Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Suffers Major Setback
RingDev writes "The US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Comcast today, stating that the FCC lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks."
Bye-bye internet, was nice knowing ya.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
... would be "The government's policy suffered a setback today". Not everyone agrees on what Net Neutrality even is, whether or not to support it as envisioned.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
(possible lost profits from complying with net neutrality) > (potential financial benefits as proposed by FCC)? Are there some bargaining chips still on the table? Or is it just about "freedom of doing business how we want to"?
And yeah, I assume the "benefits" implied by the article -- funds for improving internet to rural areas -- are peanuts to comcast...
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
It's the sound of the FCC never having anything to do with regulating the Internet to begin with. If someone says that the FDA doesn't have the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks, will that also be a major setback for Net Neutrality?
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
This is just one Circuit of the US Court of Appeals (although very influential). There is no "The United States Court of Appeals".
If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status,
Lose what? They don't have common carrier status. They never were common carriers.
In fact they have lobbied and fought hard to AVOID getting common carrier status. Being a common carrier would expose them to regulatory oversight they DO NOT WANT. And would limit them from doing certain types of Deep packet inspection, traffic shaping, etc, etc, that they DO WANT.
and are now responsible for all content passed over their networks.
Except libel and slander because they are exempted from respoonsibility in the communications decency act. Except Copyright infringement because they are protected provided they follow DMCA takedown requests. And so on.
I am sure they will get out of it somehow.
Of course they will. By and large they already have.
The end result might suck for net neutrality but it's a win for the US Constitution, which has been sorely hurting. If you want net neutrality, don't expect it to come legitimately from the pen of a bureaucrat; demand it from Congress.
Once the internet is completely metered and locked down, with corporate traffic given huge priority over private traffic, I wonder if all the "free market solves everything" libertarian types will still be so anti-regulation....
Slashdot seems to have a fairly large amount of 'free market solves all' people. Maybe strangling the internet is the thing that will make some of them realize that certain things do deserve either heavy regulation or government ownership:)
Since this is the "information super highway", maybe it should get the same level of government control as the Federal Highway System.
"We're so screwed. All politicians are so technologically ignorant they can't tell when a lobbyist is lying to them, and even if they could tell many wouldn't care."
Or perhaps they understand that government shoudn't be micromanaging ISP's.
"I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news. "
No you're not. Like the people that screamed about how they'd move to Canada or New Zealand in 2004 if Bush won re-election, you're going to stay right where you are and bitch some more on the Internet.
"US is going to have some massive brain drain soon, I predict."
I'll take that bet. Where's all this talent going to go? Bastions of Internet freedom like... China? How about Europe, where governments are increasingly using technology to snoop on every aspect of the lives of their citizens and subjects? But hey, lets leave America because Comcast is throttling bandwidth when we're downloading illegal movie torrents. See ya. The airline ticket counter is that way.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What is the point of having the FCC if you don't let it do its job? Under what guise could anyone come under the impression that this isn't FCC Jurisdiction?
Lacks the Authority? It should be the Authority. The courts should only be called in when the FCC is doing something that is questionable. Instead, they have prevented the FCC from stopping all of the questionable behavior that is undoubtedly going to be spawned by this.
With Wikileaks the other day, and now this, news is giving me a serious headache this week.
$.08 per page. That's only really worthy of +4 informative if parent also post's his/her PACER login details.
Ah, really? What alternative definitions, besides the common one, have you heard? It's really pretty simple and it boils down to this: you treat everyone's traffic on your network the same, whether any of the endpoints are in your network or not. You want to perform traffic shaping? Fine, you shape traffic the same for your customers as you do for your peers. What you can't do is say, "well, Google isn't paying me for hosting, so I'm going to slow down everyone's access to Google until Google pays me." See? Simple.
So prove to me that your comment isn't FUD and tell me what other definitions you've heard.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's a ridiculous generalization. You speak of Europe like it's a homogenous entity. In reality, only a handful of countries are even thinking about what you're suggesting, and most of those are just simple corruption and greed (see: Italy) rather than anything major. Scandinavian countries are still largely separate from the stuff that's been going on in the west.
Also, eastern europe is pretty much a dark spot - does anyone know if there is filtering or throttling there, and, if so, how much?
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
>You really think that such improvements would happen in a hyper-regulated marketplace?
As evidence by Europe: yes.
Note: basic consumer protection is not "hyper-regulated", only an ignorant anarchocapitalist thinks that kinda crap - and considering implementing even a few of the anarchocapitalist deregulatory wet dreams led to the current recession: why the @#%$ should we listen to you?
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Why would the local or state government want to regulate it though?
I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of states aren't doing so hot right now with their budgets. Now, you've got two choices
A) Spend more money on regulating Comcast, because your voters say so
B) Say you care, accept a stipend, look the other way.
The FCC was really the best shot at handling this issue - they may not have been the perfect entity but they are better than the alternatives. The last thing you need is internet access dependant on states, otherwise you'll be getting into a whole can of worms where people are shifting around the country based on that, and what state is regulating it. If it eventually pans out to a consolidated regulated system, it will have been too late and more damage will have been done.
