U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

by waterdragon7 Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:32 pm

read about the decision here:

Court_Decision

Guess I shouldn't be at all surprised, given the amount of bribe money the people "serving" in the U.S. Congress accept from multinational corporations.

by melodiccolor Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:07 pm

Well, in the short term, I expect new premium superspeed packages to show up; meaning that there will indeed be tiered service. My hope is that the FCC can get congress to grant it the authority the supreme court says it now does not have. Congress will have to be explicit about that.

by RBM Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:21 pm

I think the EFF makes a good case that this is NOT a 'fouling' up.

There are a few other voices I'll be listening to on the topic for additional perspective.

by melodiccolor Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:56 pm

April 6th, 2010
Court Rejects FCC Authority Over the Internet

Legal Analysis by Fred von Lohmann

In a ruling that imposes important limits on the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today overturned the FCC ruling against Comcast for interfering with the BitTorrent traffic of its subscribers. The court found that the Commission had overstepped the limits of its "ancillary authority" when it disciplined Comcast for its clandestine blocking behavior.

The ruling is not likely to make much difference to Comcast subscribers—Comcast had already agreed to cease its BitTorrent interdiction before the FCC's ruling was issued. Instead, the court's ruling is important because it represents a blow to FCC Chairman Genachowski's proposed net neutrality regulations, which are premised on the same theory of "ancillary jurisdiction" that the FCC used against Comcast and that the court rejected today.

Here's the problem: Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. In place of explicit congressional authority, the FCC decided to rely on its "ancillary jurisdiction," a catchall source of authority that amounts to “we can regulate without waiting for Congress so long a the regulations are related to something else that Congress told us to do.” Of course, this line of reasoning could translate into carte blanche authority for unelected bureaucrats to regulate the Internet long after Chairman Genachowski has moved on. As we put it in October:

If “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC "Internet Decency Statement." After all, outgoing FCC Chairman Martin was a crusader against "indecency" on the airwaves and it was the FCC that punished Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” monologue, something you can easily find on the Internet. And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC "Internet Lawful Use Policy," created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance. After all, it was only thanks to a jurisdictional challenge ... that we defeated the FCC's "broadcast flag" mandate which would have given Hollywood and federal bureaucrats veto power over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded TV programming.

So while we are big supporters of net neutrality, we are glad that today's ruling has reasserted the important limits on the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet.

The fight now moves back to Congress and the FCC, with numerous net neutrality advocates urging the FCC to "reclassify" Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act—another effort to find FCC authority to regulate ISPs without having to go to Congress. In the meantime, everyone who cares about net neutrality will continue to watch ISPs closely for more evidence of discriminatory practices.

This is a good point too. (I copied the article so if later it is no longer on the net, we can still refer back to it.)

by RBM Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:43 pm

MC wrote:Well, in the short term, I expect new premium superspeed packages to show up; meaning that there will indeed be tiered service.

Yes and no.

Picture a typical road system in the US. Interstates have different speeds than state highways, than county roads etc etc. So there is a type of 'tier'. But for any ONE of those the speed is consistent for any vehicle on that road.

There is an exception to the above and it's always signed - Trucks may be regulated to a lower speed than other vehicles. This would be an example of the sort of tier that is considered in the larger debate.

by melodiccolor Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:56 pm

Well, that is what they intend now. But look at other industries that started slowly with this concept and look at what has become of them. Two obvious examples are the banking industry and the airline industry. We both remember what they were once like back in our younger days and they bear little resemblence to what they are now. I also remember the first steps and the promises it would be limited to those. lol

by RBM Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:18 pm

My previous comment was only considering the technical end of the matter.

From a broader view, I am less than positive. I think money and greed will likely be the continuing primary mode of operation and the end user will need to fight for any little bit it wants. (Much like the political system, as I see it presently.)

by RBM Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:57 pm

Here is a link I have just sta4ted to listen to but am going to post immediately, here, as it is one of the 'voices' I listen to on this topic -

Lawrence Lessig America's Broadband Policy.

Just finished watching and I unabashedly admit to ... wonderment. This is dynamite material at such a level that all can understand. Check It Out.

by melodiccolor Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:46 pm

After a weekend away from the computer, I have some catching up to do, but after that, I will be listening.

by RBM Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:13 pm

FCC Commissioner Copps on Moyers (23 minutes) clip on a blog,

here,

by melodiccolor Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:49 pm

OK, I listened to both links and it comes down to this; we need sensible policy that we are not going to get on this or any other issue because of the unhealthy relationship between special interests, lobbyist and congress. Not exactly a surprise.

by RBM Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:00 pm

LOL ! Nope !

I tend to loose my cool at ANY expression of partisanship as both parties got us to where we are now.

My pessimism then takes over cause the best and maybe, just maybe the only solution is for the electorate to come together on some kind of common ground to fight the status quo - and I see that as totally unlikely.

Then my spiritualism takes over and it's 'Que Sera, Sera' ... and I start looking for a good rock to hide under.

by melodiccolor Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:55 pm

There is no hint of partisanship in my post; it applies to the entirely of elected officials at this point.

Then my spiritualism takes over and it's 'Que Sera, Sera' ... and I start looking for a good rock to hide under.

Yeah, that's a very common feeling these days....

by RBM Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:12 pm

No I didn't mean you, I meant partisanship in general within our two-party system.

Re: under a rock;
Self-preservation is priority #1.

The 'rock' metaphor has several levels of meaning. For one, I live in a sparse state with little social unrest. I could justify moving to a more populous area for a job, but see the cost of potential social unrest as more likely. So this location is my 'rock'.

Yeah, I know it's not poetry like elsewhere on this BB, but it's an accurate way of how I think.

by Sponsored content

U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"

Re: U.S. courts fouling up the concept of "net neutrality"