FCC Wants Net Neutrality Suits Stopped

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Wants Net Neutrality Suits Stopped

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:18AM from the you-bet-they-do dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "The FCC moved to dismiss the net neutrality challenges filed by MetroPCS and Verizon, claiming they were 'filed prematurely.' Verizon and MetroPCS have both sued the FCC, arguing that the commission did not have the authority to hand down its December net neutrality rules. The FCC maintains that it does indeed have the right to regulate broadband, thanks to provisions in the Communications Act."

108 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

sigh by McTickles · 2011-01-30 01:23 · Score: -1, Troll

what a waste of life... can't people just stop bickering about meaningless things?
will it matter next week? next month? in a year?
1. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  what a waste of life... can't people just stop bickering about meaningless things?
  will it matter next week? next month? in a year?
  Whether and how much gov't can control the Internet? Nah, how could that possibly matter. Excellent argument, sir.
2. Re:sigh by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-01-30 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  will it matter next week? next month? in a year?
  If the internet ever becomes as popular as TV has then yes, it will matter to hundreds of millions of Americans for decades.
3. Re:sigh by commodore6502 · 2011-01-30 01:46 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  >>>will it mater next week? month? year?
  Probably.
  In the 1930s the Fuhrer Roosevelt* ordered a farmer to "grow half as much wheat" as part of his rationing plan (which also led to rampant food shortages). The farmer said it's HIS land for HIS personal consumption by himself and his family, and he can grow whatever the hell he wants to grow on HIS property.
  The Supreme Court heard the case circa 1940 and decided the farmer is merely a Serf of the State, and has no right to decide what he wants to grow because it "affects" interstate commerce even if the wheat never leaves the farmer's Home.
  That decision has haunted us for 70+ years and given the government virtually unlimited control to regulate our households. - How much energy we use, whether or not our water is drugged, what kind of low-flow toilet we buy (and which requires two flushes), and so on. THIS decision regarding whether the FCC can regulate private websites streaming over private cables into private homes is just as far-reaching.
  The precedent could easily be used by a future FCC lawyer to argue they not only have the right to regulate the Private Internet, but also Private Cable TV and censor what is transmitted (i.e. goodbye FOX/MSNBC because they are too political, and goodbye swearing/nudity in movies or HBO).
  *
  *
  The other thing Fuhrer Roosevelt did was to jail people who dared say, "This war is wrong. We should not be involved," and to imprison 1 million Americans simply because they had grandparents who were japanese or german. (Thereby violating all 10 rights codified in the Bill of Rights.) Yes. I hate that guy.
  
  --
  Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
4. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  "what a waste of life..."
  Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking about
  the sort of person who thinks this doesn't matter.
5. Re:sigh by McTickles · 2011-01-30 02:00 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Ah Americans, ok so it will only affect people with low IQ then.
6. Re:sigh by puterg33k · 2011-01-30 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  what a waste of life... can't people just stop bickering about meaningless things?
  will it matter next week? next month? in a year?
  Not that I will defend a defeatist attitude, but; lets face it. With the current regime in place; what little right/rights we had are gone.
  I think on a grand scale, we need to start worrying about the spread of islam rather than our internet, but hey that's just me :'(...
7. Re:sigh by McTickles · 2011-01-30 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  The thing is, internet is not the endgame anyway; there will be other venues...
8. Re:sigh by McTickles · 2011-01-30 02:02 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I didn't say it doesn't matter but at the end of the day does it really change your life?
  (in the same way as "does whats on the news change YOUR life ?")
  --
  twilightcampaign.net
9. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well armed and heavily sedated. I got my Pre Gore toilet and my Orange Crush.
  Let the revolution begin!
10. Re:sigh by bmo · 2011-01-30 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >Fuhrer
  Saw this.
  Stopped reading. No matter what your point was, it was drowned out by your moronic comparison to Hitler.
  You're dumb. You're the dumbest thing to come to Dumbtown since Dumb came to Dumbtown.
  Get the hell off the Internet and set your computer alight.
  --
  BMO
11. Re:sigh by Suki+I · 2011-01-30 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  >>>will it mater next week? month? year?
  Probably.
  In the 1930s the Fuhrer Roosevelt* ordered a farmer to "grow half as much wheat" as part of his rationing plan (which also led to rampant food shortages). The farmer said it's HIS land for HIS personal consumption by himself and his family, and he can grow whatever the hell he wants to grow on HIS property.
  The Supreme Court heard the case circa 1940 and decided the farmer is merely a Serf of the State, and has no right to decide what he wants to grow because it "affects" interstate commerce even if the wheat never leaves the farmer's Home.
  That decision has haunted us for 70+ years and given the government virtually unlimited control to regulate our households. - How much energy we use, whether or not our water is drugged, what kind of low-flow toilet we buy (and which requires two flushes), and so on. THIS decision regarding whether the FCC can regulate private websites streaming over private cables into private homes is just as far-reaching.
  The precedent could easily be used by a future FCC lawyer to argue they not only have the right to regulate the Private Internet, but also Private Cable TV and censor what is transmitted (i.e. goodbye FOX/MSNBC because they are too political, and goodbye swearing/nudity in movies or HBO).
  *
  Excellent comparison. He did so many things back then that we would be outraged with now, like internment of Americans based on ethnicity, that cases like the one you cite get lost in the noise. However, the SCOTUS item you cite still haunts us today.
  *
  The other thing Fuhrer Roosevelt did was to jail people who dared say, "This war is wrong. We should not be involved," and to imprison 1 million Americans simply because they had grandparents who were japanese or german. (Thereby violating all 10 rights codified in the Bill of Rights.) Yes. I hate that guy.
  
  --
  Home of The Suki Series
12. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 02:12 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  The same "low IQ" people who invented that microprocessor that you used to post your message here.
13. Re:sigh by Suki+I · 2011-01-30 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  My comment above was supposed to have this in it (and did in preview):
  Excellent comparison. Cases like the one you cite haunt us today and get lost in the noise of his more publicized atrocities, like the internment of American citizens based solely on ethnicity.
  
  --
  Home of The Suki Series
14. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-01-30 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, internet is not the endgame anyway; there will be other venues...
  And why would I want an "endgame"? As A.C. noted, this is a serious issue, whether you think it is or not. Such things can last for decades. After all, the FCC itself is was formed in the 1930s. Now an 80 year old organization decides on its own to regulate access to the internet. Why in the world do you think the impact of that choice will blow over in a short while?
15. Re:sigh by commodore6502 · 2011-01-30 02:33 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  - Hitler drug people out of their homes & jailed them based upon race.
  - FDR drug people out of their homes & jailed them based upon race.
  Not an exact fit, but close enough to make the "fuhrer" comparison for both men. Actually a closer comparson would probably be FDR and Mussolini, or FDR and Julius Caesar, but whatever. This is just a web forum, not a thesis paper.
  .
  >>>Get the hell off the Internet and set your computer alight.
  I've been on the internet since 1988. I've have many people tell me to leave, but it's never worked. I am not going anywhere, because I refuse to be silenced by Trolls like you BMO.
  