This is an FTC issue. If you want the FCC to keep their hands off of the broadcast flag or a three-strikes program, then they need to not be in net neutrality business either.
The preample of the constitution begins:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That doesn't give the government the power to do whatever it wants just because it thinks that it insures domestic tranquility. It is just a non-binding purpose of statement, and the specific grants of power follow. The same is true of the section you quoted from the FCC charter.
The FCC are not the communication dictators of the US. They don't get to do whatever they want just because they think it is good idea. They have been granted specific powers to regulate specific aspects related to communication, and that is it.
In this case they had sanctioned Comcast for violating the FCC's Internet Policy Statement. The statement itself states that it is not legally binding, just a set of guidelines. In court, the FCC could not point to a single statute that gave them the power to regulate the internet in this manner. They were blatantly operating out of their granted powers and the judge ruled accordingly.
This is not a setback for net-neutrality, because net-neutrality doesn't exist yet. This ruling does nothing to prevent us from creating net-neutrality laws, nor is there any reason that it will sway popular opinion against them.
This is a win for the rule-of-law and should be applauded.
If the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce equal access in ISPs, then they also don't have the authority to mandate free rights-of-way for ISPs.
Comcast can now negotiate with every property owner over/through whose properties their Internet links pass. No more free ride, and major costs.
Live by the sword, die by it.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
And they don't. I can not lay my hand on any part of the Constitution which says "Congress may force the People to buy a product, or else fine them."
What's next? We will all have to buy hybrids, or else if we buy a normal car we'll be fined? We have to all buy tankless water heaters, or else we'll be fined? We have to all buy the Bush Biography, or else we'll all be fined?
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
did free market work out the issues in wall street ?
stop believing that 'free market' religion. it NEVER existed at any point in human history, just like real communism. BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO IDEALISTIC AND CANT EXIST.
once a company acquires monopoly, it doesnt matter shit whether it acquired it through legitimate means, or underhand means. a monopoly is a monopoly.
its even stupider to expect the monopoly or near monopoly companies and groups not to ab use their power for their own profit, at the expense of the people or the free market. "oh, im near monopoly, i can lock out everyone and force my will upon everyone, but, well, i shouldnt do this, because it is unethical" => can you expect this from any executive officer of any company ?
"people will make choices, and all will be good" BUT WHO GETS STRONGEST FIRST DENIES THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHOICES. they lock them down into their stuff only. just like how 30% of america is locked down to one single ISP, just like how despite seemingly having an innumerable array of cleaning liquids/products in your local wal mart, more than half of them are produced by a single company, procter&gamble. choice is in the labeling only. source is the same.
below is an excerpt from another well made post by another user in /. in another thread :
"Free market capitalism has never been tried"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [wikipedia.org]
"Free market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants."
The USA tried something close to a laissez faire marketplace and it failed miserably.
Starting in 1898, there was an explosion of regulation and the breaking up of monopolies.
Free markets did not self-regulate. They polluted, colluded, abused the workforce,
sold unhealthy foods, caused stock/bank crashes and a 101 other things.
The EPA, SEC, FTC, FDA, OSHA, etc are all the direct result of that failed philosophy.
The problem with advocating a "free" market is that it is simply bad public policy to let
a corporation kill 100 people and then settle the matter afterwards through the court.
Ideology rarely succeeds in the real world.
Read radical news here
Sheesh, forget your drama queen pills this morning?
There is nothing terrible about this decision, because this decision has nothing to do with net neutrality. It was a decision about whether a government agency has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants without any congressional oversight, much less voter oversight.
Please, get a clue. Anyone with a brain does NOT WANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVING UNLIMITED POWER, even if they do things you like. They next decision might be something you don't like, and you won't have any way to stop them.
If you want net neutrality, then fine, get the government to pass a law. That's the way we do things in a representative democracy. We do NOT want government by executive order.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Hi, I'm $BIGGOV!
You are required by law to be fucked up the ass, or we'll throw you in jail. $BIGCORP has lobbied us to limit your torrent traffic, and $CORRUPTPOLITICIAN wants us to "regulate" your visits to undesirable, unfair websites. Unlike $BIGCORP, you can't replace us, but somehow, we're better to have than $BIGCORP.
Since you've signaled that you don't believe a company is allowed to have control over its own product services for some reason, we've gone ahead and instituted control of all other areas of life. No need to reply, and no choices to be made--we've already signed the legislation.
Don't worry. We won't monitor your internet traffic for nefarious reasons. Heh.
Your ever-watchful Big Brother,
$BIGGOV
Seems pretty clear that this falls squarely within it's right to regulate. Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".
The legal reasoning is solid on this one. The court told the FCC it can't regulate broadband on the basis of broad principles. It has to regulate on the basis of laws it has been mandated to implement.
