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."

Comments

Oh goody

[Captain Splendid]

Bye-bye internet, was nice knowing ya.

Re:Oh goody

[lwsimon]

Nah - ISPs may try to shape traffic, but so long as the government stays out of it, two things will happen:

1) Techniques will be developed to circumvent traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing

-or-

2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.

There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.

Re:Oh goody

[Vancorps]

Except for the fact that the big ISPs got that way because of billions of dollars of tax payer funding. That alone I would have thought would have given the FCC authority here. At seems, that presumption would be incorrect though which sucks.

Re:Oh goody

[Lunix Nutcase]

From the FCC's charter:

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio

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".

Re:Oh goody

[SWolf1]

Could someone explain to me why they trust the government to make things "fair" on the internet? Everything they touch they try to control more and more. At least with rrivate companies you get a choice.

Re:Oh goody

[brkello]

Load of crap. You could use the same logic to say we don't want the government putting regulations on our food supply. I am sure someone will provide us an alternate source of water that has much less arsenic than the other company.

You ignore reality. There isn't a lot of choice for most people on what ISP they use. So no, there will not be a better option. As far as techniques, it will be a constant escalation between the two sides which will just take up more bandwidth and cause everyone's connection to be slow.

You folks need to wake up and understand that corporations do not and never will have your best interest in mind. Government regulations may not always be good, but in this case having a regulation that guaranteed net neutrality would benefit everyone. Of course that doesn't resonate well with the tin-foil hat and Fox News watchers out there.

Re:Oh goody

[Captain Splendid]

Once again, an answer for the Slashdot crowd that's useless to the public at large.

Sure, we can figure out valid proxies and cobble together specialised software to route around damage, but the other 95% of humanity will basically have their internet hobbled permanently, with no recourse or no clue.

Re:Oh goody

[Captain Splendid]

And can you tell me why you trust corporations to do anything besides slavishly tend to their bottom line?

I've got no problem with a general distrust of government, but when you turn around and bend over for someone who doesn't even bother to pay lip service to your welfare, I gotta question your sanity.

Re:Oh goody

[commodore64_love]

>>>no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.

That's equivalent to saying there's no need for the government to regulate the Gas & Electric companies, or the Phone company, because it would only benefit the monopoly. I say "bull" to that. Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.

Re:Oh goody

[commodore64_love]

That would be true but the 1996 Bill tied no strings to the dollars. For example Congress typically says, "Raise your drinking age to 21, else your federal highway funds will be reduced by 5%."

Congress could have done something similar, mandating companies have equal access to all websites else get no funds, but they did not. As is typical of Cognress they handed corporations lots of money and no strings attached.

Re:Oh goody

[DesScorp]

When did "regulate" become "micromanage"?

Re:Oh goody

[Lunix Nutcase]

2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.

This has been claimed for years and yet this hasn't actually happened. You live in a fantasy world if you actually believe such nonsense. The entrenched ISPs would kill off any such company.

Re:Oh goody

[clone53421]

When the government got involved.

Re:Oh goody

[geminidomino]

In a free market, if their product is crap, you don't buy it. You don't have the option with the government.

You also don't have that option with ISPs. There's no free market there.

Re:Oh goody

[spun]

If what you say is true, then Comcast would be fighting FOR net neutrality. If you've noticed, they are fighting against it.

Government regulation occurs locally as a defense against a particular kind of market failure: natural monopoly. The monopoly is going to exist whether the government gets involved or not, so the best course of action is to regulate it. If another start-up came along and ran another set of cables to every house, they would go bankrupt. In this case of natural monopoly, having more than one set of wires running to each home is simply less efficient than having only one. Everyone loses if companies run more than one set of wires, as everything gets more expensive. It's a simple fact: a natural monopoly means that a monopoly is more efficient. So, we can either encourage a fake competition (which means everyone loses) or we regulate a single entity. Or, we wait the decades or more for technology to change the market, but an unregulated natural monopoly is going to do everything in its power to kill any technological change that threatens it. Regulation really is the best option. Only closed minded free market ideologues think the free market is always the best option. Reasonable people know that it fails sometimes, and then government must step in. As with most things in life, the middle ground is often the best.

Re:Oh goody

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is saying that you have to resell (on reasonable terms) the monopoly that you are being given (OK, paying a paltry sum for) to others who will do work and give you a reasonable profit from "micromanaging"? The FCC does not seem to be dictating a lot more than "you have to allow for competition". With all the rhetoric going around about "the free market", this seems to actually be a great example of where a more free market would benefit the public, with the only downsides being to the established (and government sanctioned) monopolies.

