PDA

View Full Version : US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality'



Sporkman
April 6th, 2010, 04:07 PM
US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality'

Federal appeals court rules for Comcast and against FCC on `net neutrality' case

On Tuesday April 6, 2010, 10:38 am

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...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4

conradin
April 6th, 2010, 04:16 PM
Its no win in my mind. Comcast is a crap isp and giving the FCC more legal leverage is stupid.

falconindy
April 6th, 2010, 04:21 PM
Its no win in my mind. Comcast is a crap isp and giving the FCC more legal leverage is stupid.
Huh?

JDShu
April 6th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Its no win in my mind. Comcast is a crap isp and giving the FCC more legal leverage is stupid.

They ruled against the FCC.

whiskeylover
April 6th, 2010, 04:23 PM
Expect to pay more to XFINITY!!!

ve4cib
April 6th, 2010, 04:24 PM
Huh?

I believe he means that regardless of who wins the case the public loses; either Comcast gets the power to shape traffic to suit their corporate whims, or the FCC gets more legal power to enforce (arguably) unwanted rules.

I disagree with that assessment, but I'm pretty sure that's what the poster means.

kmsalex
April 6th, 2010, 07:53 PM
i don't like where this is going, i used comcast to. worst company on the face of the earth, except maby Microsoft...its a close race.

mcoleman44
April 6th, 2010, 08:29 PM
The internet belongs to everyone, it kills me that they are in court over who has the right to control the user's experience on the net. What he/she sees,downloads, types etc. If I pay for internet service, Im going to do whatever the hell I want with that service. For the most part... ;)

mcoleman44
April 6th, 2010, 08:30 PM
except maby Microsoft...its a close race.
+1 by the way

Sporkman
April 6th, 2010, 08:35 PM
The internet belongs to everyone, it kills me that they are in court over who has the right to control the user's experience on the net.

"The internet" might belong to everyone, but the channels over which internet data do not - they belong to individual companies who have to pay to upgrade & maintain them.

mcoleman44
April 6th, 2010, 08:37 PM
"The internet" might belong to everyone, but the channels over which internet data do not - they belong to individual companies who have to pay to upgrade & maintain them.

Yes, but that is your money, my money and everyone else's money that they are using to do that. They wouldn't exist without paying users.

VTPoet
April 6th, 2010, 09:17 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4

The FCC can appeal, and probably will. A conservative supreme court is likely to rule against the government - but it all depends on how their ideologies are played. Conservative votes are unpredictable. If it's an abortion issue, then conservatives all for states rights, if its legalizing drugs or euthanasia, then conservatives can't praise big government enough.

I think Democrats are pro-net neutrality, but they'll have to play their cards right. If Democrats support Net Neutrality, Republicans will fight them with every fiber of their being while genuflecting at the alter of free market capitalism. If Democrats support Comcast, then Republicans will fight them with every fiber of their being, all while preaching the importance of free market capitalism. I personally don't hold much hope for net neutrality's future. There's way too much money to be made off us and now that corporations can buy and sell politicians before and after elections, expect big business to dig deep, deep, deep into your wallets. It's a great time to be a "corporate citizen". Insurance companies will soon have 30 to 40 million new customers - who have to pay them whatever they decide to charge. Banks are going to walk away scott free, and the Internet will likely turn into another play ground for corporate pick-pockets. Sigh...

jwbrase
April 6th, 2010, 11:11 PM
I think Democrats are pro-net neutrality, but they'll have to play their cards right. If Democrats support Net Neutrality, Republicans will fight them with every fiber of their being while genuflecting at the alter of free market capitalism. If Democrats support Comcast, then Republicans will fight them with every fiber of their being, all while preaching the importance of free market capitalism.

There's way more variation on either side of the aisle than that. The Democrats are influenced fairly heavily, for example, by the entertainment industry and the media, who on the one hand like to have their own content as unfiltered as possible (and thus want the Democrats help against moral conservatives), but on the other hand, see a neutral internet as a threat, and have a vested interest in doing what they can to stop torrenting.

