MW: Court rejects FCC rules on Internet

[Prosperity]

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?

I have no knowledge of the law nor our legal system, ask me again later

[JMS]

I have no knowledge of the law nor our legal system, ask me again later

Sorry I got you confused with Pridicto... my bad..

[Predicto]

Sorry I got you confused with Pridicto... my bad..

Naw, I'm the handsome one.

[Larry]

Larry, corps make money by satisfying consumer needs.

Really?

You mean, for example, that "planned obsolescence" has never existed?

But again, as I pointed out a few times, here:

When it is impossible for the consumer to tell who is degrading his connection (or even if it's being degraded), and it's impossible for the consumer to chose who handles his connection, (so, even if he knew that Acme was screwing him, he can't say "don't use Acme for this connection"), then competition is impossible.

Imagine a situation: There are multiple telephone companies in your town. All of them are competing for your business.

However, the very design of the telephone system mandates that every long distance call you make is handled by a randomly-selected long distance carrier. In fact, it's handled by a dozen long-distance carriers, every one if which is required, by the design of the system to be selected randomly. (In fact, to make it a better analogy, the system requires that the random choosing of carriers must happen every minute or so, throughout your call.)

Now imagine, that every one of these long distance carriers as successfully obtained the right to selectively and intentionally hand out crummy connections to people, or to simply refuse to connect them at all. (And, to generate false reasons for refusing to do so. To, say, tell you that the number's busy, without even attempting to connect you. Or to simply tell you that the other party hung up, when he didn't.)

How reliable is your long distance telephone system, in that scenario?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

That's wrong. The courts do have the power to rule on internal FCC procedures, if rules and regulations do not do what Congress has empowered them to do.

Court's show a lot of deference to rulemaking of administrative agencies, but courts do not turn a blind eye to them, and do retain checks and balances over them.

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.

I don't know what the FCC Act states in regards to the internet. Its not as easy as you make it sound though.

However, Congress and the executive branch can certainly empower them to do so.

"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.

There's nothing fundamentally corrupt about it. You seem to be thinking that the FCC can do whatever it wants in regards to the internet. That's just not true. There are steps that need to be followed before the FCC can regulate anything. Bicameralism, legislative authority, rulemaking power, all must be considered.

It sounds like the Court did. And it sounds like you don't like the result.

But I stress, that if this is that bad, there are ways to expand the FCC's jurisdiction on the internet.

[ACW]

To, say, tell you that the number's busy, without even attempting to connect you. Or to simply tell you that the other party hung up, when he didn't.)

How reliable is your long distance telephone system, in that scenario?

In that scenario, we're talking about fraud, which IS illegal.

[greenspandan]

behold, the future! (as envisioned by the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia)

[Larry]

In that scenario, we're talking about fraud, which IS illegal.

And yet, the way these companies right now are deliberately cutting off customers they don't like, is by generating fake packets which claim to be from the other end of the connection, closing the connection, and by discarding packets without attempting to forward them.

That's why it isn't competition, and can't be fought using normal market rules. The consumer can't tell who dumped on him. (And can't select another carrier, even if he did know who dumped on him.)

All the consumer knows is "connection terminated".

[Veretax]

Saw this the other day, and I never thought of it before, but he's right. If you get the government involved in regulating the internet it is only inevitable before political concerns become involved. So I agree let the market set this stuff. Its better than letting big brother get bigger hands in your pockets.

[NewCliche21]

Saw this the other day, and I never thought of it before, but he's right. If you get the government involved in regulating the internet it is only inevitable before political concerns become involved. So I agree let the market set this stuff. Its better than letting big brother get bigger hands in your pockets.

It is impossible to read anything like the highlighted sentence and take the post in which it was found seriously at the same time.