This same idea has worked out pretty well for phone service, while still allowing the major monopolies to still be the dominent players.

Re:Oh goody

[TheWizardTim]

Why not micromanage? How is the internet not necessary to function in daily life. The government is moving more and more services to the net. Without high speed access, people will be left out. If we don't make the net a public utility now, we will lose our access to government in the future.

For example, if you live in Mass. you can't have your natural gas cut off, no matter how much you owe in winter. If companies were allowed to do whatever they want, it would cut off gas in winter and let people freeze to death. We have similar rules all over the US for phone, water, power, and others.

Net access needs to be treated the same. It should be a right to have cheep, high speed, unfiltered, unshaped, internet access.

Re:Oh goody

[jaweekes]

When companies became involved and wanted to spoil the golden goose, the government stepped in to save the goose. Now the courts have given the companies the rope to kill the goose.

Re:Oh goody

[KharmaWidow]

While I agree with you, and I appreciate the potential value of a tiered internet, I have no other choice but feel doomed by this decision.

Net-neutrality almost ensures that everyone one has an equal opportunity/experience on the internet (for those who have access). It is the first step to freeing information.

As well as it is evident that Comcast, and other companies like it, want to move to a measured-rate means of charging. Combine that with tiered traffic speeds and the cost of using the internet is going to skyrocket. Online gaming and media streaming will cost a fortune to the user.

And while the FCC is not the appropriate entity to regulate this, they were our only hope in maintaining net-neutrality. Democrats and Republicans, and politicians in general have demonstrated time and time again they are not capable of managing issues like these.

Re:Oh goody

[Chirs]

"That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that your local government grants monopoly status to your local cable and telco, would it?"

No, it would be due to the fact that cable/telco are industries with a high cost of entry. Thus, the incumbant has a huge advantage. Around here there is one phone company and one cable company. Basically all homes are already wired to both of them. Any new competitor needs to gain right-of-way to the homes, install cable/fiber, etc.--it's not worth it.

Re:Oh goody

[spazdor]

HINT: "Rights" never require action on the part of someone else.

Oh, good. I'll let all the nation's court justices and bailiffs know that they can retire now and due process will carry on without them.

Re:Oh goody

[dr2chase]

My internet traffic is not confined to my state; this seems like a reasonable place for the FCC to regulate.

Re:Oh goody

[Gerzel]

Yeah except there are no nannystaters. Practically, no one believes that the government should just be obeyed and never questioned, at least in the US.

There are people who believe that a robust government can encourage and even enhance the general welfare, rights and pursuit of happiness of its citizens if managed reasonably well.

There are also people who believe that large private entities with drastically reduced legal liabilities should not have the same rights or to the same degree as living citizens.

Re:Oh goody

[Americano]

How is the internet not necessary to function in daily life.

Wow. Get some perspective. You do realize that losing your internet connection will not result in you freezing to death, right?

As a "utility", internet service is pretty low on the ranking. Water is a biological necessity. Heat, during winter months, is a biological necessity. Phone is important for access to emergency services. Electric is generally required for delivery of water and/or heat in some fashion.

If you're going to declare the internet a "utility", and then claim it's a critical utility in the interests of your net neutrality goals, you have to then demonstrate how it's okay to leave millions of homes across the US without an internet connection, but those who already have it can't possibly have it cut off or managed in any way by the ISP.

Re:Oh goody

[TheWizardTim]

The second we take away the roads, power, water, garbage collection, phone, net access, schools, other fundamental services of a first world nation, we become a third world nation. You can say "free market" all you want, but history shows that companies will not deliver these fundamental services if they don't forced to do so. If you lived in small town America, away from high density populations, you did not get power for years after the rest of the country. The same goes for phones.

I want to live in a first world nation, where I have cheep, reliable access to these services.

Re:Oh goody

[copponex]

Government regulation of our food supply is fucking us over right now (farm subsidies? politicians obeying the meat and dairy lobby? the fucking food pyramid, for Christ's Sake?), so there you go.

If you want to go back to having children pack human flesh in your canned meat products, go ahead and make your case. Don't worry. I'll wait. Your issue is not government regulation. It's ineffective government regulation.

And finally...Corporations are made up of people. Stop trying to demonize them and acknowledge that we are fucking ourselves!

