US Court Rules Against FCC on `Net Neutrality'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic.

Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so called "net neutrality" obligations. It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its massive national broadband plan.
Click to expand...
 
Thank God. The last thing we need is for the Government to have more power over the Internet.
 
Well.... crap. Now Comcast can run wild again.

This is bad for the consumer as a whole. If this ruling sticks, more and more providers will jump on the throttling bandwagon. Before you know it companies will be paying off ISPs to slow down their competitors on the net. Grand...
 
I'm at a lost for words. The US government just gave the keys to the internet to the biggest authoritarian company known as Comcast.
 
shadow74205 said:
Thank God. The last thing we need is for the Government to have more power over the Internet.
Click to expand...

The best place for this power is obviously in the hands of those who stand to profit most from the exercise thereof, obviously ;)

I agree that government regulation of many things is less-than-ideal, but I really am not sure that this is the case here.
 
If there was adequate competition for companies like Comcast in most areas I would be against government interference. In this case however, it gives semi monopolistic companies free reign to limit competition even further. Unfortunately this is a double edged sword situation.....
 
shadow74205 said:
Thank God. The last thing we need is for the Government to have more power over the Internet.
Click to expand...

Yes, because of course Comcast has been so open and honest with the way it handles internet traffic.

Reject our government overlords... bow down to our corporate overlords.. :rolleyes:
 
Can we get rid of Comcast and the gov?

Now that would be ideal.
 
shadow74205 said:
Thank God. The last thing we need is for the Government to have more power over the Internet.
Click to expand...

I agree but we're fucked either way. Government power of the internet = Bad. Comcast power of the internet = bad.

If my cable company starts to limit the speeds of certain traffic I use (mostly Linux iso's) I'll start to limit how much I pay them :D Why pay $60 a month to have my usage limited?
 
dear god.. I was really hoping that Comcast would get the shaft but what was I thinking.. They are the ONLY choice I have for ANY high speed internet (other than Satelite but that's just ridiculously expensive )

Letting Big Business run amock ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ends in the customer/consumer getting screwed.Period. if it hasn't been made obvious enough that the free market caused the crises' we're in . letting it run uncontrolled will just end in the same way over and over

A definition fo insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. We as a nation are doing just that by letting big business dictate how they are governed ( cause self regulation always turns out fine right? ( see wall street, see insurance conglomerates, see walmart.. so on so forth)

This will only end poorly I can ssure you :mad::mad::mad:
 
Cyclone187 said:
I agree but we're fucked either way. Government power of the internet = Bad. Comcast power of the internet = bad.

If my cable company starts to limit the speeds of certain traffic I use (mostly Linux iso's) I'll start to limit how much I pay them :D Why pay $60 a month to have my usage limited?
Click to expand...

pretty much my feelings on it.

I do feel bad for those stuck with ISP's like comcast, but I'd feel even worse if the scumbags that make up our government got their greasy mits all over it.
 
It's kind of a lose lose situation. You're doomed if you're against net neutrality, you're doomed if you're for net neutrality.

The only thing the government should be doing, is breaking up these local monopolies. If Comcast wants to run amok, let them, so long as they don't have a local monopoly and there's an alternative.
 
shadow74205 said:
Thank God. The last thing we need is for the Government to have more power over the Internet.
Click to expand...

Stop listening to Fox news. We *need* government regulation. Unchecked capitalism is *horrible* for the people. Without government regulations in various areas we would all be seriously fucked right now. The FCC was trying to protect consumer rights and privileges. The FCC was trying to keep the internet the way it is.
 
This is horrible news.

Now Comcast has the right to do whatever they please. Block all competitor websites? Why not! Block access to websites with unfavorable reviews of Comcast? Sure!

The government 'regulation' was to provide open, unrestricted access to the internet... yeah that's such a horribly bad idea?! We're not in China.

I really hope they appeal.
 
how they shape the traffic to your house is not the big issue here. It is how they shape the traffic overall that will cause problems.
Think about this:
Kyle wan'ts to get this information out to his readers, But a giant company like C-Net wants to get that same info out. C-Net has gobs of cash to throw around and can pay for preferential treatment and have their packets sent with a higher priority and a higher speed than Kyle can afford, That is the issue with Net-Neutrality. not how they shape it to your house. It is how getting the info out will become a commodity and smaller guys will not be able to compete. This will take the level playing field that the internet has been. ( well mostly but you get the point)
Quite frankly if they are limiting Bitorrent traffic that is really not a big deal ( yeah I know there are legal torrents but c'mon who are you trying to bullshit?, MOST torrents are illegal in nature) they probably should shape and limit the bandwidth on those types of traffic since the average user won't have a clue how to change ports to fool the ISP and they could curtail some of the pirating.

