Repercussions of court ruling against F.C.C. and Net Neutrality

[IOWA]

So you are anti monopoly but you don't think the government should be able to regulate companies? You can't have it both ways.

Regulation is needed on business practices, but not on what they do with their assets, (if that is understandable). Now something else I just thought of, if the isps used government subsidy to build out the network, then they would be subject to intervention until every dollar is paid back with stabdard interest. However if it was 100% their money, then they should be able to do what they want with their network.

 

[Hangdog42]

Ok anti monopoly I believe in! And if I you ate in am area that only has one broadband providerthen that should fall under some antimonoply clause.

]It is the company's network, so why should they not be able to do whatever they want with it.

So if the ISP is a monopoly they should be regulated, but if there is even the slightest bit of competition, they should be able to do exactly as they please? Who defines what competition is? Does the dial-up in my area count as competition for Comcast? I'm sure they would say that it does, but in my experience, the two aren't exactly interchangeable.

If you had a home network, (and you probably do) and for some reason you wanted to censor your sons line, or give certain priority of certain tasks. And the government said oh noo noo you can't do that. Would you still feel that is ok?

Apples and oranges. Rules that make sense to apply to corporations frequently make no sense to apply to families. Similarly, allowing certain behaviors in a family doesn't automatically mean it is right to allow corporations to do the same thing (recent Supreme Court rulings aside). Some behaviors are meaningless on a small scale (like censor you're son's internet) that are harmful to society when practiced on a large scale by a company.

 

[burton71]

Regulation is needed on business practices, but not on what they do with their assets, (if that is understandable).

Its not understandable because it is incorrect. An ISPs network is not only an asset but is also a major part of its business practice. The two are directly and completey connected.

 

[IOWA]

Its not understandable because it is incorrect. An ISPs network is not only an asset but is also a major part of its business practice. The two are directly and completey connected.

Umm no? I take it none of you have ever owned or ran a business. Fact is, courts ruled because the way they did because it was the right thing to do.

Monopolies are not allowed to exist. That has nothing to do with censorship in anyway, shape or form.

Apples and oranges. Rules that make sense to apply to corporations frequently make no sense to apply to families. Similarly, allowing certain behaviors in a family doesn't automatically mean it is right to allow corporations to do the same thing (recent Supreme Court rulings aside). Some behaviors are meaningless on a small scale (like censor you're son's internet) that are harmful to society when practiced on a large scale by a company.

Rules that "make sense" are subjective at least. To Hitler, exterminating jews "made sense"

So if the ISP is a monopoly they should be regulated, but if there is even the slightest bit of competition, they should be able to do exactly as they please? Who defines what competition is? Does the dial-up in my area count as competition for Comcast? I'm sure they would say that it does, but in my experience, the two aren't exactly interchangeable.

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE in the united states can get broadband via satellite. So your arguement is moot anyway.

see what i mean about the hypocrisy?
you seem to be perfectly fine with all the stripping of rights that have occured so far, so why not this one? you do realize society would ultimately benefit from it? not just "semi-socialist people" like me

There is a difference between monopoly & price fixing vs what a company does with their property.

again with the stupified metaphors, i thought you were past this - i'm not falling victim to this idiocy again

The only idiocy here is people feeling the companies should operate how they see fit. If you want a company to operate your way, become a major shareholder. Otherwise, just accept it.

what does grammar have to do with a discussion in a written medium?
was that a rhetorical question?

People who cite grammar as an excuse for invalidity of a post are grasping at straws, for a variety of reasons.

sorry, i don't often do that, but judging by what i've seen, even if it's not your first language, you obviously know it well enough to form cohesive sentences
so when i see stuff like "And if I you ate in am area", i can only conclude that you're not really paying attention (also evidenced by the fact that you usually miss the point of most posts)

Sorry, my phone's autocorrect doesn't work well enough for you. I see your "points", and your "points" are wrong, both ethically and legally (Stateside)

So you are anti monopoly but you don't think the government should be able to regulate companies? You can't have it both ways.