  --
  Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
16. Re:sigh by bmo · 2011-01-30 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  >Calls me a troll
  Riiiiight.
  Read this.
  http://www.npr.org/2010/11/21/131490398/-nazis-a-word-with-deep-and-brutal-meaning
  Now get out.
  --
  BMO
17. Re:sigh by fedos · 2011-01-30 02:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Can you cite the Supreme Court case or are just another one of those idiots that believes anything Glenn Beck says?
  And net neutrality isn't about the FCC regulating private websites, it's about the FCC preventing ISPs from stomping on those with competing products and on those that speak out against them. Your misportrayal of the situation marks you as either incredibly uninformed, or a corporate stooge.
18. Re:sigh by Cwix · 2011-01-30 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps it has the right to regulate it, after all they do regulate telecommunications. Isn't the internet kinda like a digital form of that. I fail to see why everyone is so uptight about the FCC. If they can force the carriers to treat each and every packet the same I'm all for it. You know, just like how the carriers treated phone calls the same.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
19. Re:sigh by GaryOlson · 2011-01-30 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  what a waste... can't people just stop bickering about meaningless things
  
  will it matter next week? next month? in a year?
  For you this may be a waste. But the average person has no clue as to the extent and importance of net neutrality. The more discussion about this subject and the higher the profile of this subject, we might actually begin to get some real discussion on net neutrality. Currently, the discussion centers around which version of targeted net neutrality will be implemented to benefit a special group instead of society as a whole.
  
  --
  Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
20. Re:sigh by JonySuede · 2011-01-30 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
21. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-01-30 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it has the right to regulate it
  A government agency doesn't have rights, it has powers or authority.
  
  Isn't the internet kinda like a digital form of that.
  Nope.
  
  I fail to see why everyone is so uptight about the FCC.
  A government agency is a very dangerous beast. You have to be careful.
  
  If they can force the carriers to treat each and every packet the same I'm all for it. You know, just like how the carriers treated phone calls the same.
  And how big do the ISPs not "carriers" have to be before they are able to comply with these regulations? Keep in mind that it's not enough for an ISP to comply, it has to show the FCC that it complies. This is yet another regulation that favors big business over small which can afford the staff and know-how to comply with government regulation.
22. Re:sigh by clydemaxwell · 2011-01-30 05:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  your argument about business size is disingenuous. how big do you have to be *not* to implement a tiered service structure, which no ISP in the US has yet implemented? Seems like a regulation that says 'keep doing what you've been doing' isn't too hard to comply with.
  For bias purposes, you should know I want the FCC to mandate net neutrality.
  
  --
  Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
  no hidden comments and I only mod UP
23. Re:sigh by Culture20 · 2011-01-30 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Invented? More like scavenged from the wreck of a time traveling alien spaceship populated with ghost pirates.
24. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 05:36 · Score: 0
  Who else thinks that this is a sockpuppet of commodore64_love? Let's go through the list of clues:
  
  Can't\refuses to use quote
  Moronic statements
  Far right politics sprayed all over the place
  Similar name
  Can anyone refute this?
25. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · 2011-01-30 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  That decision has haunted us for 70+ years and given the government virtually unlimited control to regulate our households. - How much energy we use, whether or not our water is drugged, what kind of low-flow toilet we buy (and which requires two flushes), and so on. THIS decision regarding whether the FCC can regulate private websites streaming over private cables into private homes is just as far-reaching.
  The precedent could easily be used by a future FCC lawyer to argue they not only have the right to regulate the Private Internet, but also Private Cable TV and censor what is transmitted (i.e. goodbye FOX/MSNBC because they are too political, and goodbye swearing/nudity in movies or HBO).
  Yet you have no problem with the government taking control of a portion of people's property to allow these companies to put up phones lines. By your logic the private companies should have to negotiate with every single land owner whose land they need to go onto.
  
  If you want any sort of civilisation you do need someone to regulate some things. Otherwise you end up with land being polluted and trashed by corporations, every road being a toll road and the US would be one of the most backwards countries in the world if phone companies were allow to decide who they would provide service to. But I guess most rednecks are ok with that seeing how they are some of the most backwards people already.
  
  By you logic as well there is no need for a federal government and there should be no national military. The idea that the government fucks up everything except the military is at best retarded. Fuck it, let everyone defend themselves. Surely it will be a piece of cake with all that money they'll save with no national government.
26. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · 2011-01-30 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The FCC is all about regulating communications. What exactly do you think the internet is used for? The age of the FCC has no bearing on this mainly because no one within the FCC upon it's start is there now.
  
  And before all the idiots come in here have a circle jerk over FDR and the FCC you have to keep in mind the FCC is only effectively an upgrade from the existing Federal Radio Commission which began under Republican Calvin Coolidge in 1926. Before that the government was regulating radio with the Radio Act of 1912.
  
  Not that it matters if it was a republican or democrat who started this. Anyone with half a brain realises that something that greatly affects the whole nation and its education and economy should be watched over to ensure it's not shat on by corporations.
  
  Mind you Republicans were different in those days. They didn't have an army of retards watching Fox News damaging their party.
27. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · 2011-01-30 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A government agency is a very dangerous beast. You have to be careful.
  As are corporations which is why we need the government to watch over them and why people are supposed to watch over the government and vote accordingly, protest where necessary and keep in contact with their congressmen and senators.
  
  I know people rather just assume the evil FDR magically started this communication regulation to start a new world order to enslave us and expect the government to sort itself out without any effort on their behalf other than watching Fox News but those people are idiots.
28. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-01-30 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  As are corporations which is why we need the government to watch over them
  There are always scary boogiemen that require the government to have more power. Not everyone uses the scary terrorists to rationalize government power grabs.
  
  and why people are supposed to watch over the government and vote accordingly, protest where necessary and keep in contact with their congressmen and senators.
  
  How's that turning out for us?
  
  I know people rather just assume the evil FDR magically started this communication regulation to start a new world order to enslave us and expect the government to sort itself out without any effort on their behalf other than watching Fox News but those people are idiots.
  OTOH, many of FDR's chains are with us still.
29. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · 2011-01-30 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  There are always scary boogiemen that require the government to have more power. Not everyone uses the scary terrorists to rationalize government power grabs.
  Sure if you ignore the fact corporations have caused more damage to the US than perhaps any other group including terrorists and corporations acts directly affect your way of life when you are talking about things like communication.
  
  Otherwise why not put all roads or military in the hands of corporations? After all everyone seems to believe the government screws everything up so those two important things shouldn't be in their hands.
  
