AfterDawn: Tech news

Court rules FCC has no authority to enforce net neutrality

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 07 Apr 2010 13:13 User comments (31)

Court rules FCC has no authority to enforce net neutrality The US Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia has ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to enforce network neutrality rules for broadband internet providers.
The ruling came in Comcast's appeal of the that agency's 2008 ruling on the cable giant's practice of throttling P2P traffic.

Although the court's decision means the FCC doesn't have the authority to punish Comcast for their "network management" practices, their legal problems aren't over yet. In fact it clears the way for lawsuits pending in federal court which have been held up by the question of FCC jurisdiction.

There's also the potential for action by the Federal Trade Commission over alleged false advertising of their service.

What makes things more complicated is that the FCC may still be able to establish jurisdiction over net neutrality by revisiting a 2002 ruling on the nature of internet service. At that time it was determined that broadband internet was merely an information service, and therefore not subject to the same level of regulation as common carrier service like traditional phone lines.

Common carriers are already required to be neutral with respect to content and use of their services. For example, a traditional phone company can't prioritize incoming calls from one provider over another.

But such a ruling would certainly spark a new round of lawsuits, and not just from Comcast. You can be sure that broadband internet providers around the country are opposed to this level of FCC regulation and they actually have some valid points.

Simply put, the issues involved in net neutrality are much more complex than with simple telephone service. They are also much more politically charged.

The FCC Chairman is appointed by the president, and is generally expected to set policy based on the views of the current administration. This often leads to extreme shifts in regulation based on the bias of the sitting President.

The Chairman's own bias can also be problematic. In 2003, under Michael Powell's chairmanship, the FCC took it upon themselves to give broadcasters control over copying of TV programming through the use of the so-called broadcast flag.

Although it was later shot down by the same federal court involved in the net neutrality ruling, and for basically the same reason, it shows what can happen when the FCC oversteps their authority.

There's also some question whether the FCC would have taken action against an internet service provider over P2P throttling had it not been a cable company. The bias against the cable industry by then chairman Kevin Martin has been well documented.

And you don't have to look any further than last year's DTV transition to see the pitfalls of putting public policy in the hands of the FCC without significant oversight.

The FCC was charged with ensuring the smooth transition from analog to digital broadcasting, and essentially given carte blanche authority to handle it as they saw fit. Warnings from the Government Accountability Office, broadcasters, electronics retailers and engineers were all ignored by Chairman Martin, who insisted that everything was fine.

Conveniently, thanks to the transition being scheduled shortly after a new President took office it was already a foregone conclusion he would be gone before it actually happened.

Equally convenient was the silence of other FCC commissioners, who suddenly began criticizing Martin's handling of things with the transition just weeks away. When the date was pushed back due to a lack of consumer preparation they were quick to make him the scapegoat.

Net neutrality is an important issue, and something that merits serious debate and potentially regulation. Do you really want it left to the whims of the FCC?

Previous Next  

31 user comments

17.4.2010 14:00

Well Someone has to protect net neutrality, we cant do anything to protect, if corporate loyalists want it gone you can bet your ass it will be gone. the sad part is will never know it until its too late.

27.4.2010 14:12
lms44
Unverified new user

Congress has shown time and time again that they won't do it, so this ruling effectively puts net neutrality in the trash can. Say hello to the new Internet that is exactly like radio and TV.

37.4.2010 14:31
Mark
Unverified new user

A consumer protection decision conveniently rolled back; I'm shocked.

47.4.2010 14:35
Zach
Unverified new user

Originally posted by lms44:
Congress has shown time and time again that they won't do it...
What are you talking about? The FCC and Congress have not only backed it but pledged to spend billions in tax payer dollars to expand networks so that free and neutral internet access is available to all citizens. I'm as skeptical of the gov't as the next web head but I have no reason to believe that the FCC and Congress are with us on this one.

The court didn't declare NN unconstitutional. The court ruled that the FCC doesn't have the right to enforce NN within their current powers because their current powers were defined before the internet was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. This is a good thing because it would have set a precedent that the FCC controls any form of communication in the US, no matter what it is. Congress and the FCC will now go and pass a bill amending the FCC's powers which will include the right to enforce net neutrality.