In fact, I'd argue that, more than either party or any other corporation, it is the media and entertainment corporations that are the big threat here, as their position gives them the opportunity to be kingmakers in practically any battle. They control the spin the public gets on the news and on politicians. Their children's programming has had a big influence on what my generation has thought is right and wrong. They sell fun to the public. They sell advertising time for corporations to expose their products to the public. And, with subtly-placed bad publicity, they can ruin politicians, corporations, or just about whoever they want. They want you to be suspicious of politicians. They want you to be suspicious of corporations. They want you to be suspicious of everything but them, because you are their source of money and influence. They sell your money to corporations with advertising time. They sell your votes to politicians with publicity. They don't need cash to bribe politicians, they need your willingness to believe what they say. Whoever doesn't agree with them or crosses their path will end up fighting an uphill battle. And a neutral net is their enemy, because it undermines their influence, their profitability, and their power.

VTPoet
April 7th, 2010, 12:08 AM
//There's way more variation on either side of the aisle than that.//

Yes, but at the end of the day. it's a two party system, and whatever Democrats are for, Republicans will be against.

So... historically, Democrats have tended to be in favor of Net Neutrality, Republicans have been and are (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90851-hatch-signals-early-gop-blockade-against-net-neutrality-legislation)against it. You can be sure that if the Democrats had been opposed to Net Neutrality, Orin Hatch would have found a rationale for its support.



Most Democrats, including President Barack Obama, believe the rules would ensure open access to Web content, while a majority of Republicans view the entire net neutrality movement as an attempt to regulate what is at its most basic a private industry.



GOPers have thus long promised to scuttle such legislation, to the delight of telecommunications companies that also view net neutrality as a threat on their ability to manage their own network resources.


You are, of course, right that individual members may hold nuanced positions and that the money that's buying their votes may be nuanced, but (at the end of the day) the voting is not nuanced. It's party line.

My prediction? Net neutrality was killed today. The Republicans will win back any number of legislative seats and Obama, who tends to be very sympathetic toward corporate interests (despite all the hyperventilating of the right) will, through artful compromise, side with the Republicans (his empty rhetoric notwithstanding).

Net neutrality is dead.

handy
April 7th, 2010, 12:52 AM
At this stage, it looks like a giant step backwards as far as the freedom of the internet as we know it is concerned. & therefore a giant step forward in the ongoing corporate takeover for profit & mind control by the mega-corps.

I expect the internet to be dramatically changed by the end of this decade. :(

BigCityCat
April 7th, 2010, 12:59 AM
If free markets own the net then new companies and competition along with the consumers money can keep it in check. Nothing can keep the government in check if they regulate it. I trust a free market over big government any day of the week.

spoons
April 7th, 2010, 12:59 AM
Oh yeah.. I know all about the FCC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

jwbrase
April 7th, 2010, 01:27 AM
//There's way more variation on either side of the aisle than that.//

Yes, but at the end of the day. it's a two party system, and whatever Democrats are for, Republicans will be against.

I think you overestimate the cohesiveness of the GOP.

handy
April 7th, 2010, 01:50 AM
If free markets own the net then new companies and competition along with the consumers money can keep it in check. Nothing can keep the government in check if they regulate it. I trust a free market over big government any day of the week.

As I see it, the problem is that a big percentage of computer/internet users aren't interested in educating themselves re. business strategies of the mega-corps, & of course the mega-corps power over government.

So the people (in the broad sense) basically believe what the media tells them. Which is so often in those that own the media's interest.

This puts the media mega-corps at an unfair advantage.

Unfortunately that's the way we have allowed things to become, while we are diverted, distracted & entertained.

red_Marvin
April 7th, 2010, 01:59 AM
You might want to read this: Court Rejects FCC Authority Over the Internet (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/court-rejects-fcc-authority-over-internet) [EFF] explaining why this might be a good thing in the long run, even if it temporarily harms the fight for net neutrality.

VTPoet
April 7th, 2010, 02:09 AM
If free markets own the net then new companies and competition along with the consumers money can keep it in check.

Yeah... just like the credit card industry or Wall Street. There's no such things as a free market unless the government enforces it. Minus the government, I'd give the web about 2 to 5 years before one (1) corporation (as in 1 less than 2) owned the entire thing. Then they would be your defacto government.


Nothing can keep the government in check if they regulate it.

And nothing can keep corporations in check unless they're regulated. There has to be a balance. The FCC provided that balance (or tried to).


I trust a free market over big government any day of the week.