The difference between a large powerful corporation and a large powerful democracy is that you can influence the government with just your vote. If Shell wants to drill in front of your beachfront condo and you have no government to regulate their activities, what are your options? Do you think they will acquiesce to your complaints instead of netting a few billion dollars?

The argument that the government is bought off with lobbyists is not an argument for stronger corporations. It's an argument for stronger government.

Re:Oh goody

[Dishevel]

Rights are something you HAVE. That the government should not get in the way of. Healthcare and the internet are WANTS. We want them really bad. Both are very cool. Though really neither is a RIGHT.

Re:Oh goody

[shutdown -p now]

Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications.

Given that growing food and marijuana for personal consumption is considered an "interstate commerce" issue according to SCOTUS, it would seem that providing commercial Internet access service locally should also qualify.

Re:Oh goody

[shutdown -p now]

Even if your only choices were DSL, cable, or no Internet at all, however, that's still far more of an option than you'll get from the government. They only give you one choice: pay up.

Unlike corporations, you have a direct say in how your government is run, including how much needs to be paid up, and what it is used for.

Re:Oh goody

[thetoadwarrior]

ISPs probably shouldn't have taken tax payer money then if they didn't want the government to have a say in how they run.

Re:Oh goody

[commodore64_love]

"I disagree with your opinion" is fine with me.

Modding me "troll" is not. Nothing I said in the above post was trollish. I was expressing my opinion, which apparently is backed-up by a U.S. Appeal Court's opinion. If you want Comcast regulated, then contact your local state government and ask them to do it, as they are already doing with other monopolies (electrical, natural gas, phone). The State PUC would be the entity responsible.

Re:Oh goody

[Captain Splendid]

It is good to see that your reading comprehension fail is still rewarded with shitty karma though.

Keep on truckin'!

Re:Oh goody

[goldmaneye]

The short answer is, it depends on the kind of rights we're talking about.

The long answer is, there are many different kinds of rights. Natural rights are those that are thought to be inherently granted; legal rights are those granted by a body politic.

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

Positive rights require action. Universal healthcare is a positive right, since it requires someone to provide that healthcare. Negative rights require inaction. Right to life, liberty, and property are negative rights, since they require that someone NOT take those things from you.

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

There are also the concepts of claim rights (a right which entails some responsibility on the part of the right-holder) and liberty rights (a right which does not).

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

Healthcare and the Internet could easily become rights if the government decrees that they are rights. With respect to the Internet, this is what the GGGP was arguing should happen.

Re:Oh goody

[TheWizardTim]

Okay, if that is your argument, shut off your power, water, don't drive on the roads, don't send your kids to public school, don't fly, don't go to the hospital, don't use medicine, move to the middle of nowhere and build a house out of mud. All of those things are wants. We don't have the right to any of them.

We the people funded the internet. We the people subsidized the cables in the ground. We the people own the airways. We the people should have access to what we paid for. If companies want to make profit of of the infrastructure, they need to follow the rules we put in place.

Re:Oh goody

[sweatyboatman]

Government can't do anything to corporations that the people couldn't. It just so happens that most people are apathetic and expect someone else to do it for them. That allows corrupt government officials to write regulations that will do nothing but benefit a few large corporations.

this is a very funny thing to say. but it reveals a clear disconnect in the conversation.

you see "Government" as something other than "the people" when they are essentially the same thing. The people want clean drinking water (though they don't need it to be so pristine that fragile over-bred creatures could live in it for extended periods of time). The government makes laws and regulations to prevent contamination of drinking water. The people don't want their children seeing naked boobies on tv or listening to hate-speech over the radio, so the government makes the FCC to regulate those things.

What you're suggesting is akin to an anarchic form of government where whenever individuals face an issue, they rally a large enough body of people into a sort of ad-hoc government and go after the problem. From an economics standpoint, this is incredibly unproductive because when people are rallying to a cause they're not doing their work. From a business standpoint, this is untenable because the rules are subject to constant and unpredictable change (the only rule is mob rule). From a consumer protection standpoint this is bad because usually by the time the problem gets confronted it's already too late (the forest is already chopped down and the perpetrators have fled). From a representation standpoint this is bad because it gives a much stronger voice to the unproductive portions of society.

The current system is not perfect, but it does address all these problems. It gives a strong voice to individuals. It provides a consistent framework withing which businesses can operate. And, through regulations, it provides protection and preemptive relief from excesses.

Have you seen the stock prices of the large insurance companies after the health care "reform" bill was passed?

