Federal Court: FCC can't regulate Internet

VirusType2

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
18,189
Reaction score
2
Wired:

A federal appeals court all but told the FCC Tuesday that it has no power to regulate the internet, putting large chunks of the much-lauded national broadband plan at risk. And the FCC has only itself to blame.

...

Now broadband companies effectively have no regulations that constrain them, as the FCC has left itself with no statutory means to control what telecoms do with their internet networks.

A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

...

“The FCC should immediately start a proceeding bringing internet access service back under some common carrier regulation similar to that used for decades”

Title II-type regulations should be very familiar to most Americans — they are the rules that apply to phone services. For instance, phone customers have the right to attach whatever device they like to the phone network — from rotary-dial machines to modems to fax machines — so long as they don’t harm the network. They also have the right to call anyone else in the country from friends to astrology services, and phone companies are obliged to connect the call — making them into “common carriers.”

Phone companies that own the physical lines that connect to your house have to rent them to competing services at fair rates. They also have to provide cheap services to low-income customers — subsidized by a tax known as the Universal Service Fee. And they have their prices regulated.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/


Free Press:

A federal appeals court ruled today that the FCC doesn't have the authority to protect Internet users. The decision means the agency can't stop Comcast from blocking Web traffic. It can't carry out the National Broadband Plan. It won't be able to safeguard Net Neutrality.

...

Two years ago, the FCC ruled that Comcast could not block online content, and Comcast challenged the ruling in court. Today, the court ruled in Comcast's favor, effectively placing the Internet in the hands of big phone and cable companies.

via email

www.SaveTheInternet.com
www.FreePress.net
 
Every single argument around this issue seems to revolve around freedom to whatever. The companies want freedom to regulate their own service, the people want free, unrestricted internet.

And as usual, the people that actual provide the damn service (and thus make the money) are going to be hated by most internet and forum-goers.

I say don't regulate the services, just regulate the regional monopolies that give some people no alternative. Makes much more sense, and everybody gets their freedom.
 
This is ****ing bullshit. Net Neutrality just suddenly went out the window. God damn it I am getting so ****ing sick of this country doing stupid shit.
 
Australia + USA Suck ass right now

I'm moving to Italy, i heard its nicer there
 
For ****'s sake, it should tell you something when one of the prime countries to set up an internet connection without governmental or corporate interference is Somalia.
 
Every single argument around this issue seems to revolve around freedom to whatever. The companies want freedom to regulate their own service, the people want free, unrestricted internet.
Freedom to take away freedom isn't much of a freedom, unfortunately.
 
Freedom should go to the people first, the corporations second, the government third, and the military fourth.
 
Freedom to take away freedom isn't much of a freedom, unfortunately.

It's freedom of property. The internet service is a product of the companies that provide it. You are free to trade your money for their product, but as long as they obey any contracts, they can do with their property whatever they damn well please.

Internet is not a constitutional right, it's a service provided for a price.
 
It's a communications system, therefore it should be regulated by the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION just like every single other communications device we have.

Did you see this?

Now broadband companies effectively have no regulations that constrain them, as the FCC has left itself with no statutory means to control what telecoms do with their internet networks.

A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 
It's a communications system, therefore it should be regulated by the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION just like every single other communications device we have.

The internet, unlike other forms of comm they regulate, does not have a limited number of frequencies. However, there is no real limit on the number of websites in the internet.
 
The internet, unlike other forms of comm they regulate, does not have a limited number of frequencies. However, there is no real limit on the number of websites in the internet.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but you're wrong. There is a limit on the number of websites on the internet. In fact they ran out and had to make changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6
The main driving force for the redesign of Internet Protocol is the foreseeable IPv4 address exhaustion. IPv6 was defined in December 1998
IPv6 has a vastly larger address space than IPv4. This results from the use of a 128-bit address, whereas IPv4 uses only 32 bits. The new address space thus supports 2128 (about 3.4×1038) addresses. This expansion provides flexibility in allocating addresses and routing traffic and eliminates the primary need for network address translation (NAT), which gained widespread deployment as an effort to alleviate IPv4 address exhaustion.
 
Yup, IP addresses are limited. Not sure if that would fly in the eyes of the courts though. I really hope it gets covered by the Communications Act.

Thankfully, this FCC can correct its predecessors’ mistakes, reassert its authority, and close the loophole. (Get ready, this is a tad complicated.)

The FCC needs to “reclassify” broadband under the Communications Act. In 2002, the FCC decided to place broadband providers outside the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communications services, like phone companies.

That decision is what first put Net Neutrality in jeopardy, setting in motion the legal wrangling that now endangers the FCC's ability to protect our Internet rights.

But the good news is that the FCC still has the power to set things right, and to make sure the free and open Internet stays that way. And once we’ve done that, the FCC can ensure that Comcast can’t interfere with our communications, no matter the platform.

To anyone in the US who is upset by this, please go here (https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=437) and send a (pre-written) letter to your congressmen.

Can this thread get moved to the General Off-Topic section? More people will see it, and its not really a political issue :/
 
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but you're wrong. There is a limit on the number of websites on the internet. In fact they ran out and had to make changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv6

...

