|
|
|
Court rules FCC has no authority to enforce net neutrality
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 7 April, 2010
The US Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia has ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to enforce network neutrality rules for broadband internet providers.
The ruling came in Comcast's appeal of the that agency's 2008 ruling on the cable giant's practice of throttling P2P traffic.
Although the court's decision means the FCC doesn't have the authority to punish Comcast for ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
7. April 2010 @ 14:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well Someone has to protect net neutrality, we cant do anything to protect, if corporate loyalists want it gone you can bet your ass it will be gone. the sad part is will never know it until its too late.
|
|
Advertisement
|
  |
|
|
Senior Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Zach has got it right. This is not a blow to NN, but rather, a blow to the FCC who DESERVES the blow.
They will, as Zach says, most likely add that power to the FCC but that is totally not what would be best.
As much as I hate to say it, the best thing would be to make a new department... "Department of the Internet" and give them the sole authority and tell the FCC to butt out!
The internet is just too different from Radio and TV and Phone.
|
|
KSib
Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 15:23 |
Link to this message
|
Hmm... who would run that department? Maddox?
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
7. April 2010 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
Well Someone has to protect net neutrality, we cant do anything to protect, if corporate loyalists want it gone you can bet your ass it will be gone. the sad part is will never know it until its too late.
The best protection for net neutrality is competition. If the FCC declares internet connections to be common access what's to stop the next administration from reversing it? On the other hand, if we make pipes available from more companies the genie's out of the bottle and can't be put back in. It would ensure both open networks and reasonable prices. The net neutrality is problem is really just a symptom of the government created and subsidized monopoly/duopoly system we have in place now.
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
7. April 2010 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Zach:
What are you talking about? The FCC and Congress have not only backed it but pledged to spend billions in tax payer dollars to expand networks so that free and neutral internet access is available to all citizens. I'm as skeptical of the gov't as the next web head but I have no reason to believe that the FCC and Congress are with us on this one.
Congress and the President have promised to spend billions to further subsidize the existing companies. You know, the ones who are the problem now. How does giving them more money promote anything but the status quo?
As to the FCC, even if you believe they want to do the right thing now, their position changes with every new administration. Sometimes more often than that. Any discretion you give to the current FCC commissioners you also give to their successors. If I were running a telco and the FCC decided to tell me I have to let other companies use my pipe I'd simply try to stall until there were commissioners in place who will change the policy. If I were in charge of a competitor I'd be leary of investing in such a scheme anyway since my entire business could be yanked out from under me any time the FCC changes its mind.
|
|
xiromisho
Newbie
|
7. April 2010 @ 16:05 |
Link to this message
|
This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.
what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...
This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...
We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?
In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.
Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. April 2010 @ 17:26 |
Link to this message
|
this is progressive driven from people like George Soros (moveon.org) to shut down talk radio like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc. If they take our free speech were done.this is very dangerous
Antec 1200 Full-Tower Case/Thermaltake 750-Watt PS/ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 Mobo/Western Digital Black WD500 500GB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache/NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX 384-bit GDDR3 PCI Express Video Card/CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 16GB DDR3 /Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo)/CORSAIR Hydro High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler/3-Asus DRW-24B1ST Sata Drives/Samsung 2493HM 24" LCD Monitior 1920x1200 resolution,5ms respone time/OS Windows 10 Pro SP1 64-bit
|
|
bigfamei
Junior Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 18:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xiromisho:
This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.
what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...
This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...
We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?
In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.
Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.
--------------------
But the problem with that argument is that. If you speed is capped at 5/mbs and comcast or any other provider says you use it as you want. Then that person has every right to do so. If one person capped connection can slow down 50 other people on the network.. Then there was never enough bandwidth to accommodate everyone on the network. We have seen the internet flourish with NN as it guiding principles. Hulu, Netflix,Youtube, skype, vonage, magic jack etc. Are all services compete with broadband providers other services. In the early days of broadband companies didn't care if you got it to download illegal stuff. You were paying for there service that all they cared about. But now hulu for free competes with their video services they provide. Netflix competes with there VOD services they provide. Skype and vonage same thing. I could understand if these broadband providers were only providing broadband. But they aren't they are just trying to protect their inventment from those who can do it cheaper. While you just pay for one connection to get it all.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 20:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by druidmatrix:
Yes, the court didn't declare NN unconstitutional, but saying that there are no regulatory bodies to enforce it amounts to the right being taken away from the consumers. A poor ruling indeed.
