Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality

Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality

news.cnet.com

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to impose strict Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended them earlier in the year.

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provid

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a huge blow to attempts to regulate the internet via federal agencies. It may be somewhat controversial due to the particular case (Comcast vs FCC) regarding their network management practices, the overall precedent may well prevent undue content regulations.

I'm sure the decision will be appealed, but I doubt SCOTUS will be inclined to rule in the FCC's favor.

news.cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's the right decision and one that I hope stands for a very long time.

They dont have the power? well hell, its time to give them the power then...net neutrality needs to be protected...its the last leveling field we as the slave race have against the masters.

I sooo dont want to order package plans through my ISP...ooh, for 40 bucks a month, I get ebay, youtube, and craigslist...and an extra 20 a month I can choose up to 20 more websites on my network...whoot. hmm, wonder if anyone still goes to ATS

A lot of people will be in favor of the court's ruling because it involves the FCC, a federal agency, and they are against the government on everything in principle. Also, because liberals want the regulations, and they think that anything liberals want is by definition no good.

What a lot of people don't realize is that a victory for Comcast will open the door to internet providers doing just anything they want to their customers. In this case they want to slow bit torrents. In the future, Comcast could charge you $100 a month to visit ATS, or decide they don't want you to see it altogether.

There will be no limit to the power of the big corporations.

So it's a choice between a regulatory government agency and the fat cats. In this instance the FCC guarantees net neutrality. It's our best friend in keeping the internet free.

is it just me or has the SCOTUS being
ruling AGAINST the establishment
a lot lately.

The wire taps last week
the FCC this week

could the Patriot Act be next????
or even Obamacare???

it seems they have woken up as well

Originally posted by SaturnFX
They dont have the power? well hell, its time to give them the power then...net neutrality needs to be protected...its the last leveling field we as the slave race have against the masters.

I sooo dont want to order package plans through my ISP...ooh, for 40 bucks a month, I get ebay, youtube, and craigslist...and an extra 20 a month I can choose up to 20 more websites on my network...whoot. hmm, wonder if anyone still goes to ATS

I agree. The current legal environment enables censorship - legislation is needed to protect Net Neutrality.

In China, the government censors the Internet.

In the West, the mega-corporations handle censorship.

...Communist, capitalist. Who cares? It's all censorship.



From the OP:

In 2006, Congress rejected five bills, backed by groups including Google, Amazon.com, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations. Even though the Democrats have enjoyed a majority on Capitol Hill since 2007, the political leadership has shown little interest in resuscitating those proposals.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me


This is a huge blow to attempts to regulate the internet via federal agencies. It may be somewhat controversial due to the particular case (Comcast vs FCC) regarding their network management practices, the overall precedent may well prevent undue content regulations.

I'm sure the decision will be appealed, but I doubt SCOTUS will be inclined to rule in the FCC's favor.

news.cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Am I missing something? My understanding was that this was a bad thing.

Sure, we know the cliches: government regulation sucks, it's good for the corporations to take over the world and all that, blah, blah, blah.

But we ATS users loves us some internet (not to mention, paranoia). And with no regulation, the internet service providers continue to have free reign to do pretty much whatever they want, including speeding up/slowing down access to certain sites (maybe Comcast wants your access to its NBC sites to be flawlessly fast, but maybe when you go to catch an episode of Survivor on CBS, you won't be so lucky.

This is a diabolical thing that I really do have faith will be overturned at some point, but, if not, this is the no-longer-theoretical infrastructure for Big Brother - corporations have the ability to determine, censor, and charge you for your news, information, communication and entertainment and to deprive you of the things they don't want you to see.

awesome. so now that all sorts of things from videos, to all kinds of medical services are going to internet use, the internet providers can decide if you're using "too much" internet to charge you hundreds of dollars to access it. they claim it's because there's so much stress on their infrastructure while on the otherhand they fail to spend much of any of their profits on updating said infrastructure. wouldn't that make it a racket?

it's pretty sad when the country that pretty much invented the internet is like number 15 in broadband speed and penetration.

as for net neutrality, for once i've gotta side with the FCC, it's basically the most important topic for any free thinking peoples. that a court would rule that net neutrality isn't important , to me, speaks to their corruption( or total lack of knowledge on the subject). either way this is a sad sad day for us all.

reply to post by Hadrian


It's being sold as a "good thing" but when is government regulation truly a good thing? Sure, it sounds great that they want to make sure bandwidth is apportioned without prejudice... But do you believe they will stop there? As soon as regulatory precedence is made, the avalanche of regulations and fees will be right behind it... No older trick in the book than to get the masses clamoring for oversight so that Big Brother can get his hands on what he really wants... Content control...

Seriously... Do you truly want the FCC to have control? Haven't they ruined TV and radio? These are the same 'tards who turned the Super Bowl halftime Timberlake/Jackson fiasco into a national embarrassment.



Maybe when everyone is jonesing for a pr0n fix and can't get it it will all sink in...

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by Hadrian

 

Seriously... Do you truly want the FCC to have control? Haven't they ruined TV and radio? These are the same 'tards who turned the Super Bowl halftime Timberlake/Jackson fiasco into a national embarrassment.

