US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality'

[Renae]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

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.

US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality' - Yahoo! Finance

Well that's interesting.

 

[rathi]

The internet was developed by government funded research, spread using government subsidized cables, and made profitable by government granted local monopolies. Yet when it comes to protecting consumers, the government somehow doesn't have the authority? I'd seriously look for judge tampering, because this is downright absurd.

 

[Taylor]

Although I agree in principle with "net neutrality," I gotta say screw the regulatory process (but screw Comcast, too!)... now the government yokels can go about trying to pass an actual law instead of this backhand crap.

 

[Taylor]

The internet was developed by government funded research, spread using government subsidized cables, and made profitable by government granted local monopolies. Yet when it comes to protecting consumers, the government somehow doesn't have the authority? I'd seriously look for judge tampering, because this is downright absurd.

Gee... who funded the government?:doh

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Gee... who funded the government?:doh

Your reply suggests that you failed to understand Rathi's comment.

 

[Redress]

Ok, can some one answer some questions regarding this for me?

1) Is this decision likely to be appealed?

2) If the FCC lacks the authority, does Congress?

3) What is the basis for the decision? I see no actual details on the logic.

4) How soon does Comcast start blocking BitTorrent, and is this really bad?

 

[rathi]

Gee... who funded the government?

Taxpayers like me do, and thus we get pissed when Comcast thinks it can take our money to build a cable, sell us information over the cable we bought, and then decide to screw with our internet access that we are paying for, and finally be unable to switch to another ISP because they have a local monopoly.

 

[WillRockwell]

US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality' - Yahoo! Finance

Well that's interesting.

I thought you were in favor of less regulation?

 

[Renae]

I thought you were in favor of less regulation?

I said it was interesting, does that imply an opinion either way?

 

[Redress]

I said it was interesting, does that imply an opinion either way?

Heh, believe it or not, but I was going to come to your defense on this MrV. I just had to go have a smoke to steady my nerves first, and you beat me too it.

 

[rathi]

I thought you were in favor of less regulation?

The internet simply isn't a typical market based commodity. Its more like vital infrastructure. You shouldn't have to worry about your ISP screwing with your internet connection any more than you should worry about your power company screwing with your electricity. I'd hope Mr. V could see the major differences between trying to regulate competitive free markets versus government subsidized local monopolies. Its perfectly consistent to recognize that regulation sometimes has its place and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Renae]

The internet simply isn't a typical market based commodity. Its more like vital infrastructure. You shouldn't have to worry about your ISP screwing with your internet connection any more than you should worry about your power company screwing with your electricity. I'd hope Mr. V could see the major differences between trying to regulate competitive free markets versus government subsidized local monopolies. Its perfectly consistent to recognize that regulation sometimes has its place and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm against Regulations as a general rule unless there is a need for them. In this case, the issue of right or wrong isn't really in play, it's "Do they have the authority to do this?" and the answer is no, they don't.

I'm also against the FCC dictating how business run. If Comcast wants to play slowdown games, a competitor can come along and say "Hey, use us, we don't do that crap". IMHO that is the ideal solution to ISP's putting slowdown's on traffic.

 

[rivrrat]

I'm against Regulations as a general rule unless there is a need for them. In this case, the issue of right or wrong isn't really in play, it's "Do they have the authority to do this?" and the answer is no, they don't.

I'm also against the FCC dictating how business run. If Comcast wants to play slowdown games, a competitor can come along and say "Hey, use us, we don't do that crap". IMHO that is the ideal solution to ISP's putting slowdown's on traffic.

I would agree, if only cable companies could compete with one another in the same area. This is not the case now, though.

 

[rathi]

I'm against Regulations as a general rule unless there is a need for them. In this case, the issue of right or wrong isn't really in play, it's "Do they have the authority to do this?" and the answer is no, they don't.

We will see what the Supreme court has to say about that.

I'm also against the FCC dictating how business run. If Comcast wants to play slowdown games, a competitor can come along and say "Hey, use us, we don't do that crap". IMHO that is the ideal solution to ISP's putting slowdown's on traffic.