I am not an expert, but I checked out the stock prices of a couple large insurance companies since the reform bill passed and they're doing about as well as the DOW. Which would suggest that their stock prices are benefiting from investors optimistic view of the economy as a whole, and not from any specific thing in the health reform legislation.

Re:Oh goody

[Nadaka]

Congress ties strings to dollars to coerce states to cede their rights and powers to the federal government. They hand out money to corporations without strings because congress and the senate are on the take for campaign contributions, vacations and hookers.

Re:Oh goody

[Red Flayer]

How is requiring net neutrality micromanaging?

Seriously... wtf? The FCC was not trying to lay down exact procedures for implementation of systems that are packet-content-agnostic. Requiring net neutrality is NOT micromanaging.

You must think all regulations are micromanagement. Is prohibiting forgery micromanagement?

Re:Oh goody

[Red Flayer]

I believe internet access is a right, even if it is not commonly acknowledged as such in the US.

The means to communicate via the internet is one of the most powerful tools we have for the ability to freely operate in our political system. I believe it is a direct analogue to the freedom of the press we have enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

When a government-supported entity (the telcos) take actions that suppress the ability of people to exercise their freedom of the press, then effectively the government is suppressing freedom of the press.

Re:Oh goody

[TheWizardTim]

Today, April 6th 2009, we can live without the internet. The world will not end if we don't have access. However, in 10/20/30 years, the internet will replace phones, TV, and most mail. I want to make it a utility, with all the rules and responsibilities, now. The earlier we do this, the better we will be in the future. So yes, I agree, it is not as important as access to clean water, but it is getting up there with phone and power.

Finding a good job required access to online job ads.
Making appointments is happening more and more online.
Accessing information about the government is more and more online.

 

Re:Oh goody

[bonch]

What the hell? Handing control of the internet back to the government would be the end of the internet. This is a good thing. I'll never understand the argument that the government is somehow less biased and corrupt than corporations, and most importantly, ISPs are selling a service and can regulate it as much as they want. Don't like it? Don't use it. The internet isn't a right.

Sysadmins have the right to regulate network traffic. Bribed, corrupt politicians shouldn't be involved. People who want "net neutrality" want the government watching and regulating internet traffic. Think how insane that scenario is.

Re:Oh goody

[Naturalis Philosopho]

OH no you didn't just pull out the "n" word on him... really, name calling? Your argument is the conservative equivalent of "well, YOU'RE a poopy-face!" I thought that the FCC ruling for net neutrality was good because it ensured a level playing field where real competition could take place; you know, one where companies could compete on the merits of their product and service and people could select the choice that fit them best. Now Comcast can give priority to their VOIP product while dropping Skype calls, and stream their video while blocking HULU, and all on a network that the gov't paid for with our taxes and no one can do anything about it.

Re:Oh goody

[kingjoebob]

Amen. The US tax payer paid for and built the infrastructure, the corps should have to abide by their rules if they don't want to then let them build their own infrastructure.

Re:Oh goody

[witherstaff]

What's 300 billion between friends^H^H^Hpaid off congresspeople?

Re:Oh goody

[lenski]

That is fucking stupid.

The central tenet of net neutrality is, get ready for it....

neutrality

No corporate executive dictation.

You may or may not be old enough to remember the days before internet freedom, when there was a *MAJOR* toll to be paid by anyone wishing to cross the boundaries established by manufacturers (Hello, IBM of the '70's) or providers (hello, AT&T before Carterfone) or postal/telegraph monopolies (hello, old Europe).

Then came along a non-encumbered, free and open internet.

???

Piles and SHITLOADS of profit, growing every day. Providing room for anyone with the willingness and ability to compete openly and freely.

Net neutrality is, by definition, freedom: The free flow of information among those who would exchange it, independent of corporate desire to limit that freedom.

Re:Oh goody

[dranga]

> Today, April 6th 2009, we can ... And, clearly, it's needed to keep our clocks current.

The opinion

[crankyspice]

https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&dls_id=01206657831&caseId=23733&dktType=dktPublic

Meme

[TheWizardTim]

Step 1. Send a letter to your ISP asking them to filter your access by a defined criteria.
Step 2. Wait to get content that you requested filtered.
Step 3. ??????
Step 4. Profit.

If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status, and are now responsible for all content passed over their networks. If you get a spam message that you did not want, you can sue, at least in a perfect world. I am sure they will get out of it somehow.