Well, an unfortunate ruling (as it would make things easier), but based on merits of the case, not a "poor" one. It just said the FCC (or some other agency) needs to be specifically given the authority by law. In some respects, it's GOOD when an agency doesn't have vague authorities on things.
|
Senior Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 20:48 |
Link to this message
|
If Comcast wants to sell their service at some level of acceptable bandwidth usage... and then limit you if you go over that, then fine. No problems. But what they are doing is limiting access to one single technology because it's the only way they know how to do it and in the process end up removing a feature that they SOLD and received payment for. (false advertising)
It is none of Comcast's business what goes over that pipe other than their published limitation of "no servers allowed".
So, if they determine you are operating a server... A web server, an FTP or a torrent, then you (and only you) have violated their TOS and are subject to their whim. But to limit EVERYONE because a guy on the block is serving up 100,000 torrents is just wrong. And if it isn't now it should be illegal!
They need to define exactly what is considered a "server", as in, "If you are found to be sending data upstream in excess of this ammount for this length of time then you are considered to be operating a server and your access may be terminated".
It's not that hard.
Instead, they are worried about all the damn MPAA warnings and crap and so choose to deal with it in this way. Torrent technology is not illegal.
|
|
slickwill
Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 23:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
The FCC was probably paid off by lobbyists to not pursue this, and even if the FCC was to administer Net Neutrality, it would just eventually lead to more censorship.
Censorship such as independent news sources that tell the truth, unlike mainstream media that is influenced and controlled by big business and the government. The government pretty much pays tv to inject certain messaged in their movies/shows to condition our minds to serve the needs of the state.
Now with the CyberSecurity Bill (that passed the House and currently in the Senate) the government is even more closer to censoring the internet by establishing their own internet and making us use a government id to login, so they can track us and eventually use our browsing history to oppress us.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
7. April 2010 @ 23:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by slickwill:
The FCC was probably paid off by lobbyists to not pursue this, and even if the FCC was to administer Net Neutrality, it would just eventually lead to more censorship.
Censorship such as independent news sources that tell the truth, unlike mainstream media that is influenced and controlled by big business and the government. The government pretty much pays tv to inject certain messaged in their movies/shows to condition our minds to serve the needs of the state.
Now with the CyberSecurity Bill (that passed the House and currently in the Senate) the government is even more closer to censoring the internet by establishing their own internet and making us use a government id to login, so they can track us and eventually use our browsing history to oppress us.
Just keep your tinfoil hat on and you'll be fine. ;-)
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2010 @ 02:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Net Neutrality is now up in the air, only waiting to be shot down... just think about who it was that fought Comcrap to stop there bad(illegal) business practice, it wasn't you, it wasn't me. it was the FCC some credit has to be givin here.
trust me on this nothing good is going to come from this ruling cuase now comcrap knows it can get away with it, others will follow soon.
|
|
av_verbal
Suspended permanently
|
8. April 2010 @ 05:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
like we didnt know that the courts were owned by the corporations, and the big song and dance wasnt staged, now the government can say well we tried america, and the same illusion that the governments actually care about the slaves continues.
|
Senior Member
|
8. April 2010 @ 12:06 |
Link to this message
|
That's exactly right...
What if Comcast decides that LEGAL video downloads from Hulu are consuming too much bandwidth. Some Joe Dirt dude is using a program to download several videos from Hulu at the same time (a video grabber program).
Comcast decides to throttle Hulu but doesn't throttle Comcast's own video portal (which costs money)...
Now you have an issue. A serious issue.
They should certainly be allowed to limit speed/bandwidth based on their own business model, but that limit can, in no way be based on content or source or what we end up with is the old AOL model. Where, if you're a member of AOL you can see all the AOL stuff and nothing else.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. April 2010 @ 15:58 |
Link to this message
|
FCC did poorly in this court case I doubt it will stop net neutrality, might force congress to claerfiy the net as a telecom like service.
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
8. April 2010 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xiromisho:
This isn't a Net Neutrality thing at all... Comcast does NOT care at all what you download - the more they have to monitor such things the more it costs them. They don't care.
Net neutrality isn't just about what content is involved. It's primarily a question of what services you use. Comcast was discriminating based on services, not traffic volume. That's clearly a net neutrality issue.
Quote:
what do they care about? They care when many customers in the same area start complaining about download speed... when they are forced to look into the cause they found that customer A is downloading/uploading so much content that it was actually impacting the surrounding network - now Comcast has two choices... give more bandwidth to the network, which is going to cost lots of money on their end, and in the end isn't going to help because Customer A will then max that out as it will just allow more people to connect to him, or the other option is to simply stop the issue at it's source - throttle the high bandwidth user and spare the other customers around him from the poor experience...
