FCC Loses Net Neutrality Case

[tubemonkey]

Uh oh... not good.

Appeals court rules against FCC on net neutrality

A federal appeals court has ruled against the Federal Communications Commission on mandates that require broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally.

In an opinion handed down Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals in D.C. ruled that while the FCC has authority to regulate how Web traffic is managed, it cannot impose rules on companies like Verizon based on how they're classified.

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the (1996) Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such," reads an excerpt from the ruling.

I like this comment from Verizon:

In a statement released after the ruling, Verizon says nothing will change about how users access the Internet. "The court's decision will allow more room for innovation, and consumers will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the Internet."

"consumers will have more choices" - buzz words for tiered pricing and caps.

[jersysman]

This means more expense for the consumer in the long run.

As far as the statement from Verizon, I interpret that to mean that nothing will change until we finish counting all the additional money that can now be had!!

[soondai]

This was from the comments at Reddit, not me. Not really a ray of sunshine, but trying to point out that the sky hasn't fallen (yet):

Originally Posted by Uncle_Erik

This will get buried, but this is important.
First, lawyer here.
This ruling was from the The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The court's jurisdiction - the part of the country it's ruling applies to - is ONLY the District of Columbia. This is NOT applicable to California, Texas, Florida, or ANY other part of the United States. Only D.C.
I assume this will be appealed. If so, it will be appealed to Fourth District of the United States. There are eleven districts. Even if this stands in the Fourth District, it will NOT apply to the other ten.
Again, it will probably be appealed. This time, it would go to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction everywhere. So if they uphold it, it will then, AND ONLY THEN be law in the entire United States.
I know how Reddit likes to fly off the handle over these things and predict the apocalypse, but it ain't so. At least not yet. It will be several years before this winds its way to the Supreme Court, if it even gets that far.

[fjtorres]

The problem here is that Congress considered mandatory net neutrality and decided against it and *then* the FCC chose to go against the clear will of Congress.

Net neutrality is good.
Congress should mandate it and they should be pressured into doing it.
But the FCC mandating it on their own authority in the face of Congressional rejecyion is a dubious proposition. This case is the direct consequence of regulatory overreach: trying to short-circuit the legislative process always ends poorly for everybody.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by jersysman

This means more expense for the consumer in the long run.

If they can assign rates by the type of data, wouldn't consumers who don't use the more expensive data could actually save money?

I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing it out.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pl001

If they can assign rates by the type of data, wouldn't consumers who don't use the more expensive data could actually save money?

I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing it out.

The underlying issue is the cablecos want to charge more for streaming video services to protect their regional cable monopolies.

[tubemonkey]

Personally, I think providers should be given a choice - carry content or deliver the net; they shouldn't be allowed to do both. There's a definite conflict of interest in the current system. Time to bust 'em.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by pl001

If they can assign rates by the type of data, wouldn't consumers who don't use the more expensive data could actually save money?

I'm not saying this is a good thing, just pointing it out.

Who is to say what type of data is more expensive? Tweets $ x5, Advertising (not competitors) $ x1, Ads competitors $ x3.
Paid Content sever (Co owned) $ x1, Paid Content served (outside owned) $ x3, Paid content served (competitor) BLOCKED

This is insane. Once again our politicians have been bought

[taming]

Another country heard from...

In Canada, this issue is being discussed, in part because one of the big players here, Rogers, is getting ready to launch a streaming service that is designed to compete with Netflix. There is some speculation that they might choose to have their own streaming services NOT count against data caps, whilst other services would.

I imagine something similar could happen in the US.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Uh oh... not good.

Appeals court rules against FCC on net neutrality



I like this comment from Verizon:


"consumers will have more choices" - buzz words for tiered pricing and caps.

Do you really want the government to control the internet? I sure don't. If my internet provider does something I don't like, I can switch carriers. Switching governments takes a bit more work.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Do you really want the government to control the internet? I sure don't. If my internet provider does something I don't like, I can switch carriers. Switching governments takes a bit more work.

So you have multiple providers in your area? Super... Around here you have a single choice in most communities. Don't like it, there's always dialup.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

So you have multiple providers in your area? Super... Around here you have a single choice in most communities. Don't like it, there's always dialup.

Bingo! If I want fast my only option is Comcast at $182.70 a month for phone, cable & internet. Fios is not available in my city from Verizon. It would be nice if competition actually existed in MA!

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Do you really want the government to control the internet? I sure don't. If my internet provider does something I don't like, I can switch carriers. Switching governments takes a bit more work.

Not everyone has the choice to switch providers.

Anyway, I want net neutrality and I want the companies busted up. If you choose to provide content, then you can't provide access to the internet; and vice versa.

That requires legislation, so the government has to have some authority over it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

So you have multiple providers in your area? Super... Around here you have a single choice in most communities. Don't like it, there's always dialup.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Bingo! If I want fast my only option is Comcast at $182.70 a month for phone, cable & internet. Fios is not available in my city from Verizon. It would be nice if competition actually existed in MA!

Exactly

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Do you really want the government to control the internet? I sure don't. If my internet provider does something I don't like, I can switch carriers. Switching governments takes a bit more work.

The government already has the power to do something you don't like.

Besides, would you apply this to all other areas of possible government interference? Criminal law is interference by the government, as are laws for, say, anti-trust.

What is different about this that you are so afraid of government regulation???