Sure, the FCC boss promises they won’t do all sorts of terrible things for us users, but what about his successor?

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was initially deemed a blow to the principles of an open Internet and to attempts by the Federal Communications Commission to enforce them. But the simple truth is that last week’s decision marked a big victory for the FCC.

The reason: While the court deemed that the FCC’s Open Internet rules were based on faulty logic, it gave the agency a blueprint to revise its argument so that the rules would stick. More importantly, the court sided with the FCC over the argument of whether the agency even has the authority from Congress to regulate the Internet.
[…]
since the court’s decision, it’s crystal clear: the FCC and even local public utility commissions can now impose regulations on the Internet, overriding any local or state laws that may forbid such regulation.



  1. deowll says:

    “the FCC and even local public utility commissions can now impose regulations on the Internet, overriding any local or state laws that may forbid such regulation.”

    So the Internet service providers spent millions to get that ruling? That’s what I call a huge ouch!

  2. Seditiously subverting silly scenarios scabrously says:

    I’m deep into my first six pack…..but whats the issue here?

    The Gubment BY DEFINITION is “responsible” for what the internettubes do–whether by default “doing nothing” or whatever they impose by their whore masters. It can be no other way.

    So…………..the rot has begun. All frontiers are developed this way.

    All frontiers.

    Pros and Cons.

    VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE. (It “should” lessen the fraud brought on by long relationships established over time. If some D-Bag is only going to be there for 2 or 6 years, how much money should the RICH actually give them? THEN===VOTE AGAINST REVOLVING DOOR POSERS)

    The future is so bright, I gotta find an extra large barf bag.

  3. STFU says:

    Hey Uncle Dave! You seem to have missed the point here.

    The court ruling now gives the ISP’s the freedom to throttle or even turn off anyone’s connection for pretty much any reason. This will also allow an ISP to charge companies like Netflix a fee for basically (competing and) trying to provide a better entertainment experience. Even better (worse for you and me), it will give these ISP’s a reason to charge even more money to their Internet subscribers for essentially rights to twist a few more arms too. And as a side note, try taking a wild guess what companies like Netflix are going to do if they have to pay an extortion fee to someone like Comcast. Point is, any hope of anything resembling net “neutrality” is now in serious danger with this ruling.

    You remember what an ISP is, don’t you? Those horrible cable and phone providers who benevolently give us capped and horribly over priced (low speed) connections to a network that our tax dollars helped build. The very same guys who couldn’t find their ass with both hands unless there were large pools of money involved. Ya! Those guys.

    Try reading the following article before you sound any more stupid on this: http://wired.com/opinion/2014/01/one-talking-comes-net-neutrality/

    • Captain Obvious says:

      Excellent article. Wired has really brought their game up in the last year.

  4. Traaxx says:

    I’m kinda of between a hard point and a rock, I believe the internet should be treated similar to newspapers and magazines, and without any regulation as to content.

    Again, I really don’t like the idea of being charged per bit, the internet is not the power company and is more like the cable company, which again doesn’t charge you per the bit, but does charge you for different packages. Cable is the current pricing arrangement we have and is the only really acceptable model.

    You can not really deal with a lot different tolls on what you do on the internet. Imagine watching a NetFlix movie and then getting a bill added on to your ISP for $4 in addition to the movie rental. And remember this would be variable and would change depending upon which movie or service you used, unless you choose the service your ISP pushed. There really isn’t any choice as far as regulation of the ISP and providers, but the trick will be to keep freedom of speech active.

    Whatever………………………………………………………………………………..
    Traaxx

    • Data Dude says:

      You really need to educate yourself on how the Internet works. Because cable service is not even close to the same thing. Therefore, cable and Internet pricing should not use same standards (which is what you seem to be saying).

      Think of the Internet like a flea market (which is what we call them around here) where you are charged an entrance fee just to go shop. After you have purchased your ticket(s) they (the ticket sellers) are done with you. And the people selling you those tickets have no say in what you buy or even what you do. (Although there are laws to consider since if you go in waving/shooting a gun around or even just waving your junk around that’s a little different. But even those scenarios could be compared to some of the bad flea market sellers like the Pirate Bay or someone who didn’t pay a sellers fee and set up a stand anyway.)

      Now, think of the place where this flea market was built and consider this little tidbit of information when comparing the fictitious flea market example to the Internet: your tax dollars helped build it! But is it even fair when we are charged more for what we do at this flea market like go to a corner somewhere or even stand at the entrance and speak to people? I say, hell NO!

      Even the flea market ticket sellers use the money to help maintain the fair grounds. But our ISP’s do almost nothing for what they charge. (Remember, I said almost since to be fair, they do have data centers to maintain. Although, if you care to make the argument, I would suggest first looking at tech giants like Google and Amazon!) And let’s not forget that these ISP’s are already bringing the wires to your home/business for other reasons like cable TV and/or phone services. In fact, it costs them almost nothing to simply add one more service on those lines – Internet Access! These ISP’s don’t even provide the majority of the equipment we use either. Want proof? Then answer this: do you own your own modem or are you leasing one from your ISP? That’s your proof!