Yeah... right. You don't trust a free market. What you trust is a free market regulated by the government. A truly "free" market would spit you out like a flavorless wad of chewing gum, sapped and sucked dry.

VTPoet
April 7th, 2010, 02:15 AM
I think you overestimate the cohesiveness of the GOP.

It's not a matter of estimating. Just look at the year's voting record. Once the upcoming elections are over and the Republicans have gained some seats - I expect we'll see more nuance from the Republican aisle. I hope so.

I know there are some more moderate opinions among the Republicans (as concerns Net Neutrality) but the GOP's tent, for the time being, is not big, tolerant or forgiving.

JDShu
April 7th, 2010, 02:16 AM
If free markets own the net then new companies and competition along with the consumers money can keep it in check. Nothing can keep the government in check if they regulate it. I trust a free market over big government any day of the week.

This explains why Microsoft does not dominate the market.

In all seriousness, this particular case raises some red flags. I was at first of the opinion that it seemed reasonable because Comcast was just limiting bandwidth usage of people who were using too much of it. However what Comcast is effectively doing is banning BitTorrent. If they have issues with users using too much bandwidth, they should lower the amount that users are allowed to use or otherwise communicate with users directly. Its worrying that we may not be able to use certain internet services because the ISP decides that it is not profitable.

handy
April 7th, 2010, 02:17 AM
I don't want the world to be ruled by Rupert Murdoch.

chappajar
April 7th, 2010, 02:17 AM
The internet might belong to everyone, but the channels over which internet data do not - they belong to individual companies who have to pay to upgrade & maintain them.

We pay for those when we fork over cash to our ISP.

I'm not sure whether this is good or bad in the long run (definitely bad in the short term), but the FTC should be hammering Comcast right now for deceiving customers and future customers.

BigCityCat
April 7th, 2010, 02:19 AM
As I see it, the problem is that a big percentage of computer/internet users aren't interested in educating themselves re. business strategies of the mega-corps, & of course the mega-corps power over government.

So the people (in the broad sense) basically believe what the media tells them. Which is so often in those that own the media's interest.

This puts the media mega-corps at an unfair advantage.

Unfortunately that's the way we have allowed things to become, while we are diverted, distracted & entertained.

That's just a load of communist crap to me.

I don't have to purchase or consume anything I don't want to. Until the government compels me to do so. The way it is now I make the decision. There are always alternatives. I'm not some mindless robot that is controlled by some mega corporation. The consumers controls what they want, but when the government over takes it there will be one entity in control of it. You socialist have too much faith in the government. It's the governments that are guilty of murdering and enslaving millions of people. I can't think of one "media mega-corps" that has committed mass genocide. I can think of alot of socialist that are guilty of that.

JDShu
April 7th, 2010, 02:20 AM
We pay for those when we fork over cash to our ISP.

I'm not sure whether this is good or bad in the long run (definitely bad in the short term), but the FTC should be hammering Comcast right now for deceiving customers and future customers.

100% agree.

handy
April 7th, 2010, 02:21 AM
That's just a load of communist crap to me.

I don't have to purchase or consume anything I don't want to. Until the government compels me to do so. The way it is now I make the decision. There are always alternatives. I'm not some mindless robot that is controlled by some mega corporation. The consumers controls what they want, but when the government over takes it there will be one entity in control of it. You socialist have too much faith in the government. It's the governments that are guilty of murdering and enslaving millions of people. I can't think of one "media mega-corps" that has committed mass genocide.

I won't discuss the topic any further with you, as you are too emotionally involved, & I'd prefer this thread to stay open.

Peace. :)

jflaker
April 7th, 2010, 02:28 AM
what you will see more and more if ISP's are allowed to shape traffic for one customer over another is neighborhoods getting together to bring their own internet.

A single neighborhood (say 1500 - 3000 homes) can easily share a OC or even GB fiber line at a small shared cost with decent speeds....and the ISP has to treat the line like the "preferred" commercial connections.

handy
April 7th, 2010, 02:45 AM
what you will see more and more if ISP's are allowed to shape traffic for one customer over another is neighborhoods getting together to bring their own internet.

A single neighborhood (say 1500 - 3000 homes) can easily share a OC or even GB fiber line at a small shared cost with decent speeds....and the ISP has to treat the line like the "preferred" commercial connections.

