• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US court rules against FCC in net neutrality case

No.

This is a win for liberty. Thankfully the government didn't get the chance to institute another takeover of the private sector. The FCC has no authority telling an ISP what they can and can't do with traffic on their network.. and that held true in federal court according to US law. But, just wait until S.773 passes. You'll enjoy your web then if you love such tyranny.

If you don't like Comcast's actions, you're not forced to use their service. If that's the only thing offered in your area, that's a matter of circumstance. If you don't like any of the ISP's in your area, that's a matter of circumstance. You are free to create your own ISP somewhere with the type rules you want.
 
This ruling says that the legislature did not give the FCC the authority to regulate this subject matter. There's a simple solution, which is for congress to give the FCC that authority. One of the reasons that past congresses haven't done so is that some folks believed that the FCC was already able to make regulation on the subject, so no explicit law was needed. Now we know that an explicit law is needed. It all seems silly, I know, but there was a question about what was needed, now it's decided, and the path forward is more clear.

Congress is subject to more pressure both from lobbyists and from citizens than the FCC. Their involvement in legislation on the subject could be better or worse, we'll just see.
 
wiretap, knee-jerk politics are not helpful.

ISPs are not and never were a free market. Certain companies have obtained right-of-way privileges from governments, often at no cost, in exchange for agreeing to provide a service for the public good. They made this deal of their own free will, they got something of *very* substantial value, and they agreed to provide something in return for it.

Those same companies then turn around and complain about government intervention when the government dares to regulate their "private property" networks because those companies have been doing things that clearly are not a public good. You know, as in their end of the deal they made.

If a company builds its own network 100% privately, without any subsidies or privileges from the government, purchasing all rights of way from land owners at a fair market value, then we can talk about the government truly interfering with a private property, and I'd have much more sympathy for your cause.

But when the government hands these companies rights of way worth billions of dollars, then hands them cash subsidies and tax incentives worth billions of dollars, then I think it is entirely reasonable for the government to ask those companies to keep up their end of the bargain, and if asking doesn't work, then I think it is entirely reasonable for the government to make them do it.
 
It is not "knee jerk politics". It is the law.

Most of the backbones used today were created by the companies themselves, totally separate from the original government created networks. They were created through telecoms and cable companies by the high rates we were charged for over 2 decades, both in special fees and 'hidden charges'.

You are subscribing to their plan, under their contract. It's not for the "public good" although some people falsely believe the internet is a human right. They're a company providing a service. You do not have the "right" to their labor. But, you are free to go with whatever ISP you choose if you want internet access. If circumstance limits those options, that's not the government's responsibility to dictate. If anything, your options are limited because of government. What you don't know is what goes on at the state/local/federal levels which exclusively grants contracts for one ISP to control a certain area in which none others are allowed to install their services to.

Start by opening up competition for various ISP's.. not the iron fist of the government telling them how they need to supply content. The people will flock to the ISP's with the most open and fast access, forcing the others to adapt if they want business. It's basic 101 market strategy and economics.
 
wiretap said:
This is a win for liberty. Thankfully the government didn't get the chance to institute another takeover of the private sector.
Click to expand...

Letting who ever wants in the private sector to Cheat us, fleece us, mock us, is your version of liberty? 🙄

Government oppression is bad. Letting many Big cooperation using us a throw away useless pawns is much worse. 🙁 - :twisted:.



😎
 
If that's your opinion about a corporation... at least with a corporation you have an option. A corporation has no say in what liberties I can or cannot have constitutionally. I have the ability to not give my money to them. You're sadly misguided about the role of government. But then again, I'm not surprised. Look at where we are today as a country.
 
Last edited:
wiretap said:
If that's your opinion about a corporation... at least with a corporation you have an option
Click to expand...

This is one of the prevalent Myth probably propagated by the Yettis. :awe:

All the Wireless Router manufacturers put in the Data Sheets that their Wireless Routers offer 300 feet indoor, and 1200 feet outdoor.

They sell today Draf_N hardware and calling it 802.11n

All of them essentially are lying, and keeping rank at it, so how you going to choose.

When the Gas prices where put on a rocket, and we were paying close to $4, all the gas companies made a fortune and kept within few pennies the same price. What was your choice?

When Credit cards companies use the same pull of credit rating how can you find a better card.

The problem is not Capitalism. Capitalism is Good.

The problem is that some clever people manage to push back the Capitalistic model into Modern form of Feudalism.

