Court Strikes at 'Net Neutrality'

[Tilted]

Court Strikes at 'Net Neutrality' - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON—A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast Corp. in 2008 for deliberately slowing Internet traffic for some users.

The unanimous decision is a blow to the FCC, which argued it had authority to police Internet providers and prevent them from blocking or slowing subscribers' Internet traffic. The victory is likely to spark efforts by the FCC and Congress to impose new rules on Comcast and other Internet providers. Major Internet providers will likely oppose such moves, particularly any effort by the FCC to apply rules to their Web services that were originally enacted to promote more competition in the land-line phone industry.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the FCC's demand, approved by a 3-2 vote, that Comcast stop slowing Web traffic. The court ruled that Congress hadn't given the FCC the power to regulate an Internet service provider's network-management practices.

The decision is a win for Comcast in a case that started when subscribers complained that the cable and Internet giant had slowed Web traffic for some customers who were downloading large files using peer-to-peer file-sharing services like BitTorrent. Comcast stopped the practice but went ahead with its challenge of the FCC's decision.

Tuesday's ruling could be a mixed blessing for Comcast and other Internet providers. U.S. President Barack Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski have both supported the idea of "net neutrality" rules, which say all legal Internet traffic should be treated equally.

Here's the opinion. Essentially, it says that the FCC is not God and that it can't just do whatever it wants to - establish whatever rules it wants to - even if it thinks it is necessary or beneficial to do so. You know, it has to have been given the authority to do what it wants to do, or it at least has to be able to 'tie its assertion of ancillary authority' to one of its 'statutorily mandated responsibilit(ies)'

 

[ImnoMensa]

Court Strikes at 'Net Neutrality' - WSJ.com



Here's the opinion. Essentially, it says that the FCC is not God and that it can't just do whatever it wants to - establish whatever rules it wants to - even if it thinks it is necessary or beneficial to do so. You know, it has to have been given the authority to do what it wants to do, or it at least has to be able to 'tie its assertion of ancillary authority' to one of its 'statutorily mandated responsibilit(ies)'

Perhaps the EPA should be taken to court also for announcing that CO2 is a poison gas.

The EPA isnt God either, but there is a similarity here of what they have been doing.

 

[BOP]

Court Strikes at 'Net Neutrality' - WSJ.com



Here's the opinion. Essentially, it says that the FCC is not God and that it can't just do whatever it wants to - establish whatever rules it wants to - even if it thinks it is necessary or beneficial to do so. You know, it has to have been given the authority to do what it wants to do, or it at least has to be able to 'tie its assertion of ancillary authority' to one of its 'statutorily mandated responsibilit(ies)'

No, Rupert Murdoch is god, and the FCC knows it.

This article was from 1998, just 2 years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
WILL THE NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT PROMOTE MONOPOLY?

Murdoch was a major player in getting the limits on media outlet ownership lifted. It literally made Fox the giant it is today.

In the meantime, amid all the hoopla, a lot of key facts seem to have been overlooked by the media. One was that whole portions of the Telecom Act had been written entirely by telecom industry lobbyists. This was an unprecedented event in the history of public policy in America.

All this isn’t the worst part of the bill, however. The worst part is that it accelerates a process of media monopolization in our country which began in the 1980s. In the "Media Monopology" by Ben Bagdikian, first written in 1983, he described the corporate consolidation of media outlets in our country into the hands of a few multinational corporations. At that time, about 50 different companies controlled almost all of the nation’s major TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, movie studios, and book publishing houses. Today, in 1997, post-Telecom Act, that number has shrunken to ten -- and you know most of the names: Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Ltd., Sony, TCI, Gannett, and General Electric. Worse yet, many of thse companies are gobbling up "emerging media" outlets (software and CD-ROM production companies, Internet web sites, online services) as well. Because many of these media multinationals often have holdings in areas such as defense, nuclear power, oil, or banking and finance, critical stories on their other divisions or subsidiaries often get "censored" - not by government bureaucrats but by corporate lawyers.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Perhaps the EPA should be taken to court also for announcing that CO2 is a poison gas.

The EPA isnt God either, but there is a similarity here of what they have been doing.

my thought exactly

 

[Tilted]

Some follow up:

FCC to Apply Narrow Broadband Regs, Cable Stocks Fall

 

[preselector]

I like the net neutrality concept.

I just wish Congress would step up to the plate and make a law about it. One the regulators start regulating, they never stop and have no accountability.