Re:Meme

[vux984]

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.

Re:Meme

[TheWizardTim]

In which case, it is time to have a public utility internet access, run by the local/state/federal government. Like Finland, we need to get a law passed that says people have the right to 1/10/100 mb access to the net. In the past, the US government had to step in to get companies to provide phone and power to rural locations in the US. The same needs to be done for high speed internet access, but not just limited to rural locations. Everyone in the US should be able to access the net at a high speed. As we move more and more functions of the government and business to the net, people need equal access.

Like the roads, power, phone, water, garbage collection, natural gas, and others, the Internet has to become a public utility, and companies that want to provide access need to be regulated as such.

standard reply...

[rob13572468]

all your tubez are belong to comcast...

since the FCC likes to use telephone comparisons

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this P2P blocking bit, a little like allowing AT&T arbitrarily and capriciously to prevent you from calling anyone in Chicago (not that it would be a bad thing)?

So...

[hoytak]

(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...

This is terrible news...but here's the doc

[elohel]

But what should we expect when politicians are bought and sold and when an actual value can be placed on the price of integrity and transparency. I could rant, but what good would it do? Here's a link to the official ruling from wired.com: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/04/comcastdecision.pdf

Re:This is terrible news...but here's the doc

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:This is terrible news...but here's the doc

[Zxern]

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.

Did you hear that?

[calibre-not-output]

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?

Tariffs are a comin'....

[vinn]

ISP's operate in that magical land of no tariffs. I bet not for long. If the FCC has any backbone (I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hey, sometimes you can hope) they'll turn this into a regulated service. Just like all of those other wonderful tariffs we've had, for basic POTS lines, T1's, ISDN, etc, etc, look for that to happen with all sorts of Internet connections. So, in return for keeping net neutrality we'll lose ISP's... and the vicious dog eat dog cycle begins.

Re:Tariffs are a comin'....

[LordKazan]

>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?

No single US Court of Appeals

[Sentex]

This is just one Circuit of the US Court of Appeals (although very influential). There is no "The United States Court of Appeals".

would of been first...

[advocate_one]

but my packets were delayed...

Re:A more accurate summary...

[BobPaul]

And the policy in question is "Net Neutrality"... so I fail to see how you offer a more accurate summary. All you've done is add an unnecessary level of abstraction.

Don't give up so easily

[commodore64_love]

The State government would have the power to regulate any monopolies inside its borders, including electrical providers, natural gas providers, phone companies, and yes Internet providers. - The local government/town that granted the exclusive license to Comcast also has the right to regulate, per the terms of the monopoly.

Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.

Re:Don't give up so easily

[Monkeedude1212]

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.

Re:Don't give up so easily

[commodore64_love]

>>>a lot of states aren't doing so hot right now with their budgets

Your argument also works for why the National government would not "want" to regulate ISPs. The National government doesn't have any spare cash to spend either, for hiring additional employees at the FCC to monitor Comcast and others.

And also it's not a matter of "want". It's a matter of Law, and the Law is clear - the FCC has no authority beyond regulating commerce AMONG the states, not inside the states. The law makes clear that internal regulation is reserved to your State government. So lobby them.

Most likely ISPs could be regulated by the State PUC (public utility commission) without much difficulty.

win for the constitution

[viridari]

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.

Free Market, love it?

[jwhitener]

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.

Pyrrhic Victory?

[javakah]

Without net-neutrality, Comcast's purchase of NBC (and Hulu) could start raising some major questions about whether it is forming a monopoly, especially when the government is already looking at the broadband situation in the US (and possibly unhappy about it).

Additionally, the FCC has made it pretty clear that they want some authority over the net, so far assuming implicitly that they have such authority. With this ruling, we may yet see them given such authority explicitly.

I almost wonder if this may be a pyrrhic victory for Comcast. Imagine them having the NBC/Hulu sale blocked, and then later the FCC gets it's authority specifically created, enforcing Net Neutrality (perhaps with some fangs), and having a bit of a grudge against Comcast.

Seriously?

[Monkeedude1212]

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.

The decision is somewhat moot

[jmichaelg]

The FCC knew Comcast was going to win quite a while back. Comcast's basic argument rests on the fact that the FCC didn't follow it's own rules in how it created the net neutrality rule. Since the rules weren't followed for creating a new rule, Comcast argued the net neutrality rule was unenforceable.

  The FCC recognized Comcast had a point and restarted the rule making process to enable them to legally enforce net neutrality.