/rant off
 
kllrnohj said:
Stop listening to Fox news. We *need* government regulation. Unchecked capitalism is *horrible* for the people. Without government regulations in various areas we would all be seriously fucked right now. The FCC was trying to protect consumer rights and privileges. The FCC was trying to keep the internet the way it is.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think you need to broaden your own viewing/reading habits as well. Capitalism has been pretty much the single greatest enabler of social mobility over the past three centuries. Read "Commanding Heights" (or watch the PBS special of the same title for a bit more balanced perspective) or Edward Gresser's book on trade liberalization (lib viewpoint of capitalism with a focus on globalization).

Capitalism and unchecked capitalism are not necessarily really bad things. It is my personal belief that the structure of national broadband networks prevents them from being classified as members of free and open markets.
 
This is BAD.

Net Neutrality needs to win! If things keep going this way, and get to an extreme, then you won't be able to get to "the internet" you'll just pay comcast to give you youtube, msn, and amazon.com but not the whole internet. They must be stopped!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
To clarify (because this board doesn't allow editing)- the [H] community isn't necessarily able to create a new broadband startup provider to compete with Comcast. Ignoring local policies, the challenges in establishing an infrastructure from a cost perspective is simply too great to allow for open competition in the marketplace, especially when fiber costs as much as it does to lay it by the foot.
 
kllrnohj said:
Stop listening to Fox news. We *need* government regulation. Unchecked capitalism is *horrible* for the people. Without government regulations in various areas we would all be seriously fucked right now. The FCC was trying to protect consumer rights and privileges. The FCC was trying to keep the internet the way it is.
Click to expand...

Drivel, dangerous mindless drivel.

This is about the law and Government abuse in overstepping the law. The FCC was not trying to protect consumer rights the FCC was amassing power it had no legal right to.

It is and was absolutely clear the FCC did not have the legal authority and over stepped its mandate by issuing regulation it had no legal right to make. If Congress wants to give the FCC the legal authority to issue such regulations they can do that.

The idea that Government regulatory bodies can impose and create new law (which is exactly what the FCC did) should horrify anyone with half a brain, that is not a slippery slope but a damn cliff.

Just because the supposed intent of a regulation may be good that is absolutely no reason to allow Government agencies this kind of unchecked power. If you want to be be seriously fucked for forever just charge on
 
All internet traffic is equal, but some internet traffic is more equal than others.
 
ViperGrendal said:
If there was adequate competition for companies like Comcast in most areas I would be against government interference. In this case however, it gives semi monopolistic companies free reign to limit competition even further. Unfortunately this is a double edged sword situation.....
Click to expand...

this is just it. we don't have enough competition to make the free market work right here,

just because there is 2 or 3 companies it doesn't mean there isn't a monopoly... they make more money by working together and price fixing than they would competing.

this is one of the very very few times i think some amount of protection by the govt could be useful...i mean shit...they spend money are waaaayyyy worse and more retarded things...how bout doing something good for a change.
 
Parmenides said:
It's kind of a lose lose situation. You're doomed if you're against net neutrality, you're doomed if you're for net neutrality.

The only thing the government should be doing, is breaking up these local monopolies. If Comcast wants to run amok, let them, so long as they don't have a local monopoly and there's an alternative.
Click to expand...


agreed :)
 
Some of you need to think through the potential consequences of allowing Government agencies to overstep their authority on the basis of “good”. Where does it stop. IRS, FBI, Secret Service, HUD etc. If you do not see the danger you are blind.

We are a nation of laws and those laws protect as well as punish… that is they do as long as Government plays within the legal authority granted it by Congress. If you want the FCC to have this power the see your Congressman understands that.
 
ViperGrendal said:
If there was adequate competition for companies like Comcast in most areas I would be against government interference. In this case however, it gives semi monopolistic companies free reign to limit competition even further. Unfortunately this is a double edged sword situation.....
Click to expand...