  How's that turning out for us?
  Not well but that's not really the governments fault. Can the employee be blamed when the boss fucks up? As US citizens we are their employers and can fire them. Enough citizens have opted to run the country into the ground. That's our fault but I know no one wants to take the blame and rather blame someone else.
  
  OTOH, many of FDR's chains are with us still.
  That may be so but FDR didn't start regulation of communication and the congress at the time is just as responsible if not more so for shelving the Federal Radio Commission and starting the Federal Communication Commission. It's been nearly as long as there has been radio because the government recognised the importance of it and what could go wrong with it if left alone.
  
  The US government even stepped in on electronic telegraph regulation on a state and federal level. This is at least partially down to the regional monopolies and then the total monopoly by Western Union. The government no doubt realised that the electric telegraph is an important tool and it was in control of one company. So it's no surprise that they started earlier on regulating radio and everything coming after that.
30. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 08:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Invented? More like scavenged from the wreck of a time traveling alien spaceship populated with ghost pirates.
  Stop trying a shoddy imitation of that unfunny cunt Stephen Colbert.
31. Re:sigh by Belial6 · 2011-01-30 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  If Slashdot were a tiny fringe site that had a handful of users, you might have a point. Given it's size, and the number of people that post daily, the only thing in your list that would even raise an eyebrow is then username. Even if they were the same person, Slashdot is large enough that one guy with two accounts would be a drop in any attempt to shift the tide of opinion. Maybe there is just something about the C64 that cause people years later to leave out quotes.
32. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  It is commodore64_love. C_amiga_fan is another sockpuppet. Check out the sig on the C_amiga_fan posts; he's pissed that slashdot put him in timeout for being so obnoxious.
33. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-01-30 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  Sure if you ignore the fact corporations have caused more damage to the US than perhaps any other group including terrorists and corporations acts directly affect your way of life when you are talking about things like communication.
  
  FCC was instrumental in creating the AT&T monopoly, the single most harmful communication action in US history by anyone business or government. Do you yet see why I don't agree?
  
  Otherwise why not put all roads or military in the hands of corporations? After all everyone seems to believe the government screws everything up so those two important things shouldn't be in their hands.
  This is a remarkably stupid argument that crops up frequently when someone proposes modest government restrictions. After all, telecommunications are neither road systems nor military infrastructure. So we can't weaken any government regulation of US citizens and businesses because government is better at running roads and national defense?
  
  How about fast food? Should government be responsible for making all our burgers and french fries? Of course not. Private business is more than adequate for stuffing us with all the cheap, greasy food we could desire.
  
  So even granting that there are industries and national goals where government appears better, it is also obvious that there are industries and national goals where it is better to leave things to private businesses.
  
  Neither observation helps us in the matter of ISPs because: 1) They aren't run by government, but regulated. Almost everyone agrees in some degree of government regulation. 2) Even though there are legitimate government roles, doesn't mean that a new role is or should be legitimate. 3) It also matters how government comes to some action. Here, the FCC has decided by whim that it can regulate ISPs to enforce something it calls "net neutrality". It's power is solely delegated by Congress. My opinion is that Congress needs to explicitly empower the FCC before they can regulate ISPs in such a way.
  
  Not well but that's not really the governments fault. Can the employee be blamed when the boss fucks up? As US citizens we are their employers and can fire them. Enough citizens have opted to run the country into the ground. That's our fault but I know no one wants to take the blame and rather blame someone else.
  So then it's ok for the government to grow bigger, more unmanageable, less accountable, and of course, less respectful of US law, because more and more people can't keep up? The problem should be allowed to get worse because it is a problem?
  
  I need to point out the obvious fact here. No matter how vigilant your citizenry, they can't know about government secrecy (which apparently require something like 2-3 million people with security clearances and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars per year in funding) and they can't keep up with a vast bureaucracy that consumes somewhere around $3.5 trillion in funding.
  
  That may be so but FDR didn't start regulation of communication and the congress at the time is just as responsible if not more so for shelving the Federal Radio Commission and starting the Federal Communication Commission. It's been nearly as long as there has been radio because the government recognised the importance of it and what could go wrong with it if left alone.
  
  The US government even stepped in on electronic telegraph regulation on a state and federal level. This is at least partially down to the regional monopolies and then the total monopoly by Western Union. The government no doubt realised that the electric telegraph is an important tool and it was in control of one company. So it's no surprise that they started earlier on regulating radio and everything coming after that.
  This is even more paradoxical given that one of the consequences of the above actions was the AT&T monopoly which lasted roughly 50 years. We also have censorship of movies and TV lasting many decades.
34. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-01-30 12:48 · Score: -1
  
  Seems like a regulation that says 'keep doing what you've been doing' isn't too hard to comply with.
  Remember you have to also show that you comply with the regulation.
  
  For bias purposes, you should know I want the FCC to mandate net neutrality.
  For bias purposes, I'll allow that I think the FCC shouldn't exist at all and that net neutrality is probably a bad idea.
35. Re:sigh by Culture20 · 2011-01-30 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  If I didn't have to explain the joke, you necessarily found it funny on some level. ;)
36. Re:sigh by fedos · 2011-01-30 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  You grossly misstate the facts of this case.
  FDR didn't demand anything; Congress had passed an act which limited the amount of land farmers could use to grow wheat. This act was passed in an attempt to stabilize national wheat prices (whether this was the right way to do it has nothing to do with whether it's constitutional, a distinction that tea baggers often fail to realize). Mr. Fillburn violated this act and grew excess wheat. The Supreme Court decided that the subject law was constitutional as part of Congress's duties in regulating interstate commerce (as specified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). There was nothing about an individual being "a serf of the state".
  The Commerce Clause has been with us for much longer than 70 years. You may not know this since you obviously get all your information from Right Wing Moron Television/Radio, but the Constitution was ratified in June 1788, nearly 223 years ago.
  Because of your gross misrepresentation of the facts, and your calling FDR "Fuhrer Roosevelt", I have no choice to but to label you a Beck Idiot. Congratulations.
37. Re:sigh by JonySuede · 2011-01-30 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  If i were a politician I would respond: I did not commodore6502 did.
  But I am not, so let me say: fuck you !
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
38. Re:sigh by C_amiga_fan · 2011-01-31 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  - Hitler drug people out of their homes & jailed them based upon race.
  - FDR drug people out of their homes & jailed them based upon race.
  Not an exact fit, but close enough to make the "fuhrer" comparison for both men. Actually a closer comparison would probably be FDR and Mussolini, or FDR and Julius Caesar, but whatever. This is just a web forum, not a thesis paper.
  .
  >>>Get the hell off the Internet and set your computer alight.
  I've been on the internet since 1988. I've have many people tell me to leave, but it's never worked. I am not going anywhere.
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
39. Re:sigh by commodore6502 · 2011-01-31 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  >>>will it mater next week? month? year?
  Probably.
  In the 1930s President Roosevelt* ordered a farmer to "grow half as much wheat" as part of his rationing plan. The farmer said it's HIS land for his personal consumption by himself and his family, and he can grow whatever the hell he wants to grow on HIS property.
  The Supreme Court heard the case circa 1940 and decided the farmer is merely a Serf of the State, and has no right to decide what he wants to grow because it "affects" interstate commerce even if the wheat never leaves the farmer's Home. That decision has haunted us for 70+ years and given the government virtually unlimited control to regulate our households. How much energy we use, whether or not our water is drugged, what kind of low-flow toilet we buy (and which requires two flushes), and so on.
  THIS decision regarding whether the FCC can regulate private websites streaming over private cables into private homes is just as far-reaching. The precedent could easily be used by a future FCC lawyer to argue they not only have the right to regulate the Private Internet, but also Private Cable TV and censor what is transmitted (i.e. goodbye FOX/MSNBC because they are too political, and goodbye swearing/nudity in movies or HBO).
  *
  *
  The other thing FD Roosevelt did was to jail people who dared say, "This war is wrong. We should not be involved," and to imprison 1 million Americans simply because they had grandparents who were japanese or german. (Thereby violating all 10 rights codified in the Bill of Rights.) Yes. I hate that guy.
  
