We're screwed. Court rules against net neutrality.

[techs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?ref=technology

Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose so called “net neutrality” obligations.

It marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its national broadband plan.



I hope this only means that the fcc can't do this under current law and they could if the law is changed.
Otherwise, we are all fucked.

 

[KLin]

It'll get appealed again, or like you say, they'll sign a new law giving the FCC more authority.

 

[feralkid]

Free Market strikes again.

 

[mmntech]

Why would the Obamanation change the law? He's been handing out all kinds of copyright favours to his friends in Hollywood.

Loss of net neutrality is a huge blow to the original foundations of the web but has always been inevitable. Entertainment/Cable companies will use this to enact pay-IP TV and other "premium" services. That's the real purpose behind it.

 

[ViviTheMage]

How would they regulate this? Is this something the ISP's would do? Or would there be devices sitting in a big backbone that would regulate the traffic?

 

[SunnyD]

Sensationalistic post techs. We're not fucked. The FCC was waiting on the ruling, and now that they have it they will be moving to reclassify broadband as Title 2 services, meaning they can officially regulate the shit out of them instead of hoping the shit they throw sticks.

 

[MegaVovaN]

This will get appealed. It's not a supreme court decision.

 

[sgaliger]

This will get appealed. It's not a supreme court decision.

It is a Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, so unless the US Supreme Court overturns it (probably pretty unlikely) it is the law of the land and cannot be appealed.

 

[Anubis]

Sensationalistic post techs. We're not fucked. The FCC was waiting on the ruling, and now that they have it they will be moving to reclassify broadband as Title 2 services, meaning they can officially regulate the shit out of them instead of hoping the shit they throw sticks.

This is what i see happening

 

[BeauJangles]

It is a Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, so unless the US Supreme Court overturns it (probably pretty unlikely) it is the law of the land and cannot be appealed.

Unless there is a new law passed that gives the FCC explicit control over broadband.

 

[acheron]

Net Neutrality: Because nothing spurs growth and innovation like US government regulation.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Memo to Democrats: Give the FCC the power to enforce NN. Remember, its just "a series of tubes"

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Free Market strikes again.

Irony in free, no?

 

[her209]

Net Neutrality: Because nothing spurs growth and innovation like US government regulation.

LOL... the same government that allows them to monopolize an area?

 

[0roo0roo]

Sensationalistic post techs. We're not fucked. The FCC was waiting on the ruling, and now that they have it they will be moving to reclassify broadband as Title 2 services, meaning they can officially regulate the shit out of them instead of hoping the shit they throw sticks.

what does that mean, they just slap a new label on it?

 

[preslove]

LOL... the same government that allows them to monopolize an area?

Heh, and the same government that freaking invented the internet...

 

[preslove]

what does that mean, they just slap a new label on it?

Basically, there is no legislation *specifically* authorizing the FCC to institute net neutrality. The FCC claimed that it fell under ancillary powers. The court doesn't think that works, but there is nothing in the constitution preventing congress from passing legislation specifically authorizing the FCC from implementing it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Heh, and the same government that freaking invented the internet...

Government has never invented anything technological in nature. It may have funded some research which lead to a discovery, but the government itself is incapable of inventing anything.

 

[StageLeft]

Entertainment/Cable companies will use this to enact pay-IP TV and other "premium" services. That's the real purpose behind it.

Absolutely that is one of the possibilities. There are for some of us options to get internet from a non-cable source. If Verizon would ever put out its FIOS here I'd be on that like white on rice.

I strongly suspect filtering is similar to the inevitably losing fight of record companies forcing people down certain paths for their music and video. Our society is free to such an extent that it's quite literally incompatible with the heaviness law would need to compel people away from what they seem to be preferring.

Cable companies can bicker and fight and it will slow things down but it's inevitable that they will be steamrolled if they take this hugely defensive approach. They should be looking instead to constantly expand and beef up their infrastructure so they are more able to deliver to their customers what the customers actually want and compete against other big boys that may show up.

 

[0roo0roo]

Basically, there is no legislation *specifically* authorizing the FCC to institute net neutrality. The FCC claimed that it fell under ancillary powers. The court doesn't think that works, but there is nothing in the constitution preventing congress from passing legislation specifically authorizing the FCC from implementing it.

congress...grumble

 

[nonlnear]

Government has never invented anything technological in nature. It may have funded some research which lead to a discovery, but the government itself is incapable of inventing anything.

This point is overstated, and somewhat misleading. As a libertarian I think the overuse of this simplistic point does damage to the integrity of libertarian rhetoric.

Intellectual property rights are created by government out of thin air in order to incentivize innovation. The invention of the patent and the copyright themselves have arguably done more to benefit humanity than any particular tangible invention. As creators and regulators of intellectual property rights, government has a very important role to play in all profitable innovation.

As to the topic at hand, I support almost all rulings which interpret the mandates of government bodies as narrowly as possible. If the FCC "needs" a new authority in order to roll out some grand new vision, then Congress should draft appropriate legislation rather than the courts just letting the regulatory steamrollers into another playground without getting permission first. Sure net neutrality would be nice, but I'd rather see the FCC's mandate expanded properly than setting a precedent whereby they can conjure up new authorities on a whim.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I was essentially told by a Charter employee that unless I upgrade my service I get no 'priority' with 1Mb service. 8-10 hours a day I'm lucky if I get 50 KB/s.

Words cannot adequately describe the SUCK that is Charter Commications.




--

 

[her209]

As to the topic at hand, I support almost all rulings which interpret the mandates of government bodies as narrowly as possible. If the FCC "needs" a new authority in order to roll out some grand new vision, then Congress should draft appropriate legislation rather than the courts just letting the regulatory steamrollers into another playground without getting permission first. Sure net neutrality would be nice, but I'd rather see the FCC's mandate expanded properly than setting a precedent whereby they can conjure up new authorities on a whim.

The problem with laws is that they can be repealed.

 

[PokerGuy]

As to the topic at hand, I support almost all rulings which interpret the mandates of government bodies as narrowly as possible. If the FCC "needs" a new authority in order to roll out some grand new vision, then Congress should draft appropriate legislation rather than the courts just letting the regulatory steamrollers into another playground without getting permission first. Sure net neutrality would be nice, but I'd rather see the FCC's mandate expanded properly than setting a precedent whereby they can conjure up new authorities on a whim.

Good post!

Since we know congress is made up of a bunch of idiots, it's highly unlikely they can craft any reasonable legislation that will fix this. The ruling, while correct in that it defines the scope of FCC authority narrowly, means from now on you're going to be beholden to whatever companies your ISP makes deals with. Comcast makes a deal with bing, and all of a sudden getting to google becomes really slow and bing traffic is quick. Want to watch TV online? You're going to have to pay the IPTV fee, and you can only do it if you watch hulu because your ISP has a deal with them. Youtube is going to be slow. etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[nonlnear]

The problem with laws is that they can be repealed.

indeed!
This joke works on so many levels it's not funny any more!