YES, heck yes. The FCC is corrupt, hypocritical, silly, stupid, etc, perhaps a younger stepsister of the FDA, even. But give me a corrupt government agency anytime over having nothing at all between the slaves and the slavemasters!

Yes, the FCC ruined "terrestrial" radio, but it really killed itself DESPITE the FCC. The FCC is so stupid and ignorant, they had no idea they were actually facilitating a new industry (no, it's not lost on me that once again, the formerly "free" now has a cost - same thing that's happening with TV).

I'm a wuss. If you're going to shoot me in the face, yeah, at least put a blindfold on me first.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Excellent this is a huge win for free internet. I can only hope that it remains so forever.

I hate to tell you guys this but these businesses can do whatever they want. It's called a business model. If you don't like it, don't use Comcast go with some one else like AT&T or Grande, or whatever else is in your local community. There is nothing there that says you have to go with the provider. There is a choice and don't give me this nonsense that you don't have a choice. You do. No one compels you to use these people and it's completely legal for a business to censor content. It's illegal for Congress to do so but not a corporation. That's the whole thing that's going on with surveillance in this country: the government isn't watching you. The corporations are and then they freely give that information up to the government.

Originally posted by Hadrian
Am I missing something? My understanding was that this was a bad thing.

It is, most ATS users just fail to understand what net neutrality means outside of a YouTube video they saw one time and what John McCain, leader in technological understanding, told them.

Jesus christ, America Your politicians could tell you being ass raped by a grizzly bear was a great idea, and you'd all form a neat line at the zoo.

Originally posted by justinsweatt
I hate to tell you guys this but these businesses can do whatever they want. It's called a business model.

just not true. there are all kinds of various reasons why a company may be susceptible to regulation. if could be just that they provide what is deemed an essential quality of society and as such, there will be some oversight in an effort to ensure integrity (network television). in other cases, the government may own, operate and or fund systems or equipment that facilitate another company's business model (the fed funds internet infrastructure expansion and leases it to providers). this is without mentioning the sanctions that may be levied on monopolies. we may live in a fascist state, but there's still at the least the appearance of propriety.

First, what is the "Internet"? Is it a "Public Service", or is it a "Corporate Commodity? Or, is it a Corporate commodity, used as a public service?

Personally, if the government wants to control the net, they should first create one to control, officially. Two nets, controlled, and uncontrolled, and its your choice which one you prefer to use.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Originally posted by Hadrian
Am I missing something? My understanding was that this was a bad thing.

It is, most ATS users just fail to understand what net neutrality means outside of a YouTube video they saw one time and what John McCain, leader in technological understanding, told them.

Jesus christ, America

Your politicians could tell you being ass raped by a grizzly bear was a great idea, and you'd all form a neat line at the zoo.

i think it's the inflicted fog of believing good little americans oppose all efforts at regulating any business whatsoever for any reason whatsoever.

people lament a society that is owned by corporations, but the second the government steps in to do its job, people set their hair on fire and start making protest signs with misspellings and non-sensical declarations of jingoism.

how can you have slaves when the people beg for the chains?

What I would like to see is an ISP company that is a proponent for net neutrality start a nationwide ad campaign about it and call out the ISPs that are limiting your connection so that more people will become aware.

Speaking of which, you can perform some tests at M-Lab to see what your ISP is doing with your connection.

I have a question, where are all these problems that everybody is so afraid of that has people wanting the internet to be regulated?

I haven't seen any, the only one that I have heard of is the example mentioned in the article. Comcast limiting bandwidth for bittorent users, which they lifted after customers complained and probably lost a lot of money because of it.

You can just switch providers if an ISP wants to censor anything right now, once the government gets a hold of it there will be no Bit-Torrent. Even having the program on your computer could be considered illegal no matter if you are using it legitimately or not.

So far every time a major Corp has tried to censor anything on the net, they have always reversed it. It's that freaking simple people. Everybody is afraid of censorship of the net and they want the government to regulate the internet, it's the most backwards thing I have ever heard of in my life.

The net as we know it has been around for 15+ years and not one single problem has occurred that everybody is afraid of happening. I got news for ya if it hasn't happened yet, it isn't going to happen. Everybody that wants Net-Neutrality are running head first into the problems that you think are occurring now.

Then if the gov does get its way, welcome to internet access like Cable companies, want access to all the sites you have to pay outrageous fees to get all the access.

Don't believe me? I hope it never happens, but if it does you'll see, and once it's implemented there is no turning back. Be careful what you wish for because you might get more than what you bargain for.

This was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, in my personal opinion. I'm somewhat happy that the ruling went against the FCC. The FCC's stated goal was actually admirable. Emphasis on the word "stated." It was the unstated ramifications which were so very dangerous here. If you allow the FCC precident in this case, then the door has been swung open to allow them to control content as the next step. We are seeing right now, in the very publicized case of China vs Google, what could easily happen if the FCC had any modicum of control over the web.

There will always be some level of competition among providers. There will also always be someplace in your community where you can get either free WiFi or free usage of a public computer connected to the net. Once the FCC is handed any level of control, the same cannot be said about accesibility of content.

Finally, I wonder how largely this impacts the recent law handing internet control over to the POTUS during times of crisis and calamity. If the courts rule that one government agency has no right to regulate the web in any way, then I would presume the same court would rule similarly for another branch of the government. I would love to see that challenged in court ASAP.