable provider no other provider can begin to operate in that area).

Just think about it, how many of your online friends have said something like "Comcast's service sucks but they're the only broadband ISP available here".
 
Someone in another thread posted a nifty website explaining net neutrality and it seemed as if the private companies wanted to regulate how their consumers would be using the internet. Example: Basic email = 9.99, Facebook = Another 4.99, Twitter... etc. It was something along those lines that Verizon and AT&T and Comcast I believe wanted to charge different, for the sake of example, internet websites a different fee. BUT this net neutrality is trying to make all internet websites "created equal" therefore the private ISPs can't regulate what we can and can't access without a surcharge. I may be completely wrong but hopefully someone sheds some light on this. I thought the government was actually doing the right thing here and NOT appeasing private ISPs.
 
Taldren said:
No, what that rogue government agency is doing is ignoring the restrictions it has which is far more dangerous then what a private company does with its own infrastructure. I don't give a damn if I would personally profit from it or not, I don't think in the here and now ... I look out for the long term and so should you.

The paranoia doomsday theories are just that. Every go "well they could do it!" ... well yeah, and every car manufacture out there could decide to charge 10x the amount for their cars too. You know what that does in a free market? Puts them out of buisness because someone with the means will charge normal prices and profit from their own stupidity.

It's funny that you are pro-government intervention as you complain about monopolies created by government intervention.
Click to expand...

Trouble with putting Comcast out of business is that you can't. You're forgetting that most area gets one choice of internet connection. One choice of water company. One choice of utility company. Put Comcast out of business and we're back in the dark age.

Government regulation is a necessary evil and I'm glad that the FCC is on our side, not the lobbyists'.

Free Press is understandably upset that wireless and cellular internet isn't included because internet is internet, but arbitrary or not, wireless internet isn't quite there yet for unlimited bandwidth and speed. Look to your own smartphone for proof. Hell, remember Steve Jobs' embarrassment not being able to demonstrate the iPhone4 because of saturated WiFi?

Perhaps the FCC should require telco companies to stop hoarding profits and start building infrastructure within so many years so that Net Neutrality can also apply to wireless. But that'd be going a little too far.
 
Ashbringer said:
What does have to do what the FCC did, which was free open internet? That's a GOOD thing. The companies don't want us to have good things, cause they want to charge us.

Do you want companies to regulate the internet, cause look at what cell phones companies did already. They screwed over so many people. What's that, I can't tether without paying for it? Screw that, I just hacked my phone and not I tether. It's my internet, I do what I want with it.

The FCC is just saying for ISPs to butt out. They supply the connection, and shouldn't have a right to control what goes through it. How can anyone see this as being a bad thing? Without regulation the companies will rip apart the consumer, and charge them an arm and a leg.
Click to expand...

Every company "Wants to charge you" what they want. The fact is they don't because there is competition in the market and if they tried they would lose. Plus you are still arguing over something that has NOT HAPPENED. It's just paranoid conspiracy theories for which you want big brother to threaten private corporations with handcuffs and guns for something they haven’t done.

The whole "limited pole space" argument is flawed. Look at all the electric power providers competing on the so-called limited pole space to provide electricity over the same lines.

And it isn't YOUR internet ... it is THEIR network. If you owned a property on the Jersey Shore and one in Spain are you going to call the Atlantic Ocean YOUR Ocean? You can own the servers, the computers, but you are tying them together on THEIR network. When you physically run all the cables then you can call it your internet. That is what we did at our community college ... we ran our own network to tie all our campuses together across the state. That is *our* internet.
 
Maverick1337 said:
Someone in another thread posted a nifty website explaining net neutrality and it seemed as if the private companies wanted to regulate how their consumers would be using the internet. Example: Basic email = 9.99, Facebook = Another 4.99, Twitter... etc. It was something along those lines that Verizon and AT&T and Comcast I believe wanted to charge different, for the sake of example, internet websites a different fee. BUT this net neutrality is trying to make all internet websites "created equal" therefore the private ISPs can't regulate what we can and can't access without a surcharge. I may be completely wrong but hopefully someone sheds some light on this. I thought the government was actually doing the right thing here and NOT appeasing private ISPs.
Click to expand...