57.4.2010 14:47

Zach has got it right. This is not a blow to NN, but rather, a blow to the FCC who DESERVES the blow.
They will, as Zach says, most likely add that power to the FCC but that is totally not what would be best.
As much as I hate to say it, the best thing would be to make a new department... "Department of the Internet" and give them the sole authority and tell the FCC to butt out!
The internet is just too different from Radio and TV and Phone.

67.4.2010 15:23

Hmm... who would run that department? Maddox?

77.4.2010 15:41
druidmatrix
Unverified new user

Originally posted by Zach:
Originally posted by lms44:
Congress has shown time and time again that they won't do it...
What are you talking about? The FCC and Congress have not only backed it but pledged to spend billions in tax payer dollars to expand networks so that free and neutral internet access is available to all citizens. I'm as skeptical of the gov't as the next web head but I have no reason to believe that the FCC and Congress are with us on this one.

The court didn't declare NN unconstitutional. The court ruled that the FCC doesn't have the right to enforce NN within their current powers because their current powers were defined before the internet was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. This is a good thing because it would have set a precedent that the FCC controls any form of communication in the US, no matter what it is. Congress and the FCC will now go and pass a bill amending the FCC's powers which will include the right to enforce net neutrality.


Yes, the court didn't declare NN unconstitutional, but saying that there are no regulatory bodies to enforce it amounts to the right being taken away from the consumers. A poor ruling indeed.

87.4.2010 15:44

Originally posted by DXR88:
Well Someone has to protect net neutrality, we cant do anything to protect, if corporate loyalists want it gone you can bet your ass it will be gone. the sad part is will never know it until its too late.
The best protection for net neutrality is competition. If the FCC declares internet connections to be common access what's to stop the next administration from reversing it? On the other hand, if we make pipes available from more companies the genie's out of the bottle and can't be put back in. It would ensure both open networks and reasonable prices. The net neutrality is problem is really just a symptom of the government created and subsidized monopoly/duopoly system we have in place now.

97.4.2010 15:52

Originally posted by Zach:
What are you talking about? The FCC and Congress have not only backed it but pledged to spend billions in tax payer dollars to expand networks so that free and neutral internet access is available to all citizens. I'm as skeptical of the gov't as the next web head but I have no reason to believe that the FCC and Congress are with us on this one.

Congress and the President have promised to spend billions to further subsidize the existing companies. You know, the ones who are the problem now. How does giving them more money promote anything but the status quo?

As to the FCC, even if you believe they want to do the right thing now, their position changes with every new administration. Sometimes more often than that. Any discretion you give to the current FCC commissioners you also give to their successors. If I were running a telco and the FCC decided to tell me I have to let other companies use my pipe I'd simply try to stall until there were commissioners in place who will change the policy. If I were in charge of a competitor I'd be leary of investing in such a scheme anyway since my entire business could be yanked out from under me any time the FCC changes its mind.

107.4.2010 16:05

This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.

what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...

This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...

We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?

In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.

Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.

117.4.2010 17:26

this is progressive driven from people like George Soros (moveon.org) to shut down talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc. If they take our free speech were done.this is very dangerous





Antec 1200 Full-Tower Case/Thermaltake 750-Watt PS/ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Mobo/Western Digital Black WD5003AZEX 500GB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" HDD/NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card/CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 /Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 77W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics/CORSAIR Hydro Series H80 (CWCH80) High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler/3-Plextor PX-810SA Sata Drives/Asus IPS 27"PB278Q Monitor 2560 x 1440 resolution,5ms respone time/OS Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit

127.4.2010 18:10

Originally posted by xiromisho:
This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.

what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...

This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...

We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?

In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.

Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.
--------------------
But the problem with that argument is that. If you speed is capped at 5/mbs and comcast or any other provider says you use it as you want. Then that person has every right to do so. If one person capped connection can slow down 50 other people on the network.. Then there was never enough bandwidth to accommodate everyone on the network. We have seen the internet flourish with NN as it guiding principles. Hulu, Netflix,Youtube, skype, vonage, magic jack etc. Are all services compete with broadband providers other services. In the early days of broadband companies didn't care if you got it to download illegal stuff. You were paying for there service that all they cared about. But now hulu for free competes with their video services they provide. Netflix competes with there VOD services they provide. Skype and vonage same thing. I could understand if these broadband providers were only providing broadband. But they aren't they are just trying to protect their inventment from those who can do it cheaper. While you just pay for one connection to get it all.

137.4.2010 20:23

Originally posted by druidmatrix:
Yes, the court didn't declare NN unconstitutional, but saying that there are no regulatory bodies to enforce it amounts to the right being taken away from the consumers. A poor ruling indeed.

Well, an unfortunate ruling (as it would make things easier), but based on merits of the case, not a "poor" one. It just said the FCC (or some other agency) needs to be specifically given the authority by law. In some respects, it's GOOD when an agency doesn't have vague authorities on things.

147.4.2010 20:48

If Comcast wants to sell their service at some level of acceptable bandwidth usage... and then limit you if you go over that, then fine. No problems. But what they are doing is limiting access to one single technology because it's the only way they know how to do it and in the process end up removing a feature that they SOLD and received payment for. (false advertising)
It is none of Comcast's business what goes over that pipe other than their published limitation of "no servers allowed".
So, if they determine you are operating a server... A web server, an FTP or a torrent, then you (and only you) have violated their TOS and are subject to their whim. But to limit EVERYONE because a guy on the block is serving up 100,000 torrents is just wrong. And if it isn't now it should be illegal!
They need to define exactly what is considered a "server", as in, "If you are found to be sending data upstream in excess of this ammount for this length of time then you are considered to be operating a server and your access may be terminated".
It's not that hard.

Instead, they are worried about all the damn MPAA warnings and crap and so choose to deal with it in this way. Torrent technology is not illegal.

157.4.2010 23:07

The FCC was probably paid off by lobbyists to not pursue this, and even if the FCC was to administer Net Neutrality, it would just eventually lead to more censorship.

Censorship such as independent news sources that tell the truth, unlike mainstream media that is influenced and controlled by big business and the government. The government pretty much pays tv to inject certain messaged in their movies/shows to condition our minds to serve the needs of the state.

Now with the CyberSecurity Bill (that passed the House and currently in the Senate) the government is even more closer to censoring the internet by establishing their own internet and making us use a government id to login, so they can track us and eventually use our browsing history to oppress us.

167.4.2010 23:30

Originally posted by slickwill:
The FCC was probably paid off by lobbyists to not pursue this, and even if the FCC was to administer Net Neutrality, it would just eventually lead to more censorship.

Censorship such as independent news sources that tell the truth, unlike mainstream media that is influenced and controlled by big business and the government. The government pretty much pays tv to inject certain messaged in their movies/shows to condition our minds to serve the needs of the state.

Now with the CyberSecurity Bill (that passed the House and currently in the Senate) the government is even more closer to censoring the internet by establishing their own internet and making us use a government id to login, so they can track us and eventually use our browsing history to oppress us.
Just keep your tinfoil hat on and you'll be fine. ;-)

178.4.2010 2:28

Net Neutrality is now up in the air, only waiting to be shot down... just think about who it was that fought Comcrap to stop there bad(illegal) business practice, it wasn't you, it wasn't me. it was the FCC some credit has to be givin here.

trust me on this nothing good is going to come from this ruling cuase now comcrap knows it can get away with it, others will follow soon.

188.4.2010 5:04
av_verbal
Inactive

like we didnt know that the courts were owned by the corporations, and the big song and dance wasnt staged, now the government can say well we tried america, and the same illusion that the governments actually care about the slaves continues.

198.4.2010 11:09
Bob LaBlaw
Unverified new user

Originally posted by xiromisho:
This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.

what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...

This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...

We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?

In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.

Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.
You make some very good points. However, let me add this to the mix, there is more to it than just throttling back someones connection. Comcast (and other ISP's) charge customers for a service. This service is advertised that you will get X amount of bandwith for X amount of dollars. The ISP's make their money partly by knowing that not everyone will be using the advertised bandwidth amount all at the same time. In other words, this case revolved around Comcast saying they were going to give their customers bandwith at a certain price and then when someone (or many people)had their bandwidth reduced to less than what was advertised or what a customer is paying for (btw, torrents are the reason for the high usage but in reality it could conceivably be any other application that, if it was popular and consumed lots of bandwidth, that application would have its usage throttled back too) then the customer has a good case against having their connection reduced. It is not so much a case of torrent programs as it is about Comcast not delivering to customers what they contractually agreed to provide to their customers.

208.4.2010 11:19
Bob LaBlaw
Unverified new user

There are some very good points being made in this thread but, let me add this to the mix, there is more to it than just throttling back someones connection. Comcast (and other ISP's) charge customers for a service. This service is advertised that you will get X amount of bandwidth for X amount of dollars. The ISP's make their money partly by knowing that not everyone will be using the advertised bandwidth amount all at the same time. In other words, this case revolved around Comcast saying they were going to give their customers bandwidth at a certain price and then when someone (or many people)had their bandwidth reduced to less than what was advertised or what a customer is paying for (btw, torrents are the reason for the high usage but in reality it could conceivably be any other application that, if it was popular and consumed lots of bandwidth, that application would have its usage throttled back too) then the customer has a good case against having their connection speed reduced. It is not so much a case of torrent programs as it is about Comcast not delivering to customers what they contractually agreed to provide to their customers.

218.4.2010 12:06

That's exactly right...
What if Comcast decides that LEGAL video downloads from Hulu are consuming too much bandwidth. Some Joe Dirt dude is using a program to download several videos from Hulu at the same time (a video grabber program).
Comcast decides to throttle Hulu but doesn't throttle Comcast's own video portal (which costs money)...
Now you have an issue. A serious issue.
They should certainly be allowed to limit speed/bandwidth based on their own business model, but that limit can, in no way be based on content or source or what we end up with is the old AOL model. Where, if you're a member of AOL you can see all the AOL stuff and nothing else.

228.4.2010 15:58

FCC did poorly in this court case I doubt it will stop net neutrality, might force congress to claerfiy the net as a telecom like service.

238.4.2010 17:25

Originally posted by xiromisho:
This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.

Net neutrality isn't just about what content is involved. It's primarily a question of what services you use. Comcast was discriminating based on services, not traffic volume. That's clearly a net neutrality issue.

Quote:
what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...

This is factually incorrect in so many ways I almost don't know where to start. So let's start here. Increasing bandwidth to individual network nodes on a cable internet network is, and always has been, a standard operational cost. They don't analyze what sort of traffic is on the network to figure out the cause. And it doesn't cost that much money. According to a New York Times article from about a year ago:
Originally posted by New York Times:
In a presentation to investors in 2007, Comcast boasted about how its network is designed to make such node splits efficient. The cost depends on the configuration of the equipment at the node to be split. In some cases, little more than minor adjustments are needed, and the cost is $2,500. If the company needs to add a new Cable Modem Termination System, the device that connects cable wires to the Internet, it will pay $6,000 if the device is in one of its existing facilities. And if Comcast needs install a new C.M.T.S. on a pole, stringing a new fiber optic cable to it, the cost is $20,000.

According to Comcast’s presentation, the average cost of all these upgrades comes to $6.85 for each home served in the neighborhood. I checked with Tony Werner, the chief technical officer of Comcast. He said the costs quoted are still roughly accurate, but the average may be increasing somewhat as more of the company’s upgrades involve new equipment and sometimes new fiber.
Second, they weren't throttling based on bandwidth usage. They were intercepting BitTorrent packets and replacing them with fraudulent reset packets. Besides being problematic for neutrality reasons, it's potentially a violation of computer hacking laws for impersonating another computer in a communication.

Quote:
This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...

Really? So you're saying if someone was downloading a completely legal Linux CD image the connection wasn't being reset? Because I can tell you with 100% certainty that's completely false. You said as much yourself.

Quote:
We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?