Well that would roughly be the governments fault that there is not enough competition given the whole local monopoly thing that municipalities have adopted for cable service.
 
To be fair, the internet is an interstate body and a growing vehicle for commerce. The commerce clause of the Constitution (article 1, section 8, clause 3) gives the US Government the following:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Click to expand...

I'd advise you read the article and give yourself a pretty thorough rereading of the Constitution before making the statement that the FCC was out of bounds. The only thing that the court determined was that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate a Title 1 entity under the Communications Act of 1934. The FCC can reclassify the internet as a Title 2 entity, which would then give the FCC the authority under the Communications Act (and also the Constitution) to regulate usage of the internet.

The government regulating the internet is derived from the same authority which allowed Freedom Riders to sit anywhere on a Greyhound bus traveling from state to state. It's the same that (stated in Gideon vs Oghden, one of the earliest Supreme Court rulings) gave the US government the ability to regulate navigation and transit between states. In 1905 the Supreme Court upheld the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to end price fixing in the meat industry. The ability of the federal government to regulate an entity such as the internet is extremely well established.

Net Neutrality is a really easy issue to get ideologically polar about and still maintain a complete lack of understanding of the principles at work.
 
Also, not that it matters, but yes, I intend to enter law school shortly. My bachelor's candidacy is in Communications with a focus on rhetoric and public policy.
 
I'd advise you read the article and give yourself a pretty thorough rereading of the Constitution before making the statement that the FCC was out of bounds. The only thing that the court determined was that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate a Title 1 entity under the Communications Act of 1934. The FCC can reclassify the internet as a Title 2 entity, which would then give the FCC the authority under the Communications Act (and also the Constitution) to regulate usage of the internet.

The government regulating the internet is derived from the same authority which allowed Freedom Riders to sit anywhere on a Greyhound bus traveling from state to state. It's the same that (stated in Gideon vs Oghden, one of the earliest Supreme Court rulings) gave the US government the ability to regulate navigation and transit between states. In 1905 the Supreme Court upheld the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to end price fixing in the meat industry. The ability of the federal government to regulate an entity such as the internet is extremely well established.

Net Neutrality is a really easy issue to get ideologically polar about and still maintain a complete lack of understanding of the principles at work.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^
this
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Well that would roughly be the governments fault that there is not enough competition given the whole local monopoly thing that municipalities have adopted for cable service.
Click to expand...
If it is the local government's fault there is no competition, then why is it bad for the Federal Government to intervene to correct the wrongdoing of the lower level government?
 
While I support net neutrality, I do not support government entities arbitrarily deciding they have the authority to enforce it. Neither big business, nor government should be left unchecked for the free market system to work effectively. It is important to note here though that the court did not vote against net neutrality. The court voted that the FCC does not 'currently' have the authority to enforce it. Congress can,and likely will, grant them that authority.
 
qdemn7 said:
If it is the local government's fault there is no competition, then why is it bad for the Federal Government to intervene to correct the wrongdoing of the lower level government?
Click to expand...

This ruling does absolutely NOTHING to change the local government sanctioned cable monopolies and require competition in that market. Did you read the article before commenting?
 
shadow74205 said:
Thank God. The last thing we need is for the Government to have more power over the Internet.
Click to expand...

The problem is that ISP's will now have the power to censor the web knowing that nobody has authority to tell them not to, and you can now expect for all the really good websites to have to start charging for access because they will now be required to pay more to the ISP's for the bandwidth used.

Corporate America doesn't give a shit about the consumer and now they know they can really truly fuck us over hard.

This is a sever blow to consumers.
 
You wont be paying off ISPs to slow your competitor.... it is called RESTRAINT OF TRADE... and would yeild nice fat judgments.

But you will see them bribing the ISPs to give them a bump. And the vast ocean of sites with no power will become a backwater of inexcessibility.

As for gobvernment control of my medicare... er internet:

THE GOVERNMENT IS THE INTERNET.

Geeze wake the fuck up. The backbone of the world internet is the US and other government operations. The whole thing wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the US government military and science institutes interconnecting themselves to enhance productivity and knowledge sharing.

The "Private Sector" did not and woould never have resulted in building an internet.

The internet is just an electron based highway system to support government/military operations and subsequently COMMERCE. Just as the real highway system needs to be public, free, and neutral in its content delivery, so must the electron based analogue.