BigGov haters, this is not a repudiation of the FCC's authority. It just means the FCC can't go off on its own and make major policy changes on the basis of broad principles created by itself, rather than by laws created by elected Congresscritters.
BigCorp haters, this does not mean the telcos can suddenly do whatever they like. This ruling may actually strengthen the case in Congress for a serious revisiting of the regulatory structure around broadband. Comcast has definitely won this battle, but they may still lose the war.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Nobody here disputes that Congress could pass laws to give the FCC such power. At most that's where Wickard would come in but I don't think you'd have to rely on Wickard (which involved interstate commerce powers and growing a portion of one's wheat crop for personal use-- while I think Wickard was wrongly decided, it isn't really relevant here). However here you have money clearly changing hands for a service, which involves interstate communication. That's pretty uncontroversially inside the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Wickard was at its basis a question of the scope of powers that Congress had under the "necessary and proper" clause as it relates to interstate commerce. It was a Constitutional question.
However the FCC can only act on powers specifically delegated to them by Congress. Unless Congress acts, the FCC cannot. That would pose other problems including separation of powers issues.
This decision here involving Comcast was a good one. It ensures that elected lawmakers make the laws, rather than unelected beaurocrats. Whether or not you like the immediate outcome, it seems like supporting the idea that Congress makes the laws and the FCC only acts pursuant to them is a good thing. Anyone really disagree with that?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
First, Wickard has been wounded by more recent cases (including Lopez, Morrison, and even Raich). In each case, the courts have stood by the Wickard decision but narrowed it to a fairly basic holding, namely that Congress, pursuant its powers to regulate interstate commerce, can regulate the production of goods and services which are likely to "leak out" into the area of interstate commerce. In Raich, for example, Wickard was characterized not as supporting the goal of price support by any means necessary, but rather via the concern that the wheat for personal use would be sold in interstate commerce if there was a surplus.
Wickard was a pretty aweful decision. I don't think anyone here would stand by the dicta in that opinion that Congress could require the purchase of wheat solely in order to increase wheat prices and support farmers, nor is it likely that the current court would pay as much attention to the fact that wheat is pretty fungible that the court did in Wickard. It's an outlier and although it hasn't been formally overturned, I wouldn't read it broadly and expect it to hold up. It should be read narrowly and as characterized in Raich and Morrison.
Secondly Wickard is entirely irrelevant here. The question of whether the FCC can regulate broadband in this fashion is not a commerce clause question, but rather a more general question of separation of powers. I have no doubt that Congress could delegate this power to the FCC, but that is far different from saying they have actually done so.....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Once again, this farce is playing itself out and hardly anyone seems to have learned from history. Once the government is granted the authority to regulate the internet ISPs at the traffic level, it's all over.
Of course, at first it will be regulation to ensure a fair playing field. But now they have the authority. Next, it will be regulations to ensure a playing field the government wants. And in the end, the big corporations will influence the regulation by lobbying and hob-knobbing with the government to use the FCC to force smaller, innovative competitors out of business and cement their monopoly rule. They've already been doing this for years, on average, with telecoms and everything else. Oil, healthcare, you name it.
It's so sad that all of these super intelligent people on Slashdot are arguing for the FCC to be granted these powers, or for Congress to grant them this power when doing so will, according to history, bring about the exact situation everyone here seeks to avoid.
The ONLY solution to maximize internet freedom is no regulation at all.
I'd be happy if they just went back to the old system where if you wanted to filibuster you had to stand up and talk non stop.
The internet is *the* killer app. People buy computers for the sole reason of accessing resources on the net. The amount of commerce facilitated worldwide is staggering. And these jokers are telling us they can't make a successful business model out of it.
The ideal system relies on multiple tiers of providers, each one leasing bandwidth from their parent and redistributing it to their clients. This happens down to the end user, who should be expected to pay for all the bandwidth that they use. Simple. As the end user, they pay only for the bandwidth of received data, not for the total distance the data was required to travel.
This allows a level playing field for new media enterprises, personal publishing, and an ever evolving means of communication. It has revolutionized the world in a very short time, vaulting third-world nations into emerging powerhouses, and connecting people in ways that previous generations could not have imagined.
So, to put this in jeopardy for the reasons given is patently criminal.
The only reason that ISPs have run into problems is that they've criminally oversold their bandwidth. They truly have been selling something they don't already own. If you purchase a contract for a 50Mb connection, they should expect that connection to be saturated 100% of the time. If it's unlimited, they should bill according to their costs. If that doesn't make sense to the consumer, sell bandwidth by the MB. Instead, they've built a business model on the presumption that end users would only utilize a fraction of what what sold.
In reality, this is greed on several levels, since it not only reveals unfair trade practices (they're selling something they don't have), but they're also trying to kill competition when verticals are in question. They were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon when they were in high growth mode, but now the fight has taken to the trenches some have decided to get ugly.
This is bigger than any one company or one country. Long term, few issues will have an impact quite as powerful as net neutrality on how our civilization evolves.