Perhaps that could happen with communities of the right size & spirit.

It isn't much help to those of us who live in the country, in areas of low population.

VTPoet
April 7th, 2010, 03:20 AM
It's the governments that are guilty of murdering and enslaving millions of people.

Then you're blithely ignorant of history. Look up right-wing dictatorships and educate yourself. Look up Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte, for instance. Many vicious governments have been propped up by "capitalist" (read moneyed) interests (dictators who extolled capitalism and the free market while claiming to be the enemies of communism), all while slaughtering and executing their "left wing" opponents - en mass. The "moneyed interests" cheered them on.

In reality, the dichotomy between communists and mega-corps is a false one. It's all about power and greed. The suffering, "enslavement" and death caused by an unregulated market economy fills every nook and cranny of the history books. The "communists" of Russia (the ones in power) were all shrewd capitalists. They modernized and industrialized Russia wile they and their party took the profit. They turned their entire nation, essentially, into a forced labor camp. Russia was, in essence, a mega-corporation.


I can't think of one "media mega-corps" that has committed mass genocide.

What about all those businesses in Nazi Germany who knowingly and willingly used Jewish labor? - who gainfully invented and installed the machines that resulted in mass genocide? Did you know that IBM had a lucrative contract with the Nazis? The Nazis needed to keep tabs on just how many Jews they had murdered, when, and where. IBM had the technology. The Nazis were very pro-business and anti-communist - and big business loved them - made lots of money off them.

You live in a world of denial if you think big business has no blood on their hands.


I can think of alot of socialist that are guilty of that.

And I can think of many Capitalists who made millions off those socialists.

chappajar
April 7th, 2010, 03:57 AM
I can't think of one media mega-corps that has committed mass genocide.

The Dutch East India Company wasn't too far off: war and slavery.

I think the East India Company was _slightly_ better?

As for control over people by corporations, google the Reedy Creek Improvement District. It isn't run by local government...

MasterNetra
April 7th, 2010, 06:00 AM
Then you're blithely ignorant of history. Look up right-wing dictatorships and educate yourself. Look up Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte, for instance. Many vicious governments have been propped up by "capitalist" (read moneyed) interests (dictators who extolled capitalism and the free market while claiming to be the enemies of communism), all while slaughtering and executing their "left wing" opponents - en mass. The "moneyed interests" cheered them on.

In reality, the dichotomy between communists and mega-corps is a false one. It's all about power and greed. The suffering, "enslavement" and death caused by an unregulated market economy fills every nook and cranny of the history books. The "communists" of Russia (the ones in power) were all shrewd capitalists. They modernized and industrialized Russia wile they and their party took the profit. They turned their entire nation, essentially, into a forced labor camp. Russia was, in essence, a mega-corporation.



What about all those businesses in Nazi Germany who knowingly and willingly used Jewish labor? - who gainfully invented and installed the machines that resulted in mass genocide? Did you know that IBM had a lucrative contract with the Nazis? The Nazis needed to keep tabs on just how many Jews they had murdered, when, and where. IBM had the technology. The Nazis were very pro-business and anti-communist - and big business loved them - made lots of money off them.

You live in a world of denial if you think big business has no blood on their hands.



And I can think of many Capitalists who made millions off those socialists.


The Dutch East India Company wasn't too far off: war and slavery.

I think the East India Company was _slightly_ better?

As for control over people by corporations, google the Reedy Creek Improvement District. It isn't run by local government...

Please do the polite thing and drop it. This forum is not the place for this. Continuing that topic will get the thread closed.

Back on the topic the thread was started on, this case maybe a lose-lose situation If I needed to choose sides though, I would go with the FCC for the sake of moving/keeping the idea of equality on the net.

VTPoet
April 7th, 2010, 01:27 PM
Back on the topic the thread was started on, this case maybe a lose-lose situation If I needed to choose sides though, I would go with the FCC for the sake of moving/keeping the idea of equality on the net.

I was listening to NPR this morning and reading up on the decision.

In short, this ruling ought to have the linux community d*mned nervous. Apparently, Comcast doesn't like bandwidth usage that competes with their own offerings (on-line TV). They blocked BitTorrent because it was impeding the data stream they wanted users to watch, listen to, and pay for.