  --
  Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
40. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  That's fine. We'll just keep modding you into oblivion then.
  Which is a real shame, because I actually support your positions. Could you at least reign in the troll? You're turning people away from the mutual cause that we both believe in.
  Unless... that's your plan all along? Oh, you're a clever one, Mr Troll.
41. Re:sigh by fedos · 2011-01-31 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, my apologies.
42. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · 2011-01-31 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  FCC was instrumental in creating the AT&T monopoly, the single most harmful communication action in US history by anyone business or government. Do you yet see why I don't agree?
  I'd argue that isn't the case because the Kingsbury Commitment put that monopoly in place before the FCC existed.
  
  The idea was that they'd give up their controlling share of western union which at least stops them controlling two forms of communication, it was probably quite instrumental in the quick growth of phone services within the US and I think things like the US nationalising the phone network for WWI and then gave it back to AT&T as a private company at which point it was effectively a monopoly and this was still before the FCC.
  
  I'm not saying the FCC didn't do anything wrong but the US was well on it's way to take AT&T's advice to let them run as a monopoly for the benefit of the nation before the FCC existed and because there was some initial benefit I'm not sure if it's the worst thing to ever happen.
  
  This is a remarkably stupid argument that crops up frequently when someone proposes modest government restrictions. After all, telecommunications are neither road systems nor military infrastructure. So we can't weaken any government regulation of US citizens and businesses because government is better at running roads and national defense?
  Sure except for the fact roads and telecommunications are equally important and the US would never have been a super power without either.
  
  Also people can't go around saying the government fucks up everything and then think that actually they should run two very important aspect. It's partly due to the fact people know toll roads and the costs will shoot through the roof. Even if everything stays the same all that tax money that is wrongly going towards roads from other sources including tobacco taxes (when that money should go towards healthcare) would disappear and the slack would have to be taken up by drivers. They don't want that so it's ok to let the government control the roads.
  
  Where as the reality is telecommunications are just as important as the roads and even the military. If the idea of the government having its hands on telecommunications is laughable then yes it applies to the other two as well.
  
  How about fast food? Should government be responsible for making all our burgers and french fries? Of course not. Private business is more than adequate for stuffing us with all the cheap, greasy food we could desire.
  Fast food isn't a necessity that needs to be created by the government but it certainly, like all foods, needs to be regulated to ensure it's safe. Just look at Taco Bell getting caught out for trying to pass off its meat as beef. That's with regulation. What sort of stuff would they get up to if they were completely free to do what they want?
  
  Neither observation helps us in the matter of ISPs because: 1) They aren't run by government, but regulated. Almost everyone agrees in some degree of government regulation. 2) Even though there are legitimate government roles, doesn't mean that a new role is or should be legitimate. 3) It also matters how government comes to some action. Here, the FCC has decided by whim that it can regulate ISPs to enforce something it calls "net neutrality". It's power is solely delegated by Congress. My opinion is that Congress needs to explicitly empower the FCC before they can regulate ISPs in such a way.
  I agree there needs to be better definition to what the FCC does. I don't think the FCC should be able to censor content but it should be able to ensure there is net neutrality and that I have the same opportunities as Google to run a business online rather than my traffic being limited because I don't have a hope in hell of matching Google's funds.
  
  So then it's ok for the government to grow bigger, more unmanageabl
43. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-02-01 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'd argue that isn't the case because the Kingsbury Commitment put that monopoly in place before the FCC existed.
  
  I'm not saying the FCC didn't do anything wrong but the US was well on it's way to take AT&T's advice to let them run as a monopoly for the benefit of the nation before the FCC existed and because there was some initial benefit I'm not sure if it's the worst thing to ever happen.
  You could argue that. But any benefit was over by 1934. Also, please name a worse harm.
  
  Also people can't go around saying the government fucks up everything and then think that actually they should run two very important aspect. It's partly due to the fact people know toll roads and the costs will shoot through the roof. Even if everything stays the same all that tax money that is wrongly going towards roads from other sources including tobacco taxes (when that money should go towards healthcare) would disappear and the slack would have to be taken up by drivers. They don't want that so it's ok to let the government control the roads.
  
  Note that government does fuck up national defense and road building. I don't advocate that the government do these things because they are more competent, but because the conflicts of interest in a private national defense or road system are somewhat likely to cause problems.
  
  Telecommunications is different in that many rival systems can operate at the same time. Hence, it is far more conducive to private operation and market competition. As a matter of national security, I would advocate private ownership and operation due to the natural incompetence of government.
  
  I agree there needs to be better definition to what the FCC does. I don't think the FCC should be able to censor content but it should be able to ensure there is net neutrality and that I have the same opportunities as Google to run a business online rather than my traffic being limited because I don't have a hope in hell of matching Google's funds.
  Then have Congress pass a law enabling the FCC to do this and constraining what else they can do with this power.
  
  I fail to see how it would have been any better if the government did nothing even if the government didn't handle it properly.
  
  Just look at the remarkable developments in telecomms since 1984. At the very least, US citizens in AT&T coverage areas could have owned a telephone before 1984 (there was an explosion in style and variation of regular telephones in the late 80s). Long distance service would have probably improved greatly. Cell phone development would probably have been a bit quicker too.
44. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · 2011-02-01 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You could argue that. But any benefit was over by 1934. Also, please name a worse harm.
  I'd argue the Microsoft monopoly was worse. Sure people haven't been stopped from communicating but they have been given a tool that locks them into proprietary formats, an insecure system, generally allow around inferior system with back-doors for the government and even to this day MS is still using their browser lock-in to gain advantages elsewhere (ie pinching Google search results).
  