Feudalism was so bad that it disappeared from Europe few Centuries ago.

However count on the main stream Americans and their devotion to “cheap slogans” that they do not even know what Feudalism is. Paris Hilton’s panties color is much more important piece of knowledge.



😎
 
Last edited:
JackMDS said:
This is one of the prevalent Myth (probably propagated by the Yettis.

All the Wireless Router manufacturers put in the Data Shits that their Wireless Router offer 300 feet indoor, and 1200 feet outdoor.

All of them essentialy are lying and keeping rank at it, so how you going to choose.

When the Gas prices where put on a rocket, and we were paying close to $4 all the gas companies made a fortune and kept with few pennies the same price. What was your choice?

When Credit cards companies use the same pull of credit rating how can you find a better card.

The problem is not Capitalism. Capitalism is Good.

The problem is that some clever people manage to push back the Capitalistic model into Modern form of Feudalism.


Feudalism was so bad that it disappeared from Europe few Centuries ago.

However count on the main stream Americans and their devotion to “cheap slogans” that they do not even know what Feudalism is. Paris Hilton’s panties color is much more important piece of knowledge.



😎
Click to expand...
- My choice is to shop around for a wireless system that suits my needs.. I can run wireless for my house or over several miles with the right equipment. I'm not forced to buy a certain wireless router with shoddy advertising on the box.

- With gasoline, my choice is to take a different mode of transportation where I don't have to purchase my own gas. I'm not forced to buy gasoline.

- I can choose to use which credit card I want with the contractual terms I want. I am not forced to use a certain credit card, or even use one at all.

- Yes, capitalism is good.. it's government abuse which has destroyed it in the USA, starting many decades ago.

None of your points have anything to do with the legal rulings. A company is not breaking the law by providing a service which gives priority over certain types of traffic, or limits bandwidth used per month. Comcast has oversold their nodes in many areas to bring more internet to more people which led them to the bandwidth limitation policy and traffic shaping so they could provide decent speeds to everyone. If you don't like their policy, you're free to end the contract via the contractual terms you signed upon going with their service. Again, it's all circumstance.
 
JackMDS said:
Letting who ever wants in the private sector to Cheat us, fleece us, mock us, is your version of liberty? 🙄

Government oppression is bad. Letting many Big cooperation using us a throw away useless pawns is much worse. 🙁 - :twisted:.



😎
Click to expand...
You really feel repressed by ISP's?? Simply vote with your dollar and get connectivity elsewhere. Where people who believe the way you do don't seem to understand is that when you give government control of something because you want something, nothing says you will actually get what you want or MORE than you asked for. People crying that we need regulation of ISP's are opening the door for governments to gain control of what you do/access over that pipe. Ever hear of the "Fairness Doctrine"? If the FCC can do it over the air waves that we the people truly own, why not the internet.

🙄

I would very much prefer a company throttling BT traffic and VoIP data rather than the FCC deciding what content we can access! If you have a problem fix the cause (lack of competition) not the symptoms (ISP's throttling of various protocols).

😎
 
Last edited:
I guess we will see how wiretap and ccbadd feel when xbox live, netflix streaming, and other such protocols that arent used for 'illegal services' are cut off because they hog bandwidth so that Comcast can't sell the same 20mb of bandwidth to 40 people as a 20mb connection
 
Zargon said:
I guess we will see how wiretap and ccbadd feel when xbox live, netflix streaming, and other such protocols that arent used for 'illegal services' are cut off because they hog bandwidth so that Comcast can't sell the same 20mb of bandwidth to 40 people as a 20mb connection
Click to expand...
I don't use those, but I wouldn't give a shit because I know how to shop around. It isn't the government's job to take over an ISP and tell them how to run it. You'll be really happy with S.773 when it passes if you're concerned with 'illegal services' being blocked. 😉
 
Zargon said:
I guess we will see how wiretap and ccbadd feel when xbox live, netflix streaming, and other such protocols that arent used for 'illegal services' are cut off because they hog bandwidth so that Comcast can't sell the same 20mb of bandwidth to 40 people as a 20mb connection
Click to expand...

I guess when the law is changed to allow the FCC this power you will see the same when our wonderful government decides they are bad for your health and takes them away instead. Then they decide the news and blog sites you visit aren't "Fair Enough" to them and installs blocks, and things get worse from there. Remember this, if Comcast takes something away you can go elsewhere. It might cost more, but if the FCC does it, where you going to go??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top