Wait, what? That still doesn't prove that there is a limit. If we reach that point again they'll expand the protocol again. You just have to reprogram it and you're good.

However, you can't reprogram more radio frequencies into the laws of physics.
 
...

Wait, what? That still doesn't prove that there is a limit. If we reach that point again they'll expand the protocol again. You just have to reprogram it and you're good.

However, you can't reprogram more radio frequencies into the laws of physics.

The FCC also regulates telephone lines and television channels and there is the same theoretical limitlessness as internet address space. I still don't see what this has to do with anything. Please get to your point.
 
...

Wait, what? That still doesn't prove that there is a limit. If we reach that point again they'll expand the protocol again. You just have to reprogram it and you're good.

However, you can't reprogram more radio frequencies into the laws of physics.

The question is not the limit to the number of sites, it is a question as to the sites that Comcast will let you visit.

Imagine the internet turning into a pay-to-play package on grand scale. You get your basic package, then your premium package for less popular sites, and then you pay extra for each niche site you want to visit (e.g., HL2.net, 4chan.org). Not that it WILL happen, but without regulation it is a disturbing possibility. In many areas there is effectively only one ISP, and that means people will be SOL if Comcast decides to restrict access based on a pay-to-play model.

Sound like something they should be permitted to do?
 
The question is not the limit to the number of sites, it is a question as to the sites that Comcast will let you visit.

Imagine the internet turning into a pay-to-play package on grand scale. You get your basic package, then your premium package for less popular sites, and then you pay extra for each niche site you want to visit (e.g., HL2.net, 4chan.org). Not that it WILL happen, but without regulation it is a disturbing possibility. In many areas there is effectively only one ISP, and that means people will be SOL if Comcast decides to restrict access based on a pay-to-play model.

Sound like something they should be permitted to do?

11t4vgh.jpg








I, honestly, will not be able to stand by and watch something as magnificent as the internet be perverted into anything remotely similar to the above image and what a crumbling of net neutrality represents.

That is one of the things I would be willing to get radical over.
 
In many areas there is effectively only one ISP

I concur that this is a problem. I see regulating the regional monopolies as being a better solution than directly intervening with the way these companies choose to charge for their service.
 
The more I hear about Google becoming an isp the happier I become. I would imagine Google of all companies to stay neutral after seeing how they reacted to China.

I can only hope that there is a massive backlash aimed at Comcast and other ISP's use net neutrality as a marketing tool to destoy Comcast.

I will be damned if this grows out of hand. What a violation of the first amendment in my opinion. The internet is a communication tool and I'll be damned if I'm told what websites I can or cannot Visit within reason, especially by a company.

I hope every black/white hat jumps on board and wreaks havok on those responsible.
 
Google is obliged to hand over every record and movement of your existance that they have, to authorities, if needed.

EDIT: Then again I guess any ISP would, too.

lolbaked
 
Google is just putting that 'lesser evil' front, so that when everyone switches over to them and worships them they'll use their mindless army of GSoldiers to take over the world.
 
Yes because Michael Jordan has the same cultural influence let say as a...Warner Bros or Fox News AMIRITE?
 
Yes because Michael Jordan has the same cultural influence let say as a...Warner Bros or Fox News AMIRITE?

Yes, that's true. He does, or he did.

"By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time."[1] Jordan was one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation and was instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world in the 1980s and 1990s.

But what is your point, is my point. Because I read that as "JEWS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD", which I don't think is relevant to this thread.
 
I imagine an interesting future where roving bands of misfits sabotage internet communication infrastructure that participates in such a barren world of narrowly scoped information.
 
You can thank Bush & Co. and their deregulations for this.
 
I can also thank Glenn Beck for his ****ing disingenuous misinformation on the matter.

Communism? ****ing dick.
 
The reason why the FCC lost this case is not because the internet provider (which restricted access to a downloadable version of the King James Bible) beat the FCC.

The reason for this ruling was because the FCC has not been given the legal authority to regulate this sort of thing... even if the regulation is a good idea. All it'll take is an act of congress and the FCC will have what it needs.
 
The reason why the FCC lost this case is not because the internet provider (which restricted access to a downloadable version of the King James Bible) beat the FCC.

The reason for this ruling was because the FCC has not been given the legal authority to regulate this sort of thing... even if the regulation is a good idea. All it'll take is an act of congress and the FCC will have what it needs.

The reason why they lost is because its broadband internet isn't classified as a telecommunications service and therefore not protected under the Communications Act. This happened under Bush's FCC deregulation splurge. All it'll take is for us to get it reclassified as one, so it will be protected again. And guess what, in less than 42 hours the public comment period will be over and they'll deliberate on whether this happens.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/06/courts-can%E2%80%99t-take-away-our-internet 04/06/10 said:
That’s where you come in: We need thousands of you, if not millions, to tell the FCC to protect Net Neutrality and the National Broadband Plan by reasserting their regulatory authority.

In less than 72 hours, the public comment period on the FCC’s Net Neutrality proceeding will end. Use this window of opportunity to give the FCC one giant public mandate: We want an Internet free from corporate control.
 
wasn't obama all pro neutrality?
Can he weigh in on this?
 
Back
Top