  You can argue that Google is approach monopoly status and any competition is good but Yahoo, Ask Jeeves and anyone else isn't able to gain the advantage MS has by having their browser built in and trying to push Bing on people.
  
  By MS being the one to potentially topple Google it will then be exceptionally harder to topple Bing once that is tightly tied into their system and again comeptition will be stiffled.
  
  Thanks to their piles of money they can jump into any market like game consoles, mobile phones or anything and keep marching forward with unpopular products until they get lucky and once they do it will be hard to get them out.
  
  IE6 has helped make web development harder for no good reason, made the web more insecure (for its users) and I feel it's held the internet back.
  
  I think we going to find it much harder to rid ourselves of MS and their tactics than it was to bust up AT&T.
  
  I'd also argue the US mobile phone market is a mess that probably will never go away. The whole idea that you effectively don't own your phone can't take it to any network is a joke especially considering how expensive they can be.
  
  Note that government does fuck up national defense and road building. I don't advocate that the government do these things because they are more competent, but because the conflicts of interest in a private national defense or road system are somewhat likely to cause problems.
  Telecommunications is different in that many rival systems can operate at the same time. Hence, it is far more conducive to private operation and market competition. As a matter of national security, I would advocate private ownership and operation due to the natural incompetence of government.
  To be fair they can only operate in the same at the same time and in the same space largely in part to government intervention that allowed them to take parts of people's land to lay lines and part of which came from AT&T's beginnings. If we started all over or even stopped right of way and companies had to negotiate with each land owner you can be certain they negotiate for exclusive rights.
  
  Just look at the remarkable developments in telecomms since 1984. At the very least, US citizens in AT&T coverage areas could have owned a telephone before 1984 (there was an explosion in style and variation of regular telephones in the late 80s). Long distance service would have probably improved greatly. Cell phone development would probably have been a bit quicker too.
  I think part of that is down to the fact AT&T had a monopoly to begin with which is why I argued that the problems with AT&T weren't the worst problem we've had.
  
  Again the US mobile phone market. It is in no way consumer friendly. The US is typically cheaper than Europe and espepecially the UK in virtually everything except one thing and that is mobile phones. The US pays more for less minutes / text / data, pays more for the phone which you may not necessarily be able to take to another network and pays to receive calls unlike landlines.
  
  Really there is no reason it should be that way considering all the competition but where is the incentive to change? The UK at least has sensibly regulated mobile phones and there is no way to keep users through lock-in. You own your phone and your number and can take either with you easily to any network at no cost. So the only thing they have t compete with is p
45. Re:sigh by khallow · 2011-02-02 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'd argue the Microsoft monopoly was worse.
  There are three things to note about the above claim. First, Microsoft's market dominance wasn't a monopoly at any time. Second, Microsoft hasn't had its period of market dominance very long compared to AT&T. Third, the AT&T monopoly was marked by a long stretch of stagnation. There really wasn't much difference in telecommunications service from the 30s through to the early 80s (automation of call routing behind the scenes being the prime innovation). But the so-called Microsoft monopoly presided over one of the great periods of innovation in human history.
  
  I disagree that mobile phone advances were held back by AT&T. No one really used them in '84 or even '94.
  
  Note that Japan already had a nationwide cell phone network by 1984. Europe established cell phone networks starting in the early 80s. The US didn't get started seriously till after 1984. By 1987, there were a million US subscribers.
  
  So how messed up would the cell phone networks have been in the US now, if they had started in the mid-70s instead of ten years later? The only explanation I can see for the delay between invention of usable cell phones in 1973 and the late US start is the AT&T monopoly. To be blunt, I think this late start by itself explains most of the technological edge that Japan and Europe has over the US in cell phones.
The FCC loses... by j0nb0y · 2011-01-30 01:25 · Score: 3, Informative

The FCC loses... because the FCC *always* loses. They've lost every major case for the last fifteen years.

--
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
1. Re:The FCC loses... by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-01-30 01:31 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The FCC loses... because the FCC *always* loses. They've lost every major case for the last fifteen years.
  They need to hire one of those lawyers on TV. They seem to win their cases every week no matter how stupid their clients are.
2. Re:The FCC loses... by reboot246 · 2011-01-30 02:01 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Congress told them they didn't have the power they claim to have and the people told them not to do it. Maybe the FCC should come back down to Earth and face reality.
3. Re:The FCC loses... by fedos · 2011-01-30 02:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's quite the interesting alternate reality that you're living in.
4. Re:The FCC loses... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  wrong and wrong.
5. Re:The FCC loses... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Better call Saul.
6. Re:The FCC loses... by SpeelingChekka · 2011-01-30 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  They should lose in this case because they've overstepped their bounds.
I hope by nopainogain · 2011-01-30 01:28 · Score: -1

some people well versed on this subject come in because i'm flying blind. To the best of my knowledge, the suits against it are fighting on behalf of preventing a regulated internet. Let me know how wrong i am so i can start to "get it"
Not suprising. by novar21 · 2011-01-30 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Corporations don't want to be regulated because it can cut into their profits. The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet. The corporations want to regulate the Internet for profit. So they jump the gun on filing a law suite. They will refile and in the meantime they push the cost of the law suite onto their customer. It's just a sad state of affairs. Actually the FCC should just proceed and get the law suite over with and not challenge that they filed to early. Why postpone the inevitable?
1. Re:Not suprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  They don't pass anything on. They're constantly charging what they think the market will bear. They think that the market will bear more if they say they're passing on the costs from some other jerk.
  Here's an example. A number of years ago the cost of milk went up in New York. All the pizza places upped the cost of a slice by a quarter the same day. They can't possibly have incurred any additional costs yet.
2. Re:Not suprising. by Starcub · 2011-01-30 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Premature not because the rules haven't been published, but because the FCC probably has no intention of enforcing them, and even if they attempted to, they would probably fail in the courts, again. Despite what the FCC says publicly, there is now certainty in the market, which is why we're now seeing more companies than just Comcast jump on the bandwagon to stovepipe the net.
3. Re:Not suprising. by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-01-30 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations love to be in a regulated business because it keeps competitors out. In his case, cellphone providers don't want to be regulated as bing in the same market as ISPs (even though they are starting to be).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
4. Re:Not suprising. by gangien · 2011-01-30 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet.
  why is it that on slashdot, with the talk of violation of civil liberties by the government, this general attitude about the FCC/net neutrality still exists? It's so sad that you guys who understand the value of civil liberties do not understand the government really is not pro individual or pro freedom. it's pro power. If the FCC had the power to regulate the internet and did so, and even assuming everything was as people wanted, how long do you think that would last? how long until we get the FCC spying to protect the children?
5. Re:Not suprising. by commodore6502 · 2011-01-31 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  If the government can regulate the packet, it can also regulate the content of the packet. Remember: The FCC started as an organization to prevent radio stations from sharing the same frequency.
  From that humble beginning as a "radio frequency allocator", they then Usurped Power to become a censorship organization that banned certain songs from the radio (like "War - what is it good for"), blocked certain words from television, and even imposed an "equal time" requirement on local stations such that Christian stations had to give air time to atheists. (That FCC regulation was over-turned in the mid-1970s.)
  When dealing with government, you need to think about more than just the present. You need to think about the Precedent set and how some future lawyer or politician will use that precedent to extend his power. If the FCC gains power to regulate packets, they can also take one more step to regulate the content (example: outlaw nudity online, as they did with television).
  