Personally, I'd like to see the FCC say that if you own a cable or phone company, you can't provide internet service. We've just been through the consequences of companies that were too big to fail failing and are quite a bit poorer because of it. Letting monopolies form is just taking us down that path again.

Both At&t and the cables are scared shitless that the Internet will make their business models obsolete. Of course, they're right.

telecom

[slashnot007]

Remember the FCC is the Federal Communications Commission.   Notice the word Communications.  So it seems like they might have some authority here.

One place we know they do have authority is telephony.  And the largest immediate threats posed by the decision I think are to 1)  VOIP  and 2) Netflix.  For brevity, I'm going to ignore bittorrent because at present while a big bandwidth hog, it's not a commercialized bandwidth hog like the other two.

it will be easy for comcast to squeeze out all VOIP and streaming video providers with simple QOS tweaks.  Already Netflix is barely tolerable and it would not take much for me to give it up.  Likewise Comcast is now in the VOIP market so why not prefer their own packets over others?

You can't even call it Anti-trust since they are not leveraging one market to enter another.  Indeed Comcast has been in the movie providing market longer than netflix.  You might make the anti-trust argument for voip however.

Which brings me back to the FCC.  the FCC might not have the authority to regulate all of the internet but surely they can regulate VOIP since that is telephony.

I sure hope they do, because once all the VOIP and netflix competition is squeezed out to either comcast itself or to people that partner with comcast  it's going to be hard to decentralize it again.

I'll make one other prediction.  the fate of bit torrent.  right now bit torrent is nothing but cost to COmcast.  if it went away people would not stop paying for their internet connection so there's no downside to squeezing it out.  I suspect the future of Bittorrent is how it becomes monetized.  If comcast could profit from bit torrent then they will be happy for it because, when done correctly, bit torrent more efficiently broadcasts across the edges of the network rather than the backbone.    I suspect the way it will be monetized is that someone will start selling movies using some set top internet box (roku, apple-tv, etc...) that uses bit torrent rather than limewire to deliver the content.  you park the top 200 movies in slices out on people's set top boxes-- these are not movies they ordered, you are just parking them there for delivery.  then you distribute this from these boxes.  You could even compensate the box owners for using some of their bandwidth.  THe key is you do this in a locked down DRM way where one company is selling the service.  now it makes money and costs less infrastructure wise than direct streaming.  Comcast will get a cut.

I suspect that's the future of peer to peer.

Re:telecom

[theaveng]

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?

Re:telecom

[NormalVisual]

When signals cross state lines, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. But since Comcast of Baltimore (for example) doesn't have any signals crossing state lines, it is not subject to the National government. The jurisdiction belongs to the Maryland government.

No, that's not the way it works. If you put up a low-power point-to-point radio link that uses licensed spectrum but doesn't cross state lines, and do it without going through the FCC coordination process to get it licensed, you *will* get hammered by the FCC for it if they find out, and there's not a court in the US that will argue with them. You'd probably be surprised to know that even the low-power transmitters used in US fast-food restaurants for their drive-through windows are required to be licensed, even though you'd be hard-pressed to receive those signals from a mile away. Cell towers are another example, and they and other low-power land-mobile operators comprise the *vast* majority of FCC licensees. There are some exceptions to licensing requirements (the 250 uV/m @ 3 meters allowed between 88 to 108 MHz allowed by Part 15 for stuff like iPod FM transmitters, for instance), but by and large, anything operating outside Part 15 rules that isn't licensed is going to result in problems.

Besides, as others have mentioned, every ISP can easily be shown to affect interstate commerce given that most people likely are visiting sites in other states most of the time. For instance, if you visit my ex's web site, she receives a fractional sum of money from the ads on her site, therefore your ISP is contributing to interstate commerce. It may not be right, but it's what the guys with the guns are enforcing.

Login page, NOT the opinion

[choongiri]

$.08 per page. That's only really worthy of +4 informative if parent also post's his/her PACER login details.

Re:Login page, NOT the opinion

[TubeSteak]

$.08 per page. That's only really worthy of +4 informative if parent also post's his/her PACER login details.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29489974/Full-Text-Comcast-vs-FCC-Federal-Court-Ruling
Found Here by using the googles

Any court decision worth reading will almost always be hosted somewhere else within hours of showing up on PACER.

Net Neutrality is simple, don't let FUD throw you

[spun]

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.

Re:What now?

[Ltap]

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?

