Court Rules Against FCC in Net Neutrality Case
Court Rules Against FCC in Net Neutrality Case
Posted 04/06/2010 at 8:54am
| by Paul Lilly
36
Comments
Print
A federal appeals court today ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the legal authority to impose strict net neutrality regulations and require ISPs to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic.
Perhaps no one is happier about the ruling than Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, who challenged the FCC's authority to impose net neutrality rules in the first place. And no one is likely more disappointed than current FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, who last October announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of net neutrality rules, despite the fact that Congress hadn't given the agency permission to do so.
There are a lot of implications to the ruling, including what will become of the ginormous national broadband plan the FCC released last month. Some of the initiatives written in the plan would require clear authority to regulate broadband, such as a proposal to expand broadband by tapping into the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities, the New York Times reports.
More like this
36
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
Josiah Charley
March 25, 2011 at 10:29am
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski had a lot of nerve to start creating the set of net neutrality rules, although the Congress didn't say anything. Maybe he thought that by doing so, he will challenge the destiny and eventually win. As a publisher network manager, I don't agree with the fact that there should be equal treatment to all Internet traffic. Let's face it, we're all equals, but some are more equal than others.
austix
January 20, 2011 at 8:36pm
Some numbskull made this assertion earlier. Was that before or after he'd googled the word boobs for the 20th time of the day.
By the way government is us. Why do you hate yourself? Seems like there are issues.
Cooketh
April 08, 2010 at 12:15pm
No one may like Comcast, but god damn I'm glad they won.
No more government regulation and observation, thank you very much.
It's bad enough ISPs will have information about their users, but to extend that information to the government is obscene.
POMF2K
April 06, 2010 at 7:21pm
Am I the only person who feels that our delightful pro-business capitalist outlook is hindering progress? Why do we need cable television or home phone service when these can be provided via the internet on our PCs? This potentially grants these companies the right to restrict internet usage to sites and services that compete with their own and allows them continue doing business and making money the same way they always have, rather than demand that these companies evolve, improve their services, and step into the 21st century.
routine
April 07, 2010 at 12:54pm
"Am I the only person who feels that our delightful pro-business capitalist outlook is hindering progress?"
No, you're not the only person that believes that. There are many like you. They call themselves progressives. I call them commies and traitors.
Instead of government intervention, I'd like Freedom to find a way to fix this problem!
I've canceled my cable. I watch all TV and movies streaming thru an HTPC which I built. Yes, I pay the cable company $40/mo for internet access, but hey, it's only a matter of time.
This is only the beginning. I see TV streaming thru the internet as the wave of the future. If Comcast can get on board, great. If not, they'll go out of business. This is how freedom works.
Monopolies are NOT created by businesses. Monopolies are created by Government edict! Always.
Vegan
April 06, 2010 at 10:07pm
Um, it really shouldn't have to be like that. Why should I have to move away, like moving to be part of a different electoral college?
arch-chancellor
April 06, 2010 at 6:02pm
One of the overlooked portions of "Net Neutrality" is that everybody has to have the same level of service. So some guy in a foil covered shack in Montana has to have the same speed to upload from his iPhone to YouTube as me in a major metro area.
Sounds good... ...NOT!
What do you think that's going to do to prices? Mine are going to go up, way the hell up to cover the costs. So are those in outlying areas. They already pay enough as it is.
Then when everybody is paying out the nose, the the government will impose price controls. Then to cover that cost internet providers will have to throttle back service anyway. Then we're back to square one. And we all know what the government will do next.
KnightXENO
April 06, 2010 at 3:07pm
If the general population is anything to go by...... almost half thought "net neutrality" was a sneaky bill to give the government control of the internet.
I'm appalled by that level of stupidity, but I do have to wonder if some lawyers of advanced age really knew what they were doing either? By finding for Comcast in this, they are allowing not just the continuation of throttling but allowing blanket slowdown policies. Websight doesn't pay comcast money? ---> slow it to 56k or less speeds. Huluu or netflix conflicting with cable packages or pay-per-view? ----> make them unusable. Not that even Comcast is even dumb enough to go to that extreme eventually.... but give them a few years and watch out. Those well known services might survive, but the point still holds (and less known ones will most certainly be throttled out of buisness).
The FCC was trying to enforce a policy to PREVENT anyone controlling internet content. There was no wording in their policy allowing eventual backdoor government control (ie: the patriot act). It was simply about treating internet data the same way the postal service treats mail; you pay for service, you get service. They can't not deliver a letter because they disagree or its distasteful, nor can they increase your fees. The only thing that effects whether you have access to that data/mail or can send that data/mail is if its illegal...... and even then they can't open it without a warrant. Or atleast that used to be the case, post patriot act they can probably open something if it looks funny..... and the legal system has improperly never totally upheld this principle for the internet before.... they search/filter for stuff long before a warrant or even suspicion occurs (which is wrong depending on how you look at it legally) but that IS how its SUPPOST to work.