There are different kinds of regulation. To lump them all in the same category just doesn't fit the bill.


EDIT: Ok, here's an interesting article.

I've said it before in this thread, the FTC needs to be involved, not the FCC.

This should come as no surprise, given that the court indicated this a few months back, but it's now official that the FCC has no power to mandate net neutrality or to punish Comcast (even with a gentle wrist slap) for its traffic shaping practices. Lots of people seem upset by this, but they should not be. This is the right decision. The FCC was clearly going beyond its mandate, as it has no mandate to regulate the internet in this manner. In fact, what amazed us throughout this whole discussion was that it was the same groups that insisted the FCC had no mandate over the broadcast flag, that suddenly insisted it did have a mandate over net neutrality. You can't have it both ways (nor should you want to). Even if you believe net neutrality is important, allowing the FCC to overstep its defined boundaries is not the best way to deal with it. So for those of you upset by this ruling, look at it a little more closely, and be happy that the FCC has been held back from expanding its own mandate. Otherwise, the next time the FCC tried to do something like the broadcast flag or suddenly decided it could enforce "three strikes," you'd have little argument.

That doesn't mean that Comcast should get off free for its actions. It should still be punished -- but by the FTC, rather than the FCC -- for misleading its customers about what type of service they were getting, and what the limitations were on those services. As for the FCC, if it really wants a more neutral net, it should focus on making sure that there's real competition in the market, rather than just paying lip service to the idea in its broadband plan.

Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing) | Techdirt

 

[Caloy]

Okay I'm back from work. Came in late because of this thread.... LOL!

IOWA, let's say Comcast and Apple became partners (sort of like AT&T and Apple). And in their dealings, Comcast will restrict anything that is a competition of Apple, like Android! Any site promoting Android, Comcast restrict, do you think it's still their right to do so? How about they restrict any site form competitors like AT&T Uverse, so that you cannot apply online if you don't like their service. Where is the line that says that they do not have the right to do such things? Based on your reasoning, there is no line and that they can pretty much do anything they want.

Again, I don't subscribe to your point of view.

 

[IOWA]

Okay I'm back from work. Came in late because of this thread.... LOL!

IOWA, let's say Comcast and Apple became partners (sort of like AT&T and Apple). And in their dealings, Comcast will restrict anything that is a competition of Apple, like Android! Any site promoting Android, Comcast restrict, do you think it's still their right to do so? How about they restrict any site form competitors like AT&T Uverse, so that you cannot apply online if you don't like their service. Where is the line that says that they do not have the right to do such things? Based on your reasoning, there is no line and that they can pretty much do anything they want.

Again, I don't subscribe to your point of view.

That is covered under antitrust law.

Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine....
Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."
The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended, though Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's federal government sued 45 companies, and William Taft used it against 75. The Clayton Act of 1914 was passed to supplement the Sherman Act. Specific categories of abusive conduct were listed, including price discrimination(section 2), exclusive dealings (section 3) and mergers which substantially lessen competition (section 7). Section 6 exempted trade unions from the law's operation. Both the Sherman and Clayton acts are now codified under Title 15 of the United States Code.
Since the mid-1970s, courts and enforcement officials generally have supported view that antitrust law policy should not follow social and political aims that undermine economic efficiency.[33] The antitrust laws were minimalized in the mid-1980s under influence of Chicago school of economics and blamed for the loss of economic supremacy in the world.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

After thinking about this for a second, wireless carriers should be subject to this law too. I've heard rumors of pending lawsuits. Apple/Att would be in a world of hurt.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Edit: about the association thing, you can remove yourself from any association at will. It can be complecated, if you lived on shared property, I.e. condo or townhome, but it can be done. If you own your property, there not much an association can do to you. In fact, you can file restraining orders on any member of the association should you please.

OK, going off topic for a second since it is already out there.

If you believe this you really are very naive!