Re:this is not unexpected

[LordKazan]

maybe we should just nationalize all that cable we paid for

we PAID FOR IT afterall.

Not an FCC issue

[discojohnson]

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.

Funny Explanation.

[headkase]

Funny, TechDirt explains why this is good.

That doesn't make them dictators.

[pavon]

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.

Re:That doesn't make them dictators.

[The End Of Days]

Nearly anything is true when you operate on the principles of confirmation bias.

Wiccard V Filburn grants FCC regulation

[goombah99]

Here is the case law that lets the FCC regulate this

Re:Wiccard V Filburn grants FCC regulation

[einhverfr]

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.....

Ridiculous

[Anomalyx]

My personal opinion is that ISPs are ridiculous with the crap they pull. AT&T has blocked my DSL in the past for using too much bandwidth. Umm... If I payed for 3 Mb/s (of which I only actually get about 2.4 Mb/s) then I should get 3 Mb/s for the entire duration of my contract. There was no term in the contract that gave any limit besides 3 Mb/s. This is stealing just as much as (if not more than) than downloading illegal torrents is. If this keeps up, then why not block phone calls of people who use too much phone bandwidth? Cut TV service of people who watch TV too much (or make over-watched channels broadcast at lower quality, to follow the traffic-shaping scheme). Ridiculous, right? Same exact scenario in a different setting. ISPs need to get their act together.

Re:What now?

[spleen_blender]

Yeah, sorry I double tapped the 'e'. I have a sensitive keyboard. I'll go back to feeling inferior to you now, if that is acceptable.

I actually applaud this decision

[nilbog]

It's not as if handing over the reigns to corporate interests ruined radio - so why would it ruin the Internet?

Currently listening to: Ke$ha - Tik Tok

Look on the bright side...

[msauve]

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.

The ruling was correct, now lets change the law

[mykos]

Under current law, the FCC had no authority to do what they did. The idea was right, the execution was wrong. We need to have clear laws about net neutrality so that the government DOES have the authority to tell ISPs when they are hurting consumers.

Division of power, 5th ammendment.

[pavon]

The constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, congress had passed no law prohibiting what Comcast had done, nor had they delegated power to the FCC to regulate the internet in the manner that they did. Government officials can't make up their own laws, nor can they punish people for breaking nonexistent laws.

I agree that net neutrality regulation, if created, would absolutely fall within both the letter and spirit of the interstate commerce clause (unlike many other laws that are justified by it).

Ahem

[kenp2002]

How is this a set back? That statement assumes they aren't already throttling the piss out of traffic.
I can download at 258kbps from Microsoft no problem.
I can got to Hulu and clear 259kbps.
I try and update World of Warcraft (which uses p2p) and I suddenly get 49kbps.
I download Ubuntu Linux at 49kbps.
In fact ANY torrent is exactly capped at 49kbps.(unless I turn on Protocol Encryption Only then magically that 49kbps cap vanishes...)
I can download from any non-major website and get 128kbps... capped. (Simtropolis for example, sourceforge, etc.)

A SET BACK implies they are not throttling already.

And the kicker... If I start a torrent my bandwidth appears to be capped at 49kbps for about 3 hours afterwards.

a.k.a
Boot Computer
Download by Excel files from work at about 109kbps.
Start a torrent and let it run for about 30 minutes while I take a shower. Torrent appears capped at 49kbps.
Stop the torrent and close Utorrent.
Download the same excel files from work... at 49kbps....
Wait 1 hour... try again... 49kbps
Wait 1 hour... try again... 49kbps
Wait 1 hour... suddenly back to about 109kbps...

Next Day:
Boot computer
Download excel files from work 109kbps.
Open Forced Protocol Encryption torrent
256-290kbps for torrent.
Close torrent.
Download excel files from work 109kbps.
Open WoW to update and suddenly total bandwidth drops to 49kbps....

Sorry it isn't a set back, it's "Court Affirms Right for ISPs to CONTINUE to throttle traffic."

As long as this stands non-megacorporations don't stand a chance when say Facebook will be allowed to buy a high service level then a competitor. There is nothing preventing Comcast in offering 21 Tier 1 SLA blocks
200 Tier 2 SLA blocks
1000 Tier 3 SLA Blocks

and bucketing all non-sla buyers in a T4 bucket. Then they can auction the top 21 blocks and charge substantial fees for the 2 and 3 blocks.

The capitalization of preferred service levels isn't new and the anti-competitive abuse that comes with it will be par for the course.

free market bullshit

[unity100]

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.