  --
  Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
6. Re:Not suprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Speaking as a representative [of every human American regards their "free public open accessible right to the Internet"] to one of the FCC generals appointed by the BIG WHITE FATHER I say, if you allow the SENMACE to take control of the Internet, I can do little to stop you, unless my tribe goes on the warpath, but if you prevent the SENMACE from taking it, and treat both the SENMACE and the members of my tribe as equals, then the SENMACE can also have equal, but not superior, access to the Internet! So why don't you control the behavior of your SENMACE companions and their elected puppets?
7. Re:Not suprising. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Instead of posting copypasta, you might want to try responding to the criticisms of the original post.
  Otherwise, you just come across as a troll.
You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · 2011-01-30 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.

this is what the ISPs say. they are attempting to do make monkeys out of the people, on people's land, with people's money, with people's rules.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by approachingZero+ · 2011-01-30 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  True, and the decision we made was for the FCC to keep it's regulatory hands off.
  
  --
  'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
2. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 02:18 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.
  
  That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.
  
  this is what the ISPs say. they are attempting to do make monkeys out of the people, on people's land, with people's money, with people's rules.
  This pathetic whine again. Too bad you don't see how these sorts of complaints backfire. The only way to screw over these companies is to break the peoples' rules. That opens the door to other entities (hey, like the FCC or those very same ISPs) to do worse.
  
  The point you seem to miss is that the rule of law is more important than your misguided sense of fairness. One can always change laws through lawful means, if they are unfair. But if one ignores the law in the first place, then anything goes. The same power that allows the FCC to decide that it should arbitrarily implement some sort of policy which may or may not end up being net neutrality, allows it to screw over you in many ways.
  
  That is why all powers of the FCC should be granted explicitly by Congress. That is how the peoples' rules work.
3. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · 2011-01-30 02:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  you didnt make it. fcc made it, and it is now turning it back. isps are wanting to STEAL your money and property with this.its this. there is no simpler or more politically correct word. its STEALING. nothing less.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
4. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · 2011-01-30 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.
  public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.
  
  The point you seem to miss is that the rule of law is more important than your misguided sense of fairness. One can always change laws through lawful means, if they are unfair.
  
  dont use stupid wordage like 'pathetic whine' etc when you dont get shit about what you are talking. the rule of the law, is the commission you named as FCC has the authority to CLASSIFY methods of communication.
  
  fcc ITSELF has classified the internet as something before. now, it is classifying it as something else. it has the authority to do it. arguing the opposite means that you also do not recognize the prior classification based on lack of authority, which went on for two decades and you have ACCEPTED that status quo. if anything, no moron has the right to object to something they had went along with, accepting as legal, for two decades.
  
  however foremost, a commission that has the authority to classify something, has THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY IT AGAIN.
  
  if you have not been able to perceive the above concepts, dont reply to me. youll be ignored.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
5. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 02:42 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  dont use stupid wordage like 'pathetic whine' etc when you dont get shit about what you are talking.
  Good thing then, that I don't do that.
  
  is the commission you named as FCC has the authority to CLASSIFY methods of communication.
  
  And I see the pathetic whine has now become a stupid whine. The FCC doesn't get to decide what it can do. Congress decides that.
  
  fcc ITSELF has classified the internet as something before. now, it is classifying it as something else.
  This is why we have the rule of law. To constrain those in power from making arbitrary decisions.
  
  however foremost, a commission that has the authority to classify something, has THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY IT AGAIN.
  
  A government agency NEVER has rights. It has granted powers.
6. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by fedos · 2011-01-30 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.
  That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.
  The roadway equivalent would be me setting up a private toll booth for anyone wanting to drive on the public roadway that passes in front of my house.
7. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  The roadway equivalent would be me setting up a private toll booth for anyone wanting to drive on the public roadway that passes in front of my house.
  No, the original poster argued that ISPs didn't really own their infrastructure because part of it uses public land. That's exactly analogous to the typical car. A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the same claim to ownership can be made for cars.
8. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Cwix · 2011-01-30 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just like a corporation NEVER has rights? Oh wait they are people too!! Lets not do anything that would harm those "people's" rights. They have a right to gigantic profit margins, right? Cant fucking get in the way of those now can we?
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
9. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  First the parent post isn't a troll. But as usually /. uses troll to mean I don't like it.
  
  The point you seem to miss is that the rule of law is more important than your misguided sense of fairness. One can always change laws through lawful means, if they are unfair. But if one ignores the law in the first place, then anything goes.
  Second with response to the above quote...with all due respect you're simply wrong. Individuals make moral or immoral, ethical or unethical choices all the time. The law is simply a badly codified manifestation of the social contract. The rule of law is important to the preservation of a stable democratic society but that doesn't imply blind obedience is required. In point of fact anything does go and it is the individual as a sentient entity to determine his/her actions and choose what goes and what doesn't. The law is just an attempt by the collective society to stop individuals from choosing too radical a path...sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's broken for ill (murder, rape, kidnapping) and sometimes for good (civil rights, helping slaves escape, protesting government oppression) it is not however some sort of sacred mandate and the legal path to change is not the only righteous path to change, just the safest lowest risk path which generally makes it the number one choice all else being equal.
10. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Fnord666 · 2011-01-30 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.
  Then how come some cities are charging extra for SUVs to drive on their streets?
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
11. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · 2011-01-30 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  that is a public decision, through public law. it is made to discourage usage of special UTILITY vehicles, which were designed to work OFF ROAD in the middle of a fscking city.
  