Discriminating against all BitTorrent traffic is exactly what they were doing. It had nothing to do with the illegality of the content, which Comcast has no way of determining. And even if they could tell the difference between legal and illegal downloads they wouldn't because it would essentially strip them of their legal protection as a service provider under the DMCA.

Quote:
In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.

Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.

Creating and expanding broadband networks is already heavily government subsidized. And there's no concern about the internet infrastructure as a whole. The only weak point now is the last mile infrastructure of the providers themselves. They already have more than enough bandwidth between themselves and the internet backbone to handle significantly more traffic than is generated by their customers. Claiming a lack of bandwidth is a tactic broadband providers have always used to get more government subsidies. It's a claim disputed by every real study done on the subject, and even by the actual technical departments of ISPs themselves.

Metered broadband isn't going to happen for the same reason it hasn't happened already. Because customers have rejected it. And yet somehow Comcast and other ISPs are still able to continue adding customers without it. Not to mention the fact that the fastest growing use of bandwidth is for completely legitimate streaming video. Watching a SD movie from Netflix at the highest quality they offer uses approximately 3Mbps. This will only increase over time. ISPs have no choice but to upgrade capacity and it's completely within their means to do so. They just don't want to because it means using money they'd rather spend developing new services.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Apr 2010 @ 17:30

2411.4.2010 23:39

Slickwill, quit all the oppression talk. You haven't been oppressed.

You don't even know the true meaning of the word unless you can go black and go back 100 years.

2513.4.2010 2:30

Thanx vurbal...you saved me the time to type a response to that garbage..;)

This is not the end of the FCC's attempt to maintain NN, it's simply a fact that they didn't have the proper authority to do this under it's current op agenda. How long do you think it will take before such authority is granted to them?
Not long hopefully (even tho I'm in Canada and any ruling there is inconsequential), but throttling is happening here too and we're going thru the same issues of NN as everyone else is. ALL CONTENT IS EQUAL!! Let's keep it that way. NN MUST be maintained

2613.4.2010 10:37

Originally posted by ChappyTTV:
Thanx vurbal...you saved me the time to type a response to that garbage..;)

This is not the end of the FCC's attempt to maintain NN, it's simply a fact that they didn't have the proper authority to do this under it's current op agenda. How long do you think it will take before such authority is granted to them?
Not long hopefully (even tho I'm in Canada and any ruling there is inconsequential), but throttling is happening here too and we're going thru the same issues of NN as everyone else is. ALL CONTENT IS EQUAL!! Let's keep it that way. NN MUST be maintained
They have the authority but what I m haring from people with more brains than I the FCC screwed up their case but arguing it poorly.

2714.4.2010 18:08

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Originally posted by ChappyTTV:
Thanx vurbal...you saved me the time to type a response to that garbage..;)

This is not the end of the FCC's attempt to maintain NN, it's simply a fact that they didn't have the proper authority to do this under it's current op agenda. How long do you think it will take before such authority is granted to them?
Not long hopefully (even tho I'm in Canada and any ruling there is inconsequential), but throttling is happening here too and we're going thru the same issues of NN as everyone else is. ALL CONTENT IS EQUAL!! Let's keep it that way. NN MUST be maintained
They have the authority but what I m haring from people with more brains than I the FCC screwed up their case but arguing it poorly.
Hi Zippy

The original article I read on this at NYT said that the courts determined this action by the FCC was outside of their current jurisdiction, I'll link the articles for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?th&emc=th

That's the original one, and this is an OP-ED published afterwards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinio....html?th&emc=th

Granted Zippy, I can't say exactly how good, or bad, the FCC lawyers did at arguing their case, it still would seem that at the heart of the matter is just exactly what their jurisdiction in this case really is. This is still a (relatively) new avenue for the FCC, and the overseer's of the FCC policy didn't envision this type of communications avenue at the time.
But I really doubt it will stay this way for long. I can't see your congress not granting them (FCC) the power to ensure neutrality, as this is fast becoming one of the big issues in our wired world today.

Later Zipster!