Why should the linux community be nervous? Because this may well spell the end of BitTorrent downloading - one of the preferred methods for obtaining ISOs. Linux users can switch to direct downloading, but that too can easily be blocked if a company decides such bandwidth usage interferes with the content they want to sell.

Could an ISP affiliated, in some way, with Microsoft or Apple, blacklist linux sites? I doubt they would be bothered with targeting linux. However, a clamp down on bandwidth usage might amount to the same thing. As it is, it's now within their rights to do so and they have a ready made rationale.

jflaker
April 8th, 2010, 02:02 AM
Perhaps that could happen with communities of the right size & spirit.

It isn't much help to those of us who live in the country, in areas of low population.

I live in Rural PA....I hear ya.

phrostbyte
April 8th, 2010, 02:18 AM
I agree with it's a lose-lose either way. What I hope is that there will be some more competition in the broadband market, but as it is Comcast has a virtual monopoly in some places.

doas777
April 8th, 2010, 02:27 AM
regardless of the private vs public institutions side of it, i do hope this prompts congress to give the FCC the mandate and powers to protect he internet from any greedy party, either private or public.

swoll1980
April 8th, 2010, 03:52 AM
If everyone in the world got a wireless router we could make our own Internet. How cool would that be.

samjh
April 8th, 2010, 05:16 AM
The FCC can appeal, and probably will. A conservative supreme court is likely to rule against the government - but it all depends on how their ideologies are played. Conservative votes are unpredictable.

This is not an issue of conservative votes or vice-versa. It's an issue of the FCC not having necessary legislative authority to regulate ComCast's commercial activities in relation to shaping Internet connections. Political conservatism or liberalism has no relevance in the court-room component of this issue.

If anything, all means is that Congress should provide the FCC with more legislative powers to protect "net neutrality", if that is what the American people want. The practical difficulties of doing that is a testament to one of the flaws of two-party system of politics.

JDShu
April 8th, 2010, 05:50 AM
This is not an issue of conservative votes or vice-versa. It's an issue of the FCC not having necessary legislative authority to regulate ComCast's commercial activities in relation to shaping Internet connections. Political conservatism or liberalism has no relevance in the court-room component of this issue.

If anything, all means is that Congress should provide the FCC with more legislative powers to protect "net neutrality", if that is what the American people want. The practical difficulties of doing that is a testament to one of the flaws of two-party system of politics.

I think he meant what would happen if this case managed to reach the supreme court.

-humanaut-
April 8th, 2010, 05:56 AM
If comcast wants to start blocking traffic and basically doing whatever they want with there server thats fine and there right I'd simply move to the ISP that's promotes no blocking can you imagine the Qwest commercials I imagine alot of people will dumb comcast internet at the end of the day.What I wonder about since comcast is contract based if this would void the contract in way because I didn't sign a contract stating I understand and accept blocking of my legal torrent files.

doas777
April 8th, 2010, 01:07 PM
If comcast wants to start blocking traffic and basically doing whatever they want with there server thats fine and there right I'd simply move to the ISP that's promotes no blocking can you imagine the Qwest commercials I imagine alot of people will dumb comcast internet at the end of the day.What I wonder about since comcast is contract based if this would void the contract in way because I didn't sign a contract stating I understand and accept blocking of my legal torrent files.


comcast is one of the largest ISPs in the country, and most areas have a "infrastructure monopoly", meaning that there is only one incumbent provider. additionally if all the providers do it, then there is no one to jump ship too.
"competition" is a sham in these markets.

donkyhotay
April 8th, 2010, 04:25 PM
comcast is one of the largest ISPs in the country, and most areas have a "infrastructure monopoly", meaning that there is only one incumbent provider. additionally if all the providers do it, then there is no one to jump ship too.
"competition" is a sham in these markets.

There is no clear-cut solution. It's easy for all the ISP's to collude together on this and thats assuming you're even in an area with more then one ISP (many areas don't). There's lots of money to be made in routing traffic to 'preferred sites' (i.e. businesses that pay the ISP extra). On the other hand I'm not certain I would trust the government to control internet service and get rid of the companies. Probably having strict controls on the ISP's is the best option, similar to what happens now with telephone service. Problem is internet isn't considered a 'necessary' utility like telephone, it's more of a luxury service like cable TV and follows similar rules.