  its no different from smoking fines.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
12. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-01-30 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  The same power that allows the FCC to decide that it should arbitrarily implement some sort of policy which may or may not end up being net neutrality, allows it to screw over you in many ways.
  This is a really important point. Allowing a federal government agency, any agency, to assume powers not specifically granted under law, is a bad, bad idea. Just because the FCC is doing things we like today does not mean that will be the case 10 years from now. Allowing them to assume this power now means they could just as easily change their minds later.
  Net neutrality must be a decision of law, not policy.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
13. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by zeroshade · 2011-01-30 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all. Assuming your analogy has any accuracy (which it doesn't) A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the driver must follow the rules that these public roads and parking lots have. They must observe the speed limit, traffic laws, etc. They must make sure their car meets the inspections required for their state. They must go the correct way down a one way street. So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it. A driver who uses public roads does not make the rules, thus an ISP who uses public infrastructure should have to listen to public rules for their infrastructure.
14. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Why is this post marked as "troll"? Oh i get it, it doesn't fit into your nerdy-cult's leftist views. What most of you fools don't get, that if that greed wasn't there, your precious internet would still be in research labs at the universities.
15. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  A government agency is not an individual. It does not nor should have the same freedom to disregard laws which someone considers (or merely says they consider) immoral.
16. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it.
  The rules boil down to the utility has to inform the local government when it digs in certain spots. FCC regulation is not justified on these grounds, but because the ISP is engaging in interstate commerce.
17. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  One can always change laws through lawful means, if they are unfair.
  That doesn't change the brand new laws that effectively override the older, more fair laws. Change those all you want, the corps will still have new laws passed for them to sidestep it all just like they have for decades now. Corporations can buy laws; it doesn't even seem frowned upon anymore, and is actively championed by some very, very confused individuals who seem willing to act against their own best interests. An individual's only recourse is to knowingly ignore unjust laws as an act of civil disobedience, which you seem to condemn; considering that almost every representative in Congress is knowingly and unashamedly in the pockets of corporations and thus outside of the influence of the people they are supposed to represent.
18. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · 2011-01-30 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?
  
  so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liking of some private parties ?
  
  screw that.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
19. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · 2011-01-30 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  there is no correlation in between 'greed' and 'patents' and this or that, and innovation and invention, as THOMAS JEFFERSON, the founder and first director of PATENT OFFICE, puts it :
  
  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
  
  .....Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices......
  if you are going to talk about economy and science history and make synthesis out of in between either of them, learn BOTH first. dont sell generic shit you have been conditioned to memorize in for-profit education institutions to 3rd parties. its an insult to faculties of mind and cognition.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
20. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-01-30 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?
  so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liking of some private parties ?
  screw that.
  I think what I took away from your semi-coherent rant is that you adamantly believe the FCC is entitled under existing law to do whatever they like with the Internet, and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid.
  I'm probably just feeding a troll, but while I do wholeheartedly support net neutrality, I do not support a carte blanche for the FCC as the right path towards that goal. I want a clear law, voted for by Congress and signed by the President.
  If it were law protecting net neutrality instead of agency policy, there would be no concern about the policy changing anytime the administration felt like it. Ask yourself if you'd be making the exact same argument, if I can call what you wrote an argument, if the FCC were anti-neutrality.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
21. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by hackwrench · 2011-01-30 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  You just used a cuss word in that sentence. That's stupid wordage too.
22. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Just like a corporation NEVER has rights?
  A corporation both the business sort as well as any organized group of private citizens has rights that it inherits from its members.
  
  They have a right to gigantic profit margins, right?
  Just as a citizen doesn't have a right to a job, neither does a business have a right to a profit.
23. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by khallow · 2011-01-30 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.
  But I can decide who gets to ride in my car. Same with commercial vehicles. It isn't a public decision to decide what those vehicles carry, aside from satisfying safety and environmental regulation.
  
  It's worth noting here that ultimately, it is the responsibility of the customer not government to determine the quality of the service with their ISP. And almost all places in the US have access to at least three ISPs by venue: telecomm, cable, and satellite-based providers.
We shall.. by Haedrian · 2011-01-30 01:51 · Score: 2

We shall fight them in the lawcourts, we shall fight them in the media... you may take our lives but you'll never take your freedom.
Love
Corporate Exec
So our choices are... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 02:05 · Score: 1

Our choices seem to be to trust a small (but increasing) number of companies with our Internet access or to trust a single government organization of non-elected officials. I say increasing because it costs a fortune to run fiber, but LTE is starting to look promising as a sole means of Internet access. And while I wouldn't trust Joe's Family Cellular to get me phone service outside of town I would certainly consider using him for a fixed LTE broadband connection.
Considering I can't find a single offence these "evil corporations" have done that bothers me (I couldn't care less if my BitTorrent traffic is throttled, BitTorrent is something I'd rather download overnight anyway) and considering the FCC's habit of censoring anything that goes out on the airwaves I'd much rather see Verizon and Comcast fight for my business than have the FCC tell me what their vision of the Internet should be.
1. Re:So our choices are... by Haedrian · 2011-01-30 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Strawman argument.
  Net neutrality = "Every packet is treated the same on the internet". It has nothing to do with the government enforcing regulations on the internet. It has everything to do with the government enforcing that NOBODY should enforce regulations on the internet.
2. Re:So our choices are... by Rockoon · 2011-01-30 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Its not a strawman when the FCC is not proposing net neutrality. They are just proposing something called net neutrality.
  
  The fools are those that care so much for net neutrality that they will bend over and let the FCC stick it directly into them, just because the FCC uses the words you care so deeply about.
  
  Here is an idea.. wake up and feel the shaft that is being introduced to your rear end by the FCC. They are slowly injecting it right now and you don't seem to notice, or care.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
3. Re:So our choices are... by Haedrian · 2011-01-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because I'm too busy noticing the shafts everyone else is introducing everywhere else.
  Note: Metaphorical shafts
4. Re:So our choices are... by commodore6502 · 2011-01-30 02:41 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  If the government can regulate the packet, it can also regulate the content of the packet. Remember: The FCC started as an organization to prevent radio stations from sharing the same frequency.
  From that humble beginning as a "radio frequency allocator", they then Usurped Power to become a censorship organization that banned certain songs from the radio (like "War - what is it good for" as example), blocked certain words from television, and even imposed an "equal time" requirement on local stations such that Christian stations had to give air time to atheists. (That FCC regulation was over-turned in the mid-1970s.)
  When dealing with government, you need to think about more than just the present. You need to think about the Precedent set and how some future lawyer or politician will use that precedent to extend his power. If the FCC gains power to regulate packets, they can also take one more step to regulate the content (example: outlaw nudity as they did with television).
  