Another thing not everyone realizes (the judges maybe?) is that news/phone/tv/internet are now all basically one big bundle. You give sweeping control and information limiting control to one, you give it to them all.
This was a hugely important setback. Some have said the court just upheld the existing law as it stood now.... but when has that stopped them recently (when sometimes instead of interpretting the law they just make it wholecloth). If nothing else the court is guilty of passing the buck or ignorance, but I'm not rulling out selling out to big corp because $ talks.
Optical log: Tell that to me as I still get throttled due to packet sniffing ok. They may have backed off a bit, but its still a far cry from treating all data equally today (and potentially worse tommorrow).
aviaggio
April 06, 2010 at 3:37pm
The FCC deregulated broadband Internet a few years ago under the Bush administration (big shock) that severely weakened its control. All they need to do is reclassify it as a telecom and it's game over for Comcast. I think they're going to find they've shot themselves in the foot on this one.
schwit
April 06, 2010 at 7:45pm
This ruling specifically said that CONGRESS did not give the FCC the authority to regulate net neutrality. No matter what the President wants, the ultimate decision is up to Congress.
Under the US system the President has primary responsibility for the military, the conduct of foreign policy, and the administration of the departments of government and enforcing the law. The Congress has primary responsibility for the creation, passage, and promulgation of laws, which includes raising and apportioning revenue.
aviaggio
April 07, 2010 at 12:46am
You're not understanding the point. Broadband Internet was originally classified by the FCC as a telecommunications utility, over which the FCC has many powers to control, all granted by Congress.
During the Bush administration the FCC deregulated broadband (a push done in part by Bush's head of the FCC under pressure from the various providers) to no longer classify it as a telecom utility, giving providers a lot of freedom to do whatever they wanted with few restrictions and even less taxes. Well they took the ball and ran with it, raking in billions of dollars by providing sub-standard service at premium prices.
The courts are now saying the FCC doesn't have the power to regulate the industry. This is because they are no longer classified as telecoms. But what the FCC giveth, the FCC can taketh away. They simply need to reclassify Internet providers as telecom utilities once more, and they will again have all the power they need. The beauty is that they don't need the President or Congress to approve it, they already have the power to regulate and deregulate as they see fit.
Comcast just cut off its nose to spite its face, cause life is going to get a whole lot tougher for them once the industry is re-regulated.
opticallog
April 06, 2010 at 2:56pm
Everyone should be happy about this ruling. Liberty is a two way street. If you don't want the government telling you how to run your business and manage your assets and property, then you shouldn't be running around trying to get the government to go stick it's nose in someone else's business, assets, and property.
Even if the FCC did have the specific authority to tell Comcast what to do with their network infrastructure, there is no evidence whatsoever that the FCC would mandate better solutions than what suppliers and consumers agree to own their own without government intervention. Slow-moving, technologically unsophisticated bureaucrats do not know better than consumers and technologists how to run the Internet. When the news of this broke, there was a complete and utter shit storm surrounding Comcast, as consumers and advocacy groups expressed their desire for neutral network management. Less than 6 months later Comcast backed down and announced that they would instead deploy an agnostic approach to network management and treat all data equally. This problem was resolved over TWO YEARS AGO by market forces and four months before the FCC even announced that they would "look into it."
mrvander
April 06, 2010 at 6:57pm
Actually, the post was well written with a reasoned argument. A point of view was expressed and it's your baseless comment without any content or argument that rather shows your own ignorance.
aviaggio
April 06, 2010 at 3:29pm
So I guess you would be fine if your ISP blocked all Skype and Google Voice traffic because they offer their own paid phone service? Or what about access to Hulu, Netflix, or YouTube cause they want you to pay for cable TV? Or for that matter any site that was owned by a competitor? Since there is little to no competition in most local markets what recourse would you have? NONE.
Yes, Corporate America knows oh so well what's best for the American people. As long as it generates billions in profits, that is. It's the government's job to protect the people from corporate greed and monopoly. Granted they don't do the best job in the world as most politicians are on the take to begin with, but it's a lot better than nothing. You're just going to have to accept that corporations are never going to have free reign to rape and pillage, at least not in the way you seem to desire.
routine
April 07, 2010 at 8:16am
Obviously, this problem only exists in hypothetical situations.
Liberals are great aren't they?
They love to create solutions for problems that don't exist in the real world.
aviaggio
April 07, 2010 at 11:49am
And I want to keep them from happening in the real world, hence the need for regulation. You do realize the current economic meltdown happened because the Bush administration greatly reduced oversight of the banking industry which allowed them to start doing all sorts of crazy shit to make trillions of dollars. Of course that crazy shit screwed over the entire country, but what did they care? They got their money, and then their billions in bonuses. Do you even begin the get the picture or am I just talking to a brick wall?
routine
April 07, 2010 at 12:31pm
Hahaha, you're view of the facts are skewed.
