U.S. Court Strikes Down FCC's Internet Takeover (See You Later FCC)

ATR ^ | 4/6/10 | Kelly William Cobb

[Andrea19]

...[I]nstead of appropriately seeking Congressional approval, expect them to find a way to regulate the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act. This would put the Net under an outdated regulatory scheme designed for traditional phone lines, giving them a better shot of enacting Net Neutrality...

[jessduntno]

No. That’s what the 2nd Amendment is for.”

Heh heh...now, now...we don’t want to be threatening...they only want to turn you into a comrade...

[fireman15]

I am not sure how to feel about this. I definitely do not support government agencies such as the EPA and the FCC overstepping their bounds. This thing is being spun in a very deceptive way, and this article is a perfect example.

Unfortunately, in our area Comcast was granted a monopoly on cable internet by King County. In the outlying area where we live there essentially is no alternative to Comcast if one wants high speed internet access. Even if another company wanted to compete by laying there own fiber they would not be allowed to.

This lawsuit had absolutely nothing to do with squashing anti-Obama dissent, crowning Google, and demanding a rewrite of WoW Rules so they win every game. Comcast began throttling the connection speed of people using BitTorrent clients. The FCC asked them to stop and they did, but they sued challenging the FCC’s authority to keep them from throttling BitTorrent clients.

I don't use BitTorrent on a very often, but there are some legitimate purposes for BitTorrent. It is essentially a very decentralized file sharing protocol. This means if one wants to distribute information and materials in a way that cannot be easily “squashed” BitTorrent might be the best way to do it. For instance... if you had a video or audio recording of a very sensitive political nature and you set up a torrent and there is a good chance that it would be very difficult to shut it down. Unlike YouTube or other online video services where the video could be pulled literally in seconds.

In 2008 Comcast also ended their users Newsgroup access. In the case of Newsgroups however, one can subscribe to independent Newsgroup servers and still get access through Comcast.

My worry is that Comcast now basically has the green light to shut down NetFlix streaming video, High Definition Youtube and other online streaming video sources. They could also shut down Vonage and other Internet phone services. All of these compete directly with services provided for a fee through Comcast. It is only a matter of time...

This is a situation that is being spun in a way that is very disingenuous. The threat to free speech in this case is not from FCC regulators, but from a corporation that has been granted monopoly status in many areas by local governments.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Hit the road Julius. Youse boys don’t own these interwebs.

[BigSkyFreeper]

At some point, ISPs and phone companies have to share local switches, loops, etc...

There is no sharing on the internet.  If Fly-By-Night High Speed InterWeb wanted to get access to the wide area network (internet) and do so by going into the AT&T backbone, they have to pay AT&T just like a home user has to pay to actually get access to the net.   AT&T then charges Fly-By-Night monthly access fees.  AT&T isn't the only player, but they are one of the bigger ones.

Liberals, Communists, Marxists and anti-capitalist goof offs are all about "sharing" and "leveling the playing field".

[joe fonebone]

just dump them...it will be real easy once the beurocrats are out of the way ( sorry for my spelling, but I just had a brain freeze )

[ConservativeWarrior]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I’m genuinely interested.

If we wanted to get the FCC out of the communications regulation business, what would actually be required?

[BigSkyFreeper]

If we wanted to get the FCC out of the communications regulation business, what would actually be required?

I believe Congress has to make it lawful for the FCC to start regulating.  The FCC can regulate communications, but the legislation pre-dates cable TV, satellite TV, and internet.  Cell phones are covered under "wireless communications", which covers broadcast radio and two-way communications.

[DemonDeac]

“My worry is that Comcast now basically has the green light to shut down NetFlix streaming video, High Definition Youtube and other online streaming video sources. They could also shut down Vonage and other Internet phone services. All of these compete directly with services provided for a fee through Comcast. It is only a matter of time...”

Exactly. There is no question that you will see internet companies using this ruling as a way to go after competitors. It also won’t be long before some providers with agendas start to target political speech too.

[fireman15]

Thank you for the post. I have commented on this issue in several threads. In almost every case the vast majority here have reached knee jerk reaction based on misinformation. I am certain that Obama and Co. would love to shut down free speech on the Internet, but this was not what this case was all about. Unfortunately, when a company is granted a monopoly status by the government the free market is no longer able to influence that company's decision making process any further.

I believe that Comcast is already controlled by liberals. Last year during a “test” Comcast shut down access to every television channel I subscribe to for over 15 minutes while Obama was making a speech during the portion where he was chastising the congressman who called him a liar. The only channel available was one showing Obama’s speech. I commented on freerepublic about this along with numerous others. If I could switch from Comcast I would.