      Quite simply, your tax dollars didn’t help build a way to access the Internet. And that’s where these ticket sellers come in – our wonderful ISP’s who happen to also own a great big mall of full of shops which happen to also compete with those little tiny flea market people.

      Do you see a problem here? Would you say there’s a conflict of interest maybe?!

      So to bring this example full circle, what has just happened with this “net neutrality” thing is that those ticket sellers (the ISP’s) are now able to search each and every customer who goes to the flea market. These ticket sellers can now act like un badged cops and charge even more money depending on what they find you doing, what you buy, or even who you decide to talk to! And let’s not forget that these ticket sellers (the ISP’s) are already charging a bogus charge based on each person’s weight analogous to the data caps.

      It’s sucks! And I’ am amazed that a tech guru like John C. Dvorak isn’t out there with pitch fork and torch with the rest of us.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        The ISPs have an incentive to produce faster speeds and more products. Why would Comcast bother to produce OnDemand services if they can just keep charging more and more?

        I for one would like an ISP to provide filtering to weed out pornographic sites. Hopefully it won’t snatch up Dvorak.org, though I have heard at least one site has done so.

      • Traaxx says:

        Well, you’re wrong about the Tax Dollars and the Internet. While some of the backbone networks are privately funded, the entire system was created by DoD which most be people are aware of. Today, again, many of the rural areas are being connected not by privately funded ventures, but by Government funded initiatives ( there isn’t enough profit supposedly for private companies to connect the rural areas – more corporate welfare ).

        Now each “Flea Market Vendor” (stupid analogy) already pays a price to be connected to the Internet. Why should I pay again for each byte that I use? I’m sure just like the electric bill there would be no scalping by private ventures – you remember Verizon charging a Federal Access fee which wasn’t mandated and they ended being sued to refund ( of course you probably see no problem with this )? The companies get fees already that provide a profit and allow them to operate the backbones and ISPs, or else they would have gone out of business already. The byte fee or charging extra to connect someone else on another network is just another way for private companies can rem us out of more money without provide one byte of extra service – free welfare provided by the people of the United States to a bunch of Robber Barons………you little brainless dip :(

        Whatever…………………………………………………………

        Traaxx

  5. MikeN says:

    So now the government wants to claim ISPs are like phone companies.

    • Traaxx says:

      Since most ISPs are also into the phone business, this seems a little logical :(

  6. dusanmal says:

    Most people here repeat the same mistakes majority of public makes, not thinking this through:
    1) This particular Court decision is good as it overturns one of the most horrific and dangerous regulations ever regarding Internet. Anything else is better. Why? Read the text of the overturned regulation. In it Government LIMITS freedom of internet with undefined legal terms: “Legal content, legal services, legal devices,…”. The biggest danger always lies with poorly defined terms. Examples: say, FCC regulation held and some future President, equally adept at having a pen, for political reason decides that “legal content” is only what originates within USA (or any other arbitrary term) – instant, legal, binding “Firewall of China”; or that or another pen-happy president bent on “security” makes executive order that only “legal devices” are those with built-in NSA backdoor – instant, legal, binding Orwellian society; or yet another Executor in Chief bribed by Google bans all other Internet services,… You at least theoretically can fight ISPs via free market response. You can’t fight Governmental slaughter of NetNeutrality.

    Summarized: You can’t allow Government such latitude, it must be first bound by “negative rights”.

    2) Yes, Court have left barn yard doors wide open but organized action to get true NetNeutrality couldn’t have asked for a better political moment to apply the pressure. Elections. Both parties in crisis, not daring to be counter-popular. Go act and demand of your politicians true and proper solution for real NetNeutrality. One that is not left to ISP dogs to feed on nor is in a Government back pocket.

    Blueprint for true solution:

    -Constitutional definition of all Internet traffic as expression of free speech that can’t be suppressed, obstructed, modified, limited,… As such Constitutional ban BOTH for Government and business to regulate, meddle with, treat unevenly any part of Internet traffic. That is the only real solution. Ban on regulation, not regulation. Only under this definition, if you provide Internet access you provide access to free speech – no one can pick and choose.

    • Traaxx says:

      Mostly, I agree that the internet should be treated like paper publications without government censorship…..any government censorship. If you’re stupid enough to allow you “Child” online when they should either be outside or studying math, English, etc then you get what you deserve we shouldn’t be punished by free speech restriction for your responsibility, (get off the couch and see what you “Child” is doing). :(

      Whatever……………………………………………………………………
      Traaxx

  7. Captain Obvious says:

    Great pic. Love that song.