EDIT - At the time I posted, I hadn't yet read the op-ed article completely Zippy. It would seem now that it's simply a "labelling" issue, and it is under the FCC's authority to change that label back so that it can have proper authority again. I think we ALL agree that it's completely in our best interests that this be done ASAP, and that providers be forced to treat all data streams as equal. Without this equality, we're at the mercy of whatever the providers decide they don't like, or doesn't provide them with a bigger balance sheet.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Apr 2010 @ 18:21

2814.4.2010 18:16

Originally posted by ChappyTTV:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Originally posted by ChappyTTV:
Thanx vurbal...you saved me the time to type a response to that garbage..;)

This is not the end of the FCC's attempt to maintain NN, it's simply a fact that they didn't have the proper authority to do this under it's current op agenda. How long do you think it will take before such authority is granted to them?
Not long hopefully (even tho I'm in Canada and any ruling there is inconsequential), but throttling is happening here too and we're going thru the same issues of NN as everyone else is. ALL CONTENT IS EQUAL!! Let's keep it that way. NN MUST be maintained
They have the authority but what I m haring from people with more brains than I the FCC screwed up their case but arguing it poorly.
Hi Zippy

The original article I read on this at NYT said that the courts determined this action by the FCC was outside of their current jurisdiction, I'll link the articles for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?th&emc=th

That's the original one, and this is an OP-ED published afterwards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinio....html?th&emc=th

Granted Zippy, I can't say exactly how good, or bad, the FCC lawyers did at arguing their case, it still would seem that at the heart of the matter is just exactly what their jurisdiction in this case really is. This is still a (relatively) new avenue for the FCC, and the overseer's of the FCC policy didn't envision this type of communications avenue at the time.
But I really doubt it will stay this way for long. I can't see your congress not granting them (FCC) the power to ensure neutrality, as this is fast becoming one of the big issues in our wired world today.

Later Zipster!
Well a couple lawyer acquaintances basically said the FCC handled themselves poorly did not bring out the right information tried to use the wrong statue,ect,ect,ect.

The internet is the same as telecommunications for the most part there dose need to be some updates to it(common carrier I believe allows for network management. the trouble is this allows them to slow down certain parts of the net or online applications). But for the most part it is a premium broadcast that the FCC dose have power over, it just needs to be refined some to allow for better more consumer friendly ISP regs.

2914.4.2010 18:33

I posted an edit Zippy, thought I'd post this just to make sure you get a chance to see it.
I agree dude, there needs refinement to the system, and I can totally see those lawyers baffooning the thing up..;)
We're going thru this same crap here in Canada too, Rogers and Bell were caught throttling BiTtorrent streams with protocol mapping. Once they start this crap, there's no end to how far they could take it, and that's why we need the regulators to step in and tell them to stop.
If it ever came down to where my ISP could basically tell me what sites I can access and what I can't, that's the day I burn my computer and tell them to go F-off.

3014.4.2010 18:43

Originally posted by ChappyTTV:
I posted an edit Zippy, thought I'd post this just to make sure you get a chance to see it.
I agree dude, there needs refinement to the system, and I can totally see those lawyers baffooning the thing up..;)
We're going thru this same crap here in Canada too, Rogers and Bell were caught throttling BiTtorrent streams with protocol mapping. Once they start this crap, there's no end to how far they could take it, and that's why we need the regulators to step in and tell them to stop.
If it ever came down to where my ISP could basically tell me what sites I can access and what I can't, that's the day I burn my computer and tell them to go F-off.
Ya corporations are mini governments within governments that tend to subvert the public's law and rights in order to grow their bottom line when its alredy fat enough.

We need to start raining in corporations, tax them for offshreing,tax them harder for paying CEOs to much,tax them more for not linking the lowest paid worker to the highest paid worker. A countries independence and sovereignty(he right to do as a country as the people mostly see fit) is at stake when you allow corporate to run amok..... we saw it with the banking system and the media system is getting their.....only they will fck over the populaces rights and freedoms more and more. Even if Canada is not perfect as a US citizen its making more sense than our crack ass money addicted political system........

3114.4.2010 19:06

LOL!!!

Well said Zipper...well said, I salute you.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive