MW: Court rejects FCC rules on Internet

[Larry]

You mean like toll roads and state turnpikes?

My problem with this situation is that when you're driving to Disney, you have the power to chose what route you take.

When you send a packet in the internet, your packet takes whatever route it wants. It may pass through a dozen company's equipment, and every one of them is competing by offering not to intentionally downgrade your service, if you pay them.

(That's the other problem I have with this situation. It invites competition, not by price or by who offers better service. It's competition by what I think of as "protection racket": "Pay me, and nothing bad will happen to your data. At least, as long as your data stays in my territory.")

[greenspandan]

i'd like to think congress will step in and pass some legislation on the matter, but i'm not optimistic. the democrats seem almost as scared as the republicans to offend their corporate masters.

[ACW]

i'd like to think congress will step in and pass some legislation on the matter, but i'm not optimistic. the democrats seem almost as scared as the republicans to offend their corporate masters.

Blame the promulgation of gov't favors for lobbying.

[greenspandan]

Blame the promulgation of gov't favors for lobbying.

so you'd be in favor of stricter campaign finance laws? really? please, think of the huddled masses of starving corporations, whose only hope is purchasing the favor of an elected official

[ACW]

so you'd be in favor of stricter campaign finance laws?

:no:

My point is, when you shrink gov't, there won't be any favors to hand OUT, ergo no need for lobbying.

As the parasite economy grows, taxing some people and doling out favors to others, everybody gets sucked in. Even if you don't want a government subsidy, you need a lobbyist to protect you from being taxed and regulated by the other groups and their lobbyists.

[Larry]

:no:

My point is, when you shrink gov't, there won't be any favors to hand OUT, ergo no need for lobbying.

Your point is, if you give big corporations unlimited power to do whatever they want, then they won't have to bribe government to look the other way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sorry, but it does not sound like this is as devastating as anyone here thinks it is. It may require the FCC to make some changes to their policy, and it may even require Congress to do something legislatively, but no need for anyone to jump off a bridge here.

Checks and balances still exist. And if this is as terrible as some say it is, then the legislative branch and/or executive branch will react.

[Larry]

And if this is as terrible as some say it is, then the legislative branch and/or executive branch will react.

You say that based on Congress' recent record of standing up for citizens against powerful, big-money, corporate interests?

[Destino]

Sorry, but it does not sound like this is as devastating as anyone here thinks it is. It may require the FCC to make some changes to their policy, and it may even require Congress to do something legislatively, but no need for anyone to jump off a bridge here.

Checks and balances still exist. And if this is as terrible as some say it is, then the legislative branch and/or executive branch will react.

They have to because this ruling allows corporations with minimal competition who've already dragged the US behind the rest of the world in high speed price, speed, and access to further restrict the market place.

[Destino]

Your point is, if you give big corporations unlimited power to do whatever they want, then they won't have to bribe government to look the other way.

Which is great because we citizens no longer have to worry about such issues because corporations don't answer to us like governments do. So once they screw us we can rest easy and accept it knowing full well that our new neutered government and we the people can do nothing about it. Life is so much easier when you take choices away.

Anyone that believes corporations left to their own devices would bring about a free market utopia is just as wrong as their communist counter parts.

[JMS]

Capitalism has NEVER worked in the manner in which you are pretending it does. There is no opportunity for start up high speed services when the entrenched providers control the lines. The government has to maintain a market place open to competition or capitalism fails.

Exactly right. I would only add that the ISP's in question saw their own accendency because of the government allowed them temporary monopolies in order to build out the infrustructure which is supposed to now go into the public domain. Like telephone network from decades passed, today you can order different telephone service providers on a common network once owned by AT&T. That's the way comcast is supposed to work.

[JMS]

Sorry, but it does not sound like this is as devastating as anyone here thinks it is. It may require the FCC to make some changes to their policy, and it may even require Congress to do something legislatively, but no need for anyone to jump off a bridge here.

It's idiotic. The FCC regulation of net neutrality existed since the dawn of the internet, right up until Bush repealed it. The Obama administration put it back in place, and the court says they don't have the authority?

Also I disagree with you. this ruling will fundimentally change the way the internet works and take away individuals rights in favor of corporations. It's a disaster.

Checks and balances still exist. And if this is as terrible as some say it is, then the legislative branch and/or executive branch will react.

You are missing the point. The point is this is a fundimentally corrupt ruling. That should bother all americans whether it's allowed to stand or not....

Also it's not like the GOP is in favor of Net Neutrality. A bill to enforce this could face as much of a hurdle as the healthcare bill, which only took about 100 years to pass.

[Duckus]

I don't fully understand the ramifications of this, but doesn't this allow companies to legally do what Enron was doing illegally with energy?

It is my understanding (from the documentary "Eron - The Smartest Guys in the Room" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1016268/) that Eron would purposely limit the energy market as they pleased to make **** loads of money.

They would manipulate the market and shutdown power to CA, causing false rolling blackouts. The cost of energy would sky rocket and then turn it back on making billions. They would even call Power Plants and tell them to shut down and make up reasons.

Seems like they have given corporations the power to do just that - manipulate the market. Yes?

But as I said, I don't full understand the ruling so i might be way off base.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You say that based on Congress' recent record of standing up for citizens against powerful, big-money, corporate interests?

I think you are referring to the recent supreme court decision, which overturned Congress. So, Congress did pass that law which was "anti-corporate america." That law was overturned on First Amendment grounds.

It's idiotic. The FCC regulation of net neutrality existed since the dawn of the internet, right up until Bush repealed it. The Obama administration put it back in place, and the court says they don't have the authority?

Also I disagree with you. this ruling will fundimentally change the way the internet works and take away individuals rights in favor of corporations. It's a disaster.