This is factually incorrect in so many ways I almost don't know where to start. So let's start here. Increasing bandwidth to individual network nodes on a cable internet network is, and always has been, a standard operational cost. They don't analyze what sort of traffic is on the network to figure out the cause. And it doesn't cost that much money. According to a New York Times article from about a year ago:
Originally posted by New York Times:
In a presentation to investors in 2007, Comcast boasted about how its network is designed to make such node splits efficient. The cost depends on the configuration of the equipment at the node to be split. In some cases, little more than minor adjustments are needed, and the cost is $2,500. If the company needs to add a new Cable Modem Termination System, the device that connects cable wires to the Internet, it will pay $6,000 if the device is in one of its existing facilities. And if Comcast needs install a new C.M.T.S. on a pole, stringing a new fiber optic cable to it, the cost is $20,000.
According to Comcast?s presentation, the average cost of all these upgrades comes to $6.85 for each home served in the neighborhood. I checked with Tony Werner, the chief technical officer of Comcast. He said the costs quoted are still roughly accurate, but the average may be increasing somewhat as more of the company?s upgrades involve new equipment and sometimes new fiber.
Second, they weren't throttling based on bandwidth usage. They were intercepting BitTorrent packets and replacing them with fraudulent reset packets. Besides being problematic for neutrality reasons, it's potentially a violation of computer hacking laws for impersonating another computer in a communication.
Quote:
This isn't about net neutrality, it's about what he was doing WITH his open connection... they have the right to do the same thing if you're running a webserver from your house, and when it came to the bittorrents running there, that's what was happening...
Really? So you're saying if someone was downloading a completely legal Linux CD image the connection wasn't being reset? Because I can tell you with 100% certainty that's completely false. You said as much yourself.
Quote:
We all know what this argument is actually about - it's about getting caught or slowed down with your illegal downloads - that is what this is about. That is what Comcast is trying to rein in. Because of net neutrality, actually, they CAN'T just say "Bit Torrent is denied." So what happens?
Discriminating against all BitTorrent traffic is exactly what they were doing. It had nothing to do with the illegality of the content, which Comcast has no way of determining. And even if they could tell the difference between legal and illegal downloads they wouldn't because it would essentially strip them of their legal protection as a service provider under the DMCA.
Quote:
In the most ironic twist, the MORE inconvenient tactic is used because it's legal - limit ALL access to 250GB, if you NEED more you pay for it.
Realize if comcast does fully put that through it'll be a temporary issue as the government is working to expand the current broadband network (hopefully they move that insane deadline UP to like... 2015 or something...) so this will eventually be a moot point.
Creating and expanding broadband networks is already heavily government subsidized. And there's no concern about the internet infrastructure as a whole. The only weak point now is the last mile infrastructure of the providers themselves. They already have more than enough bandwidth between themselves and the internet backbone to handle significantly more traffic than is generated by their customers. Claiming a lack of bandwidth is a tactic broadband providers have always used to get more government subsidies. It's a claim disputed by every real study done on the subject, and even by the actual technical departments of ISPs themselves.
Metered broadband isn't going to happen for the same reason it hasn't happened already. Because customers have rejected it. And yet somehow Comcast and other ISPs are still able to continue adding customers without it. Not to mention the fact that the fastest growing use of bandwidth is for completely legitimate streaming video. Watching a SD movie from Netflix at the highest quality they offer uses approximately 3Mbps. This will only increase over time. ISPs have no choice but to upgrade capacity and it's completely within their means to do so. They just don't want to because it means using money they'd rather spend developing new services.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. April 2010 @ 17:30
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
11. April 2010 @ 23:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Slickwill, quit all the oppression talk. You haven't been oppressed.
You don't even know the true meaning of the word unless you can go black and go back 100 years.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
13. April 2010 @ 02:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanx vurbal...you saved me the time to type a response to that garbage..;)
This is not the end of the FCC's attempt to maintain NN, it's simply a fact that they didn't have the proper authority to do this under it's current op agenda. How long do you think it will take before such authority is granted to them?
Not long hopefully (even tho I'm in Canada and any ruling there is inconsequential), but throttling is happening here too and we're going thru the same issues of NN as everyone else is. ALL CONTENT IS EQUAL!! Let's keep it that way. NN MUST be maintained
|
|
