FCC Approves Confusing Net Neutrality

[JDay]

Actually, what's important is that the message in my statement is clear.

You should take off the tinfoil hat, I think it's getting to your brain. Anyway, COICA is what you have to worry about, there is a reason why the media companies do not want network neutrality, it interferes with their monopoly.

[RRangel]

You should take off the tinfoil hat, I think it's getting to your brain. Anyway, COICA is what you have to worry about, there is a reason why the media companies do not want network neutrality, it interferes with their monopoly.

Mr. know-it-all, my premise has nothing to do with monopolies. Do not change the subject. Once again there is no popular mandate for this FCC power grab. The Obama administration has overtly ignored Congress and our courts to take control of something that they have no power to regulate. Are you telling me that this action is fine? That we apparently have an executive, legislate, and judicial branches of government for no reason? Your statements would make one wonder who's side you're on.

[jonyg]

Both net neutrality and the COICA are huge deals. The internet is the biggest tool for the 1st amendment today.

Funny how the COICA was coauthored by none other than the much-adored gun control fanatic from our beloved state of California....Senator Diane Feinstein.

Guess she's against both the first and the second amendment.

[Merc1138]

WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.

And when it's the networks between you and the content you want that are causing the problem, how exactly does getting a different ISP fix anything?

Open your command prompt. Type in: tracert www.calguns.net

It'll show you a list of the crap in between you, and calguns.net. You have no control over any of that even if you decide to change your ISP. That's how the internet works. You do not connect to websites via direct connection. You end up going through a half dozen or more other networks. "Free Market" does NOT work in this circumstance.

Yes, it's ridiculous that the government needs to regulate something to keep the status quo, but the fact is that ISPs have been playing games like this for years now on a small scale and they're only going to ramp it up if left alone. Now how the government has gone about the regulation, that's a bit of a problem. Then again waiting for a popular opinion to raise the issue with technology... pfft. Just think of how many people are actually still satisfied with dialup, they'd never know the difference. Most people using the internet can barely operate their own computer, let alone know that a network is throttling their content with no way around it.

It'd be like southern california blaming the local municipal water company for not having any water, when it's the state causing the problem further up north.

[RRangel]

Both net neutrality and the COICA are huge deals. The internet is the biggest tool for the 1st amendment today.

Funny how the COICA was coauthored by none other than the much-adored gun control fanatic from our beloved state of California....Senator Diane Feinstein.

Guess she's against both the first and the second amendment.

Robert McChesney's Freedom Press, as well as these six organizations, Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers's Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, are advocating for "net neutrality." They're funding advocacy and "research".

It's not a surprise that some of these organizations are synonymous with gun prohibition too.

These were the same groups that helped push for Campaign Finance Reform (aka incumbent protection) while the George Soros' non-profit groups like Moveon.org were conveniently exempt.

[JDay]

Mr. know-it-all, my premise has nothing to do with monopolies. Do not change the subject. Once again there is no popular mandate for this FCC power grab. The Obama administration has overtly ignored Congress and our courts to take control of something that they have no power to regulate. Are you telling me that this action is fine? That we apparently have an executive, legislate, and judicial branches of government for no reason? Your statements would make one wonder who's side you're on.

Both net neutrality and the COICA are huge deals. The internet is the biggest tool for the 1st amendment today.

Funny how the COICA was coauthored by none other than the much-adored gun control fanatic from our beloved state of California....Senator Diane Feinstein.

Guess she's against both the first and the second amendment.

COICA is the only one that threatens the First Amendment, net neutrality is meant to ensure that the internet does not break up into a bunch of separate segments, i.e. AT&T's internet vs Verizon's internet vs Comcast's internet. The internet as we know it will cease to exist if we do not have net neutrality. Feinstein also has nothing to do with COICA (other than voting in favor of the bill), it is the work of one Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

[RRangel]

You couldn't be more wrong. Why would you suppose I'd mention that the courts disagree? In Comcast Corporation v. FCC the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would beg to differ. The court held that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate network management practices of internet service providers.

The FCC decided to conveniently reinterpret its authority. Private entities have to abide by courts but political class controllers feel that they are above the law.

The internet is not going anywhere unless these morons find a way to screw it up. They can't keep their grubby hands off of our freedom of speech.

[JDay]

You couldn't be more wrong. Why would you suppose I'd mention that the courts disagree? In Comcast Corporation v. FCC the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would beg to differ. The court held that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate network management practices of internet service providers.

Perhaps that would be because that case had nothing to do with network neutrality and everything to do with Comcast being able to throttle the connection speed of users who put excessive strain on their network (i.e. software and movie pirates downloading 10's of TBs of data a month), which they would only do when you were actually downloading a torrent. Comcast has also been in trouble in the past for degrading Vonage (a competing VoIP carrier) connections on their network to the point of the service being unusable (anti-competitive conduct). Again, you do not know what you are talking about, perhaps you should try actually reading what is said in that pdf file.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf

The Commission may exercise this “ancillary” authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is “reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.” Am. Library ***’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The Commission has failed to make that showing.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/comcast_vonage.html

But Comcast was hit with more bad publicity after admitting that it had paid people off the street to fill seats at an FCC hearing on its network practices in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The paid attendees evinced loud support for Comcast's representatives and blocked critics of the company from getting into the hearing.