Again, it was something they were looking into ... not an actual policy that was put into practice. You should see the horrible things the government thinks up to do that never goes into practice some time. Makes the paranoia that people have for private companies seem like ecstasy.

I am so against the government telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their own property. I am also against the government bailing out companies from their own stupidity. Let the ISP do what they will, but stop road blocking competition and let’s see if they are willing to try any of that knowing that someone is just waiting for them to fail.
 
Taldren said:
Again, it was something they were looking into ... not an actual policy that was put into practice. You should see the horrible things the government thinks up to do that never goes into practice some time. Makes the paranoia that people have for private companies seem like ecstasy.

I am so against the government telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their own property. I am also against the government bailing out companies from their own stupidity. Let the ISP do what they will, but stop road blocking competition and let’s see if they are willing to try any of that knowing that someone is just waiting for them to fail.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the fact that Comcast DID enforce internet throttling when their customers were torrenting. It wasn't "something they were looking into". It was something they actually did. The FCC is putting an end to it.
 
Taldren said:
Every company "Wants to charge you" what they want. The fact is they don't because there is competition in the market and if they tried they would lose. Plus you are still arguing over something that has NOT HAPPENED. It's just paranoid conspiracy theories for which you want big brother to threaten private corporations with handcuffs and guns for something they haven’t done.

The whole "limited pole space" argument is flawed. Look at all the electric power providers competing on the so-called limited pole space to provide electricity over the same lines.

And it isn't YOUR internet ... it is THEIR network. If you owned a property on the Jersey Shore and one in Spain are you going to call the Atlantic Ocean YOUR Ocean? You can own the servers, the computers, but you are tying them together on THEIR network. When you physically run all the cables then you can call it your internet. That is what we did at our community college ... we ran our own network to tie all our campuses together across the state. That is *our* internet.
Click to expand...


Read this, Mr. Mom&Pop Communications....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
 
Azhar said:
You're ignoring the fact that Comcast DID enforce internet throttling when their customers were torrenting. It wasn't "something they were looking into". It was something they actually did. The FCC is putting an end to it.
Click to expand...

That isn't discrimination, its quality of service which is a totally different issue. A small minority shouldn't be allowed to take a huge portion of the available bandwidth from people who paid for equal access. It isn't like they stopped you from visiting sites or any of the other discriminatory bs conspiracy theories going on.

And the FCC has no authority to end it. They can't just make up authority because they feel like it. Congress has to give them the authority which they have not. In fact, some in congress are so upset with this agency pretending to be congress that they are putting a bill forward to ban the FCC from getting involved in this crap.
 
Taldren said:
That isn't discrimination, its quality of service which is a totally different issue. A small minority shouldn't be allowed to take a huge portion of the available bandwidth from people who paid for equal access. It isn't like they stopped you from visiting sites or any of the other discriminatory bs conspiracy theories going on.

And the FCC has no authority to end it. They can't just make up authority because they feel like it. Congress has to give them the authority which they have not. In fact, some in congress are so upset with this agency pretending to be congress that they are putting a bill forward to ban the FCC from getting involved in this crap.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. If I paid $50 for 50Mbps that's exactly what I expect to get. Don't give me any minority and bandwidth crap. How I use my paid-for service is my business and mine alone.

Not all torrent users are illegal movie downloaders. There are hundreds of legit use for bit torrent protocols and Comcast was capping them all. World of Warcraft comes to mind - and there are 11 million players in that game alone.

Those "huge portion" of bandwidth could be alleviated if ISP management would stop pocketing all of the profit and start using some of it to expand their infrastructure. NOT by capping us when we've paid for the goddamn services.
 