Re:free market bullshit

[unity100]

and you americans GOT to stop living in extremes, and tout every form of regulation, law, rule as 'communism'.

it is stupid.

there has to be controls over private owned companies PERIOD. else they may start embedding chips in employee's wrists, saying 'its for security'. and since you are a free market zealot, you probably unaware that this actually happened in california two years ago. numerous factories suddenly started implanting rfid chips in employees, and who didnt got along were 'let go'. it continued until california state senate banned the practice.

it isnt any different in ANY respect of life. when they were let be, they polluted, contaminated, even poisoned people for profit. until someone, and this has been always the government, told them to stop.

its precisely this naivete that you people have, the brain that, somehow, believes those with financial power, private corporations will not abuse them. and if they do abuses, everything will be sorted out 'by the market'. ironically, the very market which those corporations control, is expected to sort these corporations out.

if you are STILL insisting otherwise, explain me why we shouldnt abolish courts of law, abolish justice, abolish police, the legal system, and privatize all of these, including the military.

for, because, private sector will do all of these better, right ? and, the 'market' will sort out any issues if they arise, right ?

Simile, you're on candid camera!

[Tetsujin]

More like the companies had their golden goose and wanted to sell the eggs to people who could afford them, but the government stepped in to kill the goose and distribute the gold more fairly.

No, I think it's more like the golden goose laid a platinum egg, and nobody could figure out how the golden goose's body was able to fabricate platinum from a diet of grass and insects - and then people started wondering how it could fabricate gold, for that matter, but meanwhile the goose was walking across the road, and stopping traffic, because nobody wanted to run it over, but they didn't exactly want to sit there all day, either, so they beeped at it but it mostly ignored them and just hissed at them a little...

$BIGGOV

[bonch]

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

Re:$BIGGOV

[dgatwood]

You do have a say when it comes to $BIGCORP by use of your wallet. You stop being their customer. You don't have that choice when it comes to government.

Guarantee that there are at least three or four ISPs in every town in America and we'll talk. As long as cable companies and ILECs have a natural monopoly due to the exorbitant cost of rolling out the infrastructure, we need government regulation to keep them in check. Voting with your dollar only works if you actually have more than one candidate to vote for, and given that it's rapidly becoming impossible to get and hold a job without having Internet access, voting for "none of the above" simply isn't a viable option.

By contrast, at least with government, you have the right to vote and the right to run for office.

With a corporation, customer dissatisfaction prevents that abuse because the corporation must continue making money by keeping customers happy.

That's a joke, right? I can count the number of times in my entire life that I've seen a corporation back down from abuse (without being sued) on one hand. I can count the number of times I've seen a corporation be abusive in the last week on one hand, too, but just barely. The only thing that ever really changes a corporation is being bankrupted or nearly bankrupted by a competitor that completely decimates them by doing a much, much better job. Unfortunately, when it comes to Internet service, the cost of bringing Internet service to an area is so high that this almost never happens.

There is one way to improve things---let the government build out the infrastructure and lease it to corporations that provide the service. This takes the high startup cost out of the equation, allowing significant competition, all the while keeping the actual traffic and service decisions in the hands of those now-competing corporations instead of the government (which is just leasing a piece of glass fiber in the ground).

I know this is Slashdot, but the article is clear

[Infonaut]

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.

Wrong (I disagree with Wickard, but....)

[einhverfr]

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?

FCC + Net Neutrality != Net Neutrality

[tcrown007]

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.

Write your Congressman and Senators

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Let them know what you think on this issue. If they know there is some interest or even a large body of interested parties that have an real informed opinion on the matter, maybe there will be legislation to treat the information highway as a public resource like the rest of our highways, a public resource not a private corporate money pit.

We do something similar with the air we breath.

    Remember control of information is a first step to control of the people.

From the FCC's Statement following the ruling

[TechForensics]

"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."

Seems like the Court said you can't do it this way but you can try others. That doesn't sound so grim as originally sounded.

The ultimate authority ...

[PPH]

... lies with every state, city, town, or wide spot in the road from whom Comcast (and others) must obtain a franchise for the use of their rights of way. Lets go back to that system, with each little jurisdiction imposing its own rules. Then watch the ISPs come back, begging to have the FCC take over regulations.

Let me get this straight...

[jklappenbach]

The commercial providers that decided to capitalize on a standard that was developed by DARPA using taxpayer funds are now complaining that they can't make it work.

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.