  --
  Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
5. Re:So our choices are... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Every packet is treated the same on the internet"
  Simplistic definitions like this are always fun. This is not a technical possibility. Small packets are queued differently from big packets within routers. ICMP is dropped before TCP. TCP flow control packets slow down connections. The idea that every packet is treated like every other packet is nonsense.
  Every website needs to be equally accessible? What about CDNs? Don't they violate net neutrality or is it OK that companies that can afford them get better access?
  Anyone who can summarize "Net Neutrality" in one phrase doesn't really understand what the issues are and they're the ones giving an autocratic bureaucracy control over the Internet. In the early days the FCC divvied up the EM spectrum to radio stations - a necessary function. Later they decided they needed to protect us from naughty language. This extended to TV. Then to TV over cable. History says this is a bad idea.
6. Re:So our choices are... by fedos · 2011-01-30 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  Comcast has repeatedly been caught, and admitted to, committing offences that would be in violation of net neutrality rules, unfortunately the FCC had previously classified the internet as something that it couldn't regulate so they suffered no penalties.
  When given a choice between government control or corporate control, I will always choose government control. The government may be slow or difficult change, but at least the people have the ability to affect change in it's policies. We don't have the same control over corporations, despite what free market zealots claim.
7. Re:So our choices are... by khallow · 2011-01-30 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because I'm too busy noticing the shafts everyone else is introducing everywhere else.
  You should notice. Some parties such as a government agency are much more dangerous than others.
8. Re:So our choices are... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  "When given a choice between government control or corporate control, I will always choose government control."
  Tell me, who are you going to vote for the next time the FCC chairman elections come around? The FCC is not "the government", they're appointed positions and the actual government (Congress) said they can't have the power they're looking for.
9. Re:So our choices are... by Nikkos · 2011-01-30 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Are you that clueless? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
  
  The FCC is appointed by elected representatives of the people, they can be unappointed at any time if the people elect new representatives, or if the people apply sufficient pressure to the existing representatives to act. The FCC gets its mandate from the government.
  
  By your reasoning, the fire department and the police are not "the government" because they're hired positions instead of elected. Besides the Chief/Sheriff/Commissioner in some cities/counties, the rest are all appointed positions chosen by elected officials. Are you saying that police officers have no authority because they were not elected?
  
  Nitwit.
10. Re:So our choices are... by artor3 · 2011-01-30 05:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Repeating your strawman tripe doesn't make it true. The government isn't "regulating the packet" whatever the hell that means. The government is regulating the companies... telling them that they can't play favorites with internet traffic. There's no bureaucrat inspecting each packet as it whizzes by. They wouldn't have the funding to do that if they wanted.
  I know Fox told you that government is always bad, but you really got to think for yourself. Major corporations (like News Corp!) have a vested interest in demonizing government regulation of major corporations.
  An unregulated internet will quickly come to resemble cable TV. Having the FCC enforce some basic standard of net neutrality prevents that.
11. Re:So our choices are... by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-01-30 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Considering I can't find a single offence these "evil corporations" have done that bothers me
  How very noble of you.
  Here's a thought: When the ISPs have the right to throttle or ban a protocol outright, that will eventually hit a protocol you care about. Also, throttling implies banning:
  
  (I couldn't care less if my BitTorrent traffic is throttled, BitTorrent is something I'd rather download overnight anyway)
  You clearly have no idea just how much torrent traffic can be throttled. Try a download that should take a few hours (or overnight) instead taking over a week. Do you care yet?
  
  I'd much rather see Verizon and Comcast fight for my business than have the FCC tell me what their vision of the Internet should be.
  Are you sure? Because Verizon and Comcast are both doing things we'd rather they stop doing. Who, exactly, am I supposed to be switching to? There isn't exactly a "Joe's Family Cellular" in my area to sell me Internet service, and where I have seen local ISPs, they generally have to buy their service from a larger ISP anyway.
  I don't own stock in Verizon or Comcast, and without any other options, I have exactly zero leverage to get them to stop what they're doing. By contrast, I do at least have a vote -- I get to elect the people who appoint positions within the FCC.
  When the free market works, I prefer it to government intervention. It's failing pretty badly here.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
12. Re:So our choices are... by sjames · 2011-01-30 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  They became a censor by virtue of being given stewardship over a public resource and so a responsibility to see to it that anyone permitted to borrow it for their own use did so in the public interest. At the time, a bunch of swearing on radio and then television wasn't their idea of the public interest. I would fully agree that as social attitudes changed, the FCC regulations became increasingly outdated. Notice how the rules were much less restrictive for cable TV. That was a matter of the FCC recognizing that so long as the public benefited adequately in exchange for a grant of right-of-way, no harm would come of more adult oriented channels, particularly if there was a reasonable way to keep kids from stumbling over them.
  It's also worth noting that it wasn't all the FCC doing the censoring. Each network had their standards and practices and even if the FCC was silent, they could still end up in court if some group or another got their feathers ruffled.
  Note that the FCC also has control over POTS and cellular service. Have you ever heard of them trying to stamp out swearing over the phone? Ever try to send a nude picture and had an FCC rep call you and say "naughty naughty!"?
  
  When dealing with government, you need to think about more than just the present. You need to think about the Precedent set and how some future lawyer or politician will use that precedent to extend his power. If the FCC gains power to regulate packets, they can also take one more step to regulate the content (example: outlaw nudity as they did with television).
  I have my concerns as well here, but it's equally important to remember that when dealing with corporations that are too big to fail, they will happily rape and pillage until the entire country is destitute if allowed to do so. There isn't the slightest chance that they'll ever do anything purely for the public good.
  As long as the FCC policies and enforcement don't require deep inspection (and preferably prohibit it), I will provisionally support FCC regulation of telecommunications.
13. Re:So our choices are... by sjames · 2011-01-30 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I will vote for the presidential candidate whose policies will most likely cause him to appoint a good FCC chairman. If a president appoints a net nazi, I will not vote for him again and will consider his party suspect in the upcoming election.
  Now, if your local cableco (the one and only choice for decent internet in many areas) hires a net nazi CEO (the sort that would use Sandvine products to shoot down connections he doesn't like for instance), exactly who will you vote in to or out of office in order to get rid of him?
ISP decides which website to let in by Max_W · 2011-01-30 02:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is already happening. The ISP owners open its Internet shop and do not let other Internet shops into their network. I have this problem with at least 2 ISPs.
The ISPs should be watched carefully. They should, speaking figuratively, maintain the bridge technically, but not be traffic regulators.
End the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-30 02:42 · Score: 0

End the FCC
So somebody who is being sued... by John+Hasler · 2011-01-30 04:11 · Score: 2

...has moved for dismissal.
Amazing. I'm sure glad you told us this. I certainly never would have guessed that the defendant in a lawsuit would move for dismissal.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Posting to undo bad moderation by flimflammer · 2011-01-30 08:52 · Score: 1

Wish there was an undo button.
1. Re:Posting to undo bad moderation by Sulphur · 2011-01-30 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wish there was an undo button.
  Would an EASY button do?
2. Re:Posting to undo bad moderation by Sparx139 · 2011-01-30 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you're running firefox, install the moderatrix script for greasemonkey. It adds a confirmation button. I haven't had mod points since the site redesign so I'm not sure if it's still in working order, but if that's the case then it should be fixed soon
  
  --
  Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
Better article by Undead+Waffle · 2011-01-30 09:52 · Score: 1

I saw this article on Ars yesterday which is much better.
There is one very interesting bit covered in the Ars article which is not covered in the pcmag one. Verizon is asking for the same court that ruled in favor of Comcast and has hired the same lawyer that represented Comcast. The FCC wants the court chosen by lottery.