The economic meltdown happened because of easy-money from the Fed and Congress. This has been in the cards for about 100 years. To blame it all on Bush is naive at best and dangerous at worst.
Many of our Presidents (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson) in the past have fought off central banks successfully b/c they knew something like this would happen.
Blame it on Bush if you want, but you'd be wrong.
Btw, I was no fan of Bush either. He may have called himself a Christian and a Conservative, but his actions spoke differently!
routine
April 07, 2010 at 12:40pm
And my vote is you've been indoctrinated by the public school system.
"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is our problem."
-Ronald Reagan
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-Thomas Jefferson
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
austix
January 20, 2011 at 8:45pm
The dimmest bulb to ever serve. But then he had dementia throughout his term which means Sarah Palin just might have a shot. America's race to the bottom is in full swing. Who do we declare war on next?? Suggestions.
BAMT
April 06, 2010 at 4:00pm
If the telco's other services are a rip-off and locked people in, nobody but clueless people would subscribe, and the foolish pig running the company would not only lose a lot of customers but also risk his job.
I guess it depends if you want a socialist or a capitalist end. I myself prefer the latter.
aviaggio
April 06, 2010 at 5:21pm
So then, if there was no other choice in provider, as is the case is a majority of the country, you'd just go without Internet? Without TV? Without phone? Really? I somehow highly doubt that.
highsidednb
April 06, 2010 at 4:40pm
The new variant of Godwin's Law. Once you start throwing around Capitalism and Socialism on a message board, the discussion is over.
It's amazing to see free-marketeers and libertarians acting as if allowing free and open information flow on the intertubes is akin to socialism. Really now. By allowing ISPs to shape packets you're stifling innovation, freedom of expression, and a free market. Letting corporations do whatever they darn well please is the unhealthy side of capitalism. Last, why do you think companies like Google & Amazon are fighting for net neutrality?
AndyYankee17
April 06, 2010 at 4:21pm
I agree, free market is way better than a regulated market, if you don't like comcast then change ISPs
jgrimoldy
April 06, 2010 at 4:43pm
I beg to differ.
Sooo, do you think the regulations should be removed on your electical provider? After all, that would then be a free market. That damned PUC is extremely pesky! Let PG&E set its own rates. If people don't like it, then they can just change providers... oh... wait..
Wise up, buttercup. Regulation is what keeps your water clean, your car safe, your prescription medication safe, your bank account safe, your food (mostly) safe, your personal electronics from burning down your house (mostly). Should I continue?
In the abstract, I actually agree with you. The problem is that, in our practical, profit-motivated world, we need regulation to protect our fucking asses from businesses.
Remember Chernobyl? Union Carbide in Bhopal? If either had been more tightly regulated, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED!
A carefully (and not extremely) regulated market is a much safer (yet, sadly, a slightly less profitable) one.
jgrimoldy
April 07, 2010 at 4:48pm
Sooo, you read what I wrote. Did you *comprehend* it?
Care to elaborate on how judicious oversight on businesses equals Cuba or North Korea?
AndyYankee17
April 07, 2010 at 7:18pm
the fact that they own all business (doesn't the owner regulate their business?)
additionally:
seat belts/airbags were invented by the free market
food safety, pressured by the market
all innovation, free market
guess who developed everything in the medium your communicating with? the free market (mostly bell labs)
...except for the internet, that was al gore
name one thing government has created, besides poverty
austix
January 20, 2011 at 8:40pm
I think they created free health insurance for Republican hypocrite congressmen.
jgrimoldy
April 07, 2010 at 10:36pm
One thing that the government created? Hmmm... I dunno... 'ever heard of ARPANET? The free market did not create the internet. If you think so, you'd better read up. The free market has been instrumental in maturing it.
Look, the point isn't whether or not the Government creates anything. The point is that regulation protects your ass from businesses. Ever heard of OSHA? That pesky little gov't agency that is sorta interested in your workplace being a safe place for you?
The inventor of airbags is irrelevant. It was REGULATION (ugh, again) that sorta forced car makers to include them, much to their resistance. (look it up).
We're quita a bit off point at this juncture.
Wareagle
April 06, 2010 at 2:39pm
"and no one is likely more disappointed than current FCC chairman Julius
Genachowski"I am more disappointed.
Further proof that our legal system only represents special interests and not the people.
AndyYankee17
April 06, 2010 at 2:37pm
the question isn't whether the congress has given the fcc the power to do anything, it's whether congress has the the power to do so in the first place.
Article 1 section 8 + Article 10 of the bill of rights = win
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 7 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 7 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 5 hours ago
