PDA

View Full Version : US Court Rules Against FCC on `Net Neutrality'


Teh Don Ditty
Apr 6, 2010, 09:54 AM
Nice job US appeals court and Comcast :rolleyes:

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10298403

Rodimus Prime
Apr 6, 2010, 10:36 AM
This is just great... It allows the tellecoms to screw us over even more. The FCC was on the right track and now it is going to take our congress to pass laws to force it and since they are bought and paid for they are not going to give us what the people want/need but instead what the greed of the corps want.

this just puts the US telecoms even farther behind the rest of the world.

Teh Don Ditty
Apr 6, 2010, 10:56 AM
Engadget has dissected it.

Update: Okay, we're reading the opinion (PDF below) and basically it boils down like this: the FCC ordered Comcast to stop filtering Bittorrent on its network in early 2008, and Comcast filed suit, saying the FCC didn't have the authority to intervene like that. Since there's no specific law giving the FCC the authority to regulate the internet, the FCC told the court it was using its "ancillary powers," which allow the agency to take actions needed to fulfill its role -- and the FCC was interpreting its role as promoting net neutrality based on the policy statements of Congress and the President. The court said that wasn't good enough, obviously -- we'd bet this gets appealed immediately while Congress goes to work on a specific law authorizing the Commission to impose net neutrality.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/c...e-net-neutral/

rdowns
Apr 6, 2010, 11:41 AM
As much as I am for Net Neutrality, the decision was the correct one. The FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet. I see a very simple solution. You take federal money as a telco/ISP, you agree to Net Neutrality. All these ****ers take billions in federal corporate welfare.

jaw04005
Apr 6, 2010, 01:05 PM
You take federal money as a telco/ISP, you agree to Net Neutrality. All these ****ers take billions in federal corporate welfare.

Not to even mention, the billions of dollars in tax breaks, eminent domain rights and subsidies granted by state and local communities on top of the federal welfare.

KingYaba
Apr 6, 2010, 01:50 PM
I see a very simple solution. You take federal money as a telco/ISP, you agree to Net Neutrality. All these ****ers take billions in federal corporate welfare.

That sounds fair.

Tilpots
Apr 6, 2010, 01:52 PM
Congress needs to grant this oversight to the FCC. It's as simple as that.

Thomas Veil
Apr 6, 2010, 02:07 PM
As much as I am for Net Neutrality, the decision was the correct one. The FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet. I see a very simple solution. You take federal money as a telco/ISP, you agree to Net Neutrality. All these ****ers take billions in federal corporate welfare.Wouldn't it be a helluva lot cheaper just to pass a Net Neutrality law and stop giving the ****ers billions in corporate welfare?

Edit:

From the OP's original link:

(Ben) Scott (policy director for the public interest group Free Press) believes that the likeliest step by the FCC is that it will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.

"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."

Also: (http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/06/court-rules-the-fcc-doesnt-have-authority-to-impose-net-neutral/)

Here's the FCC's response to the opinion:

The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies -- all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers -- on a solid legal foundation.
Today's court decision invalidated the prior Commission's approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.

Plutonius
Apr 7, 2010, 11:21 PM
Nothing is free. If the cost go up because of the FCC mandates, it will be passed on to us. Do you really want to subsidize someone's Bittorrent ?

StruckANerve
Apr 8, 2010, 12:32 PM
The FCC is full of ****. If they gained the ability to regulate the net what's to stop them from attempting to Censor content they deem inappropriate like they do with TV and Radio? They claim they believe in net neutrality but I doubt they will hold to that creed when they gain control.

Counterfit
Apr 8, 2010, 06:49 PM
The FCC only regulates content on services using radio transmission. Cable-only channels are free to show whatever they want, except for stuff like kiddie porn. Why would it be any different for the internet?

Nothing is free. If the cost go up because of the FCC mandates, it will be passed on to us. Do you really want to subsidize someone's Bittorrent ?

Why would costs go up any more than they would have anyway?

Plutonius
Apr 9, 2010, 07:11 AM
Why would costs go up any more than they would have anyway?

Net neutrality ends up requiring much more bandwidth since the ISPs / telcos can not restrict the net use. The consumers are passed the additional cost.

i.e. you are subsidizing someones bittorrent.

skottichan
Apr 10, 2010, 01:17 AM
Net neutrality ends up requiring much more bandwidth since the ISPs / telcos can not restrict the net use. The consumers are passed the additional cost.

i.e. you are subsidizing someones bittorrent.

So, corporate censorship is fine then? This goes well beyond bit torrenting (which is a lot smaller than content providers try to claim it is).

Since Comcast owns NBC now, without Net Neutrality, nothing can (or will) stop them from doing stuff like streaming legal content from say, ABC or CBS, and claim it's to keep people from tying up bandwidth.

Or, nothing would stop them from preventing you from legally downloading television/movies/large software updates, because you're downloading too much.

Tilpots
Apr 10, 2010, 09:24 PM
Since Comcast owns NBC now, without Net Neutrality, nothing can (or will) stop them from doing stuff like streaming legal content from say, ABC or CBS, and claim it's to keep people from tying up bandwidth.

Your point is valid, but Comcast does not own NBC, yet.

Nermal
Apr 10, 2010, 09:39 PM
I haven't been following this debate in the US but here's how it works over here:

Customers can choose between metered, pre-allocated, or flat-rate connections.

A metered connection is charged at a certain cost per MB. All traffic is treated equally.

A pre-allocated connection gives you a set amount of data (say 40 GB) for a fixed monthly rate. Once you exceed that, you can often buy additional "data blocks" (eg 10 GB for $x) or have your maximum speed reduced until the end of the month. Again, all traffic is treated equally.

Flat-rate plans have no data limit, but things like BitTorrent are rate-limited due to the sheer amount of bandwidth used. Basically there are two "pipes"; one for "normal" traffic, which runs at the high speed rate. The other "P2P pipe" has a fixed amount of bandwidth shared among all users.

It sounds like Comcast is doing something similar to the flat-rate option. I'm personally on a metered connection (and happy with it) but I believe that lots of people in NZ are happily using a flat-rate service, despite the rate limiting that is used.