Except for many Americans, they don't have a competitor to go to. Or that competitor engages in the same BS. I wouldn't still be using Comcast after the stunt they pulled, except I don't any choice in the matter. The cost of laying multiple cables to a single persons house prevents real competition from being realistic.

 

[Taylor]

2) If the FCC lacks the authority, does Congress?

No... Congress is the appropriate pathway here.

4) How soon does Comcast start blocking BitTorrent, and is this really bad?

It's bad if you like to BitTorrent. Good thing there are options out there in internet providers. (My guess is that 95% of all BitTorrent traffic is illegal file trading.)

 

[Taylor]

Taxpayers like me do, and thus we get pissed when Comcast thinks it can take our money to build a cable, sell us information over the cable we bought, and then decide to screw with our internet access that we are paying for, and finally be unable to switch to another ISP because they have a local monopoly.

Where do you live that they have the monopoly?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm against Regulations as a general rule unless there is a need for them. In this case, the issue of right or wrong isn't really in play, it's "Do they have the authority to do this?" and the answer is no, they don't.

I'm also against the FCC dictating how business run. If Comcast wants to play slowdown games, a competitor can come along and say "Hey, use us, we don't do that crap". IMHO that is the ideal solution to ISP's putting slowdown's on traffic.

I would agree with you IF most homes had multiple choices among broadband providers that would provide enough of a playing field for competition to happen. However, many do not.

 

[Taylor]

Your reply suggests that you failed to understand Rathi's comment.

I understood it just fine. :shrug:

 

[Redress]

No... Congress is the appropriate pathway here.

Ummm..pardon? I asked if congress had the authority, you say no, then say congress is the appropriate pathway. I assume one half of that is a goof, but not sure which.

 

[rathi]

Where do you live that they have the monopoly?

In my case, Comcast has only a de-facto monopoly, as no other company is willing to lay the damn cable into my part of neighborhood. I live in the bay area. However, in many parts of the country they have franchise agreements with cities for government backed monopolies.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No... Congress is the appropriate pathway here.

It's bad if you like to BitTorrent. Good thing there are options out there in internet providers. (My guess is that 95% of all BitTorrent traffic is illegal file trading.)

I wouldn't worry about BTers. Most major programs do port randomization and encryption anyway, leaving packet patterns as the only identifier, but that's not a good detection mechanism.

 

[Renae]

I would agree, if only cable companies could compete with one another in the same area. This is not the case now, though.

AT and T and Timewarner compete here.

And in north SA there is a third company.

The problem is, and I understand the problem, if my Company "Vic's Telecom Inc" (VTI) laid down the infrastructure, the cables, routers and what not... letting another company use those resources it like... unacceptable.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ok, can some one answer some questions regarding this for me?

1) Is this decision likely to be appealed?

Most likely but I don't know for sure.

2) If the FCC lacks the authority, does Congress?

Congress does have the authority through interstate commerce.
That is following current legal beliefs.

3) What is the basis for the decision? I see no actual details on the logic.

There are no laws saying that the FCC has the power to enforce net neutrality, so the court ruled in favor of the companies.

4) How soon does Comcast start blocking BitTorrent, and is this really bad?

I doubt they will do that as Mega pointed out, it would be crazy difficult.
If they did people would start using private p2p networks and darknet like networks.

 

[Taylor]

Ummm..pardon? I asked if congress had the authority, you say no, then say congress is the appropriate pathway. I assume one half of that is a goof, but not sure which.

It looked like you asked if Congress lacked the authority. So I was saying no, they do not lack the authority:

2) If the FCC lacks the authority, does Congress?

As I understand it, Congress can go back and delegate additional authority to the FCC to regulate such things, but the FCC can't just go out there and assume authority on its own.

 

[Taylor]

I wouldn't worry about BTers. Most major programs do port randomization and encryption anyway, leaving packet patterns as the only identifier, but that's not a good detection mechanism.

Yeah, young techies are always going to be a step ahead!