Unless you are the most psychic prescient soothsayer you cannot tell me what WILL be the next big thing, and the thing after. And since you can't, it is in everyone's and the economy's best interest that the infrastructure be neutral and the true free open market forces will make whatever is to be, be.

To repeat: "Keep your Government hands off my intrawebnet" is as assinine, ignorant, and stupid a statement as "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare" is/was.

Rule #1: Net neutrality, now and forever.

Rule #2: Keep stupid ignorant redneck teabagging fools the fuck away from ANYTHING remotely important.

...and ALL will be WELL. :eek::rolleyes::p
 
Max Mike said:
Some of you need to think through the potential consequences of allowing Government agencies to overstep their authority on the basis of “good”. Where does it stop. IRS, FBI, Secret Service, HUD etc. If you do not see the danger you are blind.

We are a nation of laws and those laws protect as well as punish… that is they do as long as Government plays within the legal authority granted it by Congress. If you want the FCC to have this power the see your Congressman understands that.
Click to expand...

You would be the first to bitch if all ISP's say Kyle uses too much bandwidth and eliminate services for the webiste. They know have the right to censor the internet as they see fit.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Well that would roughly be the governments fault that there is not enough competition given the whole local monopoly thing that municipalities have adopted for cable service.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. This is a situation somewhat created by government in the first place, although that's very simplified. What I would hope to see here is other companies being encouraged through tax breaks (or whatever works) to come into areas that are dominated by local monopolies. Sadly the government view would be more likely to seize or lay "public" fiber and charge companies to run on that system. Though more efficient, that mean the government has the power, which they prefer....
 
to me, its choosing between two evils.

if its comcast being evil, i at least can choose to not use their service anymore and find alternatives. There are plenty of online services that can supply me with the content i want at the same or cheaper cost then using cable.

if its the government being evil, i cant really avoid them now can i?

so yeah, im not siding with comcast becuase they are some humanitarian company, im siding with them becuase i can get away from them alot easier if it gets bad lol.
 
Max Mike said:
Drivel, dangerous mindless drivel.

This is about the law and Government abuse in overstepping the law. The FCC was not trying to protect consumer rights the FCC was amassing power it had no legal right to.

It is and was absolutely clear the FCC did not have the legal authority and over stepped its mandate by issuing regulation it had no legal right to make. If Congress wants to give the FCC the legal authority to issue such regulations they can do that.

The idea that Government regulatory bodies can impose and create new law (which is exactly what the FCC did) should horrify anyone with half a brain, that is not a slippery slope but a damn cliff.

Just because the supposed intent of a regulation may be good that is absolutely no reason to allow Government agencies this kind of unchecked power. If you want to be be seriously fucked for forever just charge on
Click to expand...

This how the breakdowns have occurred. It was a lack of regulation that caused the 30's crash, regulation were put in place to prevent it from happening again which led to 50 years of unprecedented prosperity. Fast forward to the 80's and the heralded Reagan years. It was during his administration that regulations were reduced dramatically and Shazaam!! the crash of '86 and 2000. It was further deregulation that caused the current crisis we're in.
UNREGULATED MARKETS WILL ALWAYS HURT THE MAJORITY. if you haven't noticed that by this point then you really need to open you eyes and take an objective look at history.
Why is there no small town America? Walmart.. there are no less than THREE of the fucking store within a 5 mile radius from my home, there used to be options.
That company trounces on American values and people everyday and it is because a body hasn't come out and said NO you can't hire out of state builders/contractors NO you can't build 43 giant fucking stores in a reasonably rural area, NO you can't fix prices and drive ALL competition out of business. If someone wants to open their own business they can't, there's just no way to compete and that to me sounds like Monopoly, something that is not regulated as it once was.

I want the real America back, when opportunity was a reality and not only something inherited. Capitalism is NOT in the constitution as much as some people seem to think, it is NOT the American way, it what you were told that the American way was by those very same Capitalists, notice a pattern here?
/rant off again..
 
kllrnohj said:
Stop listening to Fox news. We *need* government regulation. Unchecked capitalism is *horrible* for the people. Without government regulations in various areas we would all be seriously fucked right now. The FCC was trying to protect consumer rights and privileges. The FCC was trying to keep the internet the way it is.
Click to expand...

And it goes without saying the government will never try to control content on the net…:rolleyes:

This argument pisses me off to no end, how many “Linux distros” does one person need in month?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top