Net Neutrality Ruling

Post Reply
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 71059
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 58193
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.

The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.

Ummm....
It's not me, it's someone else.
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 71059
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

FreePress.net had their lawyer, Chris Riley, respond to the decision:
A federal appeals court ruled today that the FCC doesn't have the authority to protect Internet users. The decision means the agency can't stop Comcast from blocking Web traffic. It can't carry out the National Broadband Plan. It won't be able to safeguard Net Neutrality.

I’m a policy lawyer at Free Press. They don’t usually let me send you e-mails, but today is different. Let me explain how we got into this mess:

Two years ago, the FCC ruled that Comcast could not block online content, and Comcast challenged the ruling in court. Today, the court ruled in Comcast's favor, effectively placing the Internet in the hands of big phone and cable companies.

This decision exploits a loophole in current law — the result of overzealous deregulation by the Bush administration — that threatens Net Neutrality and leaves the FCC unable to achieve the crucial goals of the National Broadband Plan.

Thankfully, this FCC can correct its predecessors’ mistakes, reassert its authority, and close the loophole. (Get ready, this is a tad complicated.)

The FCC needs to “reclassify” broadband under the Communications Act. In 2002, the FCC decided to place broadband providers outside the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communications services, like phone companies.

That decision is what first put Net Neutrality in jeopardy, setting in motion the legal wrangling that now endangers the FCC's ability to protect our Internet rights.

But the good news is that the FCC still has the power to set things right, and to make sure the free and open Internet stays that way. And once we’ve done that, the FCC can ensure that Comcast can’t interfere with our communications, no matter the platform.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 58193
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

As much as I don't want comcast/twc/etc regulating my traffic, I dont like his attitude at all.

I just want more bandwidth, is that so wrong?
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

I do too, but I don't want to end up with less bandwidth for the same money, like Time Warner was pulling a year ago.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7564
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

TheCatt wrote:As much as I don't want comcast/twc/etc regulating my traffic, I dont like his attitude at all.

I just want more bandwidth, is that so wrong?
I mean, more bandwidth is important now.

But what about when Comast is throttling CNN(Foxnews) to load slower because they haven't received their check from Turner(Fox Broadcasting). It won't matter.
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 58193
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

384kbps up is the same damned Internet I had 10 years ago - wtf is wrong with you, Time Warner?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

TheCatt wrote:384kbps up is the same damned Internet I had 10 years ago - wtf is wrong with you, Time Warner?
Lack of competition.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Post Reply