Makes you wonder if they're paying off judges.

[bigmike82]

JDay's pretty much owning you. I'd step back and actually learn about what you're trying to argue.

[RRangel]

Perhaps that would be because that case had nothing to do with network neutrality and everything to do with Comcast being able to throttle the connection speed of users who put excessive strain on their network (i.e. software and movie pirates downloading 10's of TBs of data a month), which they would only do when you were actually downloading a torrent. Comcast has also been in trouble in the past for degrading Vonage (a competing VoIP carrier) connections on their network to the point of the service being unusable (anti-competitive conduct). Again, you do not know what you are talking about, perhaps you should try actually reading what is said in that pdf file.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf

Did you even read the ruling? The FCC lost the case. The FCC commission lacks the authority to regulate the internet. It's not about what Comcast did. It's about the FCC not having authority.

FCC vs Comcast ruling where FCC loses

It is true that “Congress gave the [Commission] broad
and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly
evolving communications technologies.” Resp’t’s Br. 19. It
is also true that “[t]he Internet is such a technology,” id.,
indeed, “arguably the most important innovation in
communications in a generation,” id. at 30. Yet
notwithstanding the “difficult regulatory problem of rapid
technological change” posed by the communications industry,
“the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated
powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to
regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer . . .
Commission authority.” NARUC II, 533 F.2d at 618 (internal
quotation marks and footnote omitted). Because the
Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary
authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any “statutorily
mandated responsibility,” Am. Library, 406 F.3d at 692, we
grant the petition for review and vacate the Order.
So ordered.

This has everything to do with "net neutrality" but nice attempt at spin.

[RRangel]

I love how the pro Obama interference faction attempts to spin everything into obfuscation. That somehow when the FCC does not have statutory authority over something it gets conveniently twisted to mean what it does not mean. Or the emotional arguments against big business take center stage over the topic at hand. That political class elitists in government do not have authority to control everything they please for their own political gain.

[JDay]

Did you even read the ruling? The FCC lost the case. The FCC commission lacks the authority to regulate the internet. It's not about what Comcast did. It's about the FCC not having authority.

FCC vs Comcast ruling where FCC loses



This has everything to do with "net neutrality" but nice attempt at spin.

No it does not. You need to read that ruling and actually comprehend what is being said. That case deals with throttling users internet connections, not with net neutrality. Comcast also won the appeal on a technicality since the FCC policy being enforced was only written in footnotes. Comcast knows it is going to lose this case when it heads to the Supreme Court, this is evidenced by the fact that they know longer throttle the connections of customers who are downloading torrents. However, Congress is likely to straighten this out before then by specifically granting the FCC authority to regulate the internet (a power it already has since it is a communications medium, in fact they already have regulatory power over the telecommunications industry). Do you really believe that If the FCC can make cussing over a telephone line illegal (it is, just not enforced) that they cannot regulate everything that is done over those same lines? Much of Comcast's infrastructure was paid for by us taxpayers also, that alone is reason enough to not allow them to control what content any subscriber can access.

The only connection that case has to network neutrality is that a lower court believe the FCC failed to establish that "the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities", which would make it impossible for them to do any regulation of the internet if true.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2010/04/fcc-loses-comcast-appeal-on-net-regulation.html

It should also be noted that this case is anything but over, it will be heading to the Supreme Court. I am more than confident that the FCC will win this case in the end, that day will be a great day for consumers and the First Amendment.

[JDay]

I love how the pro Obama interference faction attempts to spin everything into obfuscation. That somehow when the FCC does not have statutory authority over something it gets conveniently twisted to mean what it does not mean. Or the emotional arguments against big business take center stage over the topic at hand. That political class elitists in government do not have authority to control everything they please for their own political gain.

I am not pro Obama in the least. And you are plain wrong that the FCC does not have statutory authority, I even posted the relevant sections of the United States Code.

[RRangel]

I am not pro Obama in the least. And you are plain wrong that the FCC does not have statutory authority, I even posted the relevant sections of the United States Code.

Why don't you instead say that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is wrong? That over 300 Senators and Congressman are wrong. That there is in fact no mandate for an FCC power grab.

Instead of admitting that you're wrong, now it's "not over" and "I am more than confident that the FCC will win this case." How convenient. I would very much look forward to the day that the Supreme Court hands the FCC its ***.

[JDay]

Why don't you instead say that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is wrong? That over 300 Senators and Congressman are wrong. That there is in fact no mandate for an FCC power grab.

Instead of admitting that you're wrong, now it's "not over" and "I am more than confident that the FCC will win this case." How convenient. I would very much look forward to the day that the Supreme Court hands the FCC its ***.

Congress is wrong? Strange, they're in the process of expanding the FCC's power so there is no question over this. The only people in Congress who are against this are the ones who have their campaigns funded by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. You should watch those videos I posted.