Taldren said:
That isn't discrimination, its quality of service which is a totally different issue. A small minority shouldn't be allowed to take a huge portion of the available bandwidth from people who paid for equal access. It isn't like they stopped you from visiting sites or any of the other discriminatory bs conspiracy theories going on.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what we don't want. 'QoS' (not really though) for consumer type media. Why throttle a 10 minute torrent download, and not a 20 minute HD Youtube video or 2 hour HD Netflix stream? What's the difference? Where does this behavior stop? What if Comcast decides to roll out a movie streaming service and throttles Netflix and other competitor to speeds where the service isn't usable? They can claim they are improving the quality of service so their own product can succeed while completely eliminating the competition in a specific market. Free market? "Oh I'll switch provid.... oh shit, it's a monopoly/duopoloy... I'm fucked."

Determining network priority for consumer type media for what you say, 'QoS', is a crock of shit. We're not talking about a corporation trying to set the best performance for an IP telephony system or traffic on their WAN; we're talking about consumers paying a good amount of money every month to access the the near unlimited amount of content on the internet with advertised throughput. Saying this media A shouldn't be accessed as fast as media B is a slippery slope screaming for abuse.
 
I hop ethe FCC gets the rule sin places and companies abide by them.

Comcast is the ONLY broadband available to me.

Comcast has already been found to throttle bandwidth, etc in the past after they lied and said they didn't.

If the FCC isn't allowed to keep the net neutral like they are trying, you can sure bet your ass Comcast and other big ISP's will throw thier weight into pushing their own brands over competitors and throttle back what they can to try and force users one way or another to use websites they deem "Better."

Once the gates open the flood will come, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Anyone who says "it won't affect me" you're kidding yourself, it might not affect you at first, but after a while they'll take more and more, and then when it DOES affect you, there'll be on one to blame but yourself.
 
Azhar said:
You're ignoring the fact that Comcast DID enforce internet throttling when their customers were torrenting. It wasn't "something they were looking into". It was something they actually did. The FCC is putting an end to it.
Click to expand...

Throttling BT falls under "reasonable network management."
In other words, no, they aren't putting an end to it.

At least be like the good parrots and bring out the tiered internet +$5 chart.
 
Azhar said:
Bullshit. If I paid $50 for 50Mbps that's exactly what I expect to get. Don't give me any minority and bandwidth crap. How I use my paid-for service is my business and mine alone.
Click to expand...

<BUZZER> WRONG!
Look at the terms of use again, you are promised UP TO that amount. It isn't their BUISNESS CLASS service which has a totally different price system. If what you are doing is negatively affecting their customers then you are damn right it is their business you are messing with. Quality of Service is there to protect the average users from the exploiters that don’t want to pay the extra they should.

Azhar said:
Those "huge portion" of bandwidth could be alleviated if ISP management would stop pocketing all of the profit and start using some of it to expand their infrastructure. NOT by capping us when we've paid for the goddamn services.
Click to expand...

Pocketing their profit? Do you have any idea how much is reinvested back into their companies? How much is taken in taxes (local, state, and federal)? Hell, in our area comcast just built a skyscraper building and employed thousands of people ... not bad for "pocketing" their profit.

I recommend that you stop quoteing from the class warfare rhetoric hand book as well.
 
Maverick1337 said:
Someone in another thread posted a nifty website explaining net neutrality and it seemed as if the private companies wanted to regulate how their consumers would be using the internet. Example: Basic email = 9.99, Facebook = Another 4.99, Twitter... etc. It was something along those lines that Verizon and AT&T and Comcast I believe wanted to charge different, for the sake of example, internet websites a different fee. BUT this net neutrality is trying to make all internet websites "created equal" therefore the private ISPs can't regulate what we can and can't access without a surcharge. I may be completely wrong but hopefully someone sheds some light on this. I thought the government was actually doing the right thing here and NOT appeasing private ISPs.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the FUD I was talking about. Nobody has done that, and it would be suicide for a company to do so.
Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, fed with repeated FUD like the post you made. Net neutrality advocates insist that the Internet right now is free, as it is, but that we HAVE to implement net neutrality to prevent ISPs from doing something that they don't have any intent of doing in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top