Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Wants Net Neutrality Suits Stopped

Posted by timothy on 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."

13 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. The FCC loses... by j0nb0y · · 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 · · 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. Not suprising. by novar21 · · 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?

  3. You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · · 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 unity100 · · 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
    2. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by unity100 · · 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
    3. Re:You paid for it with public subsidies, by Cwix · · 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.
  4. Re:sigh by bmo · · 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

  5. Re:So our choices are... by Haedrian · · 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.

  6. Re:sigh by clydemaxwell · · 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
  7. Re:So our choices are... by artor3 · · 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.

  8. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · · 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.

  9. Re:sigh by thetoadwarrior · · 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.