You are missing the point. The point is this is a fundimentally corrupt ruling. That should bother all americans whether it's allowed to stand or not....

Also it's not like the GOP is in favor of Net Neutrality. A bill to enforce this could face as much of a hurdle as the healthcare bill, which only took about 100 years to pass.

This decisions sounds to me like a decision based on a failure to follow proper procedure. I have not read the opinion, but it already sounds like the FCC can promulgate new authorities to re-instate the same exact thing they had before. And the few quotes I've gathered sound like issues of procedure within the administrative agency.

What would be "fundamentally corrupt" would be allowing any branch of the government to ignore the proper procedures, and checks and balances, in performing their duties. If the FCC did not have the legislative and executive authority to regulate the internet in this way, they should not be allowed to simply assume it. I firmly believe that it should follow the proper process.

There is nothing corrupt about requiring a legislative body elected by the people to actually enact laws before the government is allowed to assume power.

[LaxBuddy21]

All this does is allow ISP providers to strong arm competition and control the market. Its like having the Mafia run things. If someone else tries to take some of your business, you take them down so you stay on top! I think all utilities need to be overseen by the government. Cable, electric, internet etc.... all need to have government controls to prevent the companies from sticking it to the consumers.

[Larry]

Oh, I don't have a problem with the end-level ISP doing whatever they want to, to their customers.

IMO, there's enough competition to take care of that. (Maybe there needs to be a rule requiring them to disclose what their rules are.)

That's called a free market.

My problem is when the people behind my ISP have the power to simply discard my data, without telling me, and without me having any ability whatsoever to pick somebody else.

You can't have market competition, when the consumer cannot determine who's harming him, and even if they could, cannot chose to use an alternative.

[ACW]

Larry, corps make money by satisfying consumer needs.

[JMS]

I don't fully understand the ramifications of this, but doesn't this allow companies to legally do what Enron was doing illegally with energy?

Kind of. Enron was one of the companies who purchased Califonia's deregulated electricity plants. then took them off line in order to cause a power shortage. Then they used out of state capacity to sell energy to california at like 5000x the going rate.

This rulling would allow companies like Comcast who own a segment of the internet market to blackmail companies like google, yahoo, microsoft, youtube etc who do not. Comcast could ultimately decide who would fill lucrative market internet niches, all by manipulating connectiviity....

So Comcast decides it wants a slice of googles lucrative advertising revenue. They turn google connectivity off and introduce their own.... The consumer is no longer in charge of the market, Comcast is....

Seems like they have given corporations the power to do just that - manipulate the market. Yes?

That's true... basically takes the competition out of the marketplace and grants a company an uncontested monopoly over the service. In that way it's similar... But Enron was favored by state deregulation, and also a group of like minded businesses operating as a trust. This would create micro monopolies in different segments of the country. So it's not exactly similar.

But as I said, I don't full understand the ruling so i might be way off base.

It's not really a one to one comparison. But in both cases they allowed companies to obstruct and dictate the market rather than allow the market to regulate itself.

[JMS]

Larry, corps make money by satisfying consumer needs.

I don't think so..... When corporations can dictate to the market they can make money simply by deeming it so. They don't have to respond to consumers or demand because nobody can compete with them....

The consumer literaly has noplace else to go.

That's why monopolies and trusts are illegal in this country.

Left to it's own devices markets devolve into trusts and competition dies. Without competition their is no free market.

[19Skins72]

I won't pretend to understand our federal appellate court rules - is this ruling final unless the supreme court gets involved (or the other branches of the govt) - or can it be appealed even further to other appeal courts?

[JMS]

What would be "fundamentally corrupt" would be allowing any branch of the government to ignore the proper procedures, and checks and balances, in performing their duties.

The courts don't rule on internal FCC procedures. They ruled on the constitutionality of the policy wich those procedures result in. A policy which existed without challenge for decades prior to Bush recinding it.

If the FCC did not have the legislative and executive authority to regulate the internet in this way, they should not be allowed to simply assume it. I firmly believe that it should follow the proper process.

The Federal Communications Commission doesn't have the authority to regulate internet communications?

They are an independent body empowered by Congress to regulate radio, tv and the internet; it's a totally arbitrary and infuriating decision.

There is nothing corrupt about requiring a legislative body elected by the people to actually enact laws before the government is allowed to assume power.

"Assume power"? Net Neutrality isn't new. It's the voiding out of net neutrality which was the new policy. But the "court" had no problem with the FCC voiding out Net Neutrality, only when they reinstituted it under a democratic administration that's unconstitutional ?

Likewise demanding a vote in congress is all well and good, except it violates decades of precident. Where is the moral outrage of legislating from the bench on this issue?

The ruling is idiotic, and fundimentally corrupt.

[greenspandan]

Larry, corps make money by satisfying consumer needs.

that is absurdly simplistic and naive. why not get rid of the FDA, and let consumers determine for themselves which restaurants and grocery stores buy from sanitary slaughterhouses. obviously, this will lead to safer, healthier food if the magical invisible hand of the market is left to do its thing.

the root desire of a company is not to please customers, it's to make money. sometimes, the best way to make money is to offer the most desirable product or service. very often this is not the case. what comcast wants to do here is of NO benefit to the consumer. in fact, the result is slower, less reliable, more expensive internet for the end user.

[Prosperity]

Well what I said is actually true of ANY gov't agency.

How do they know what's right

But yeah, the FCC sucks :censored:

maybe post something useful and not three empty posts in a row

[JMS]

maybe post something useful and not three empty posts in a row

The lawyer speaks...

Prosperity, have you read the ruling? What do you think of the legal basis of the courts decision here? Doesn't this ruling overturn decades of legal precident?

[techboy]

The lawyer speaks...

Prosperity is not an attorney, though Tulane Skins Fan is.