Associations can and do dictate what goes on with the property you own and can even foreclose on your home for failure to pay dues or flagrant violations and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. When you move in you sign the agreement or you don't get to move in, it's that simple.

 

[IOWA]

OK, going off topic for a second since it is already out there.

If you believe this you really are very naive!

Associations can and do dictate what goes on with the property you own and can even foreclose on your home for failure to pay dues or flagrant violations and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. When you move in you sign the agreement or you don't get to move in, it's that simple.

Like I said, there are ways of getting things done. You might(probably) have to get your hands dirty, but it CAN be done. I've gotten a two friends out of BS associations. With a bit of brain power, a little money, and a gun (just kidding lol) you can get anything you want. Although, I will admit, it takes a certain kind of person to do this kind of thing. That being said, if you dislike HOA's see below.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Cruzader/petition.html

You are almost never powerless. Sometimes you have to bend, or break the law, but it can be done.

 

[Caloy]

If that's covered in the anti-trust law, then businesses can't really do what they want to do even if they own the network.

 

[IOWA]

Ok i just have to post this now. This is my favorite rifle. I have the matching pistol too.

 

[Caloy]

[OFFTOPIC] LOL! Now you're hijacking the thread. But on that note, I think it's too futuristic for me. But with futuristic looking rifles I like the IMI Tavor. Same manufacturers that made the Uzi. [/OFFTOPIC]

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Joe's ISP is going to charge widgets.com X amount of dollars for having more bandwidth allocated so customers can view their website quicker and easier. Problem is, Ray's ISP wants to do the same, as does Bob's, Ted's, etc. Widgets.com is fortunate to be able to afford it, but doohickeys.com can't even though their products are far superior. Doohickeys.com is forced into Chapter 11 trying to compete on an un-level playing field due to a practice some bean counter came up with as another way to make money that was not part of the original business plan and is most assuredly unethical, if not illegal.

Now, don't forget, this is in addition to the rates being charged to the ISP's customers that continue to go up. These rates are what has been the standard means of income for the ISP's since day one, and now they want to charge you and the content provider.

Add to this some of them want to control the content you are able to view, which is patently wrong. They set up shop as an internet service provider, not an internet service regulator; see the difference?

Now, if the ISP's were all hurting and posting huge losses every quarter it might be understandable, but they are not. In fact, they are making money quite nicely, so the argument about cost of infrastructure they claim is behind this doesn't hold water.

I keep hearing entitlement this and entitlement that, show me where some jerk is entitled to make 25, 50, 100 million, a billion or more A YEAR, but that company can claim they are hurting financially and have to raise prices to cover expenses. This is the real joke being played on America.

So now we have gotten to the real problem at hand, greed. It has nothing to do with just and fair profit for use of equipment, it has to do with lining pockets. And yes, I do own a business, and would never dream of accepting a salary like that. There is not a single person on this planet that does a job worth that much pay, period.

To cut the inevitable argument off at the path, if you can build your wealth through ownership, development, sales, etc. there is nothing wrong with that, you built it and earned it. You build 20 car dealerships from the ground up, more power to you, but there is not a salaried position worth that kind of money. And that is what this extra income is going to pay for.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Ok i just have to post this now. This is my favorite rifle. I have the matching pistol too.

I'll take a PS90 over that any day, and will soon, already carry a Fiveseven!

 

[IOWA]

Joe's ISP is going to charge widgets.com X amount of dollars for having more bandwidth allocated so customers can view their website quicker and easier. Problem is, Ray's ISP wants to do the same, as does Bob's, Ted's, etc. Widgets.com is fortunate to be able to afford it, but doohickeys.com can't even though their products are far superior. Doohickeys.com is forced into Chapter 11 trying to compete on an un-level playing field due to a practice some bean counter came up with as another way to make money that was not part of the original business plan and is most assuredly unethical, if not illegal.

Now, don't forget, this is in addition to the rates being charged to the ISP's customers that continue to go up. These rates are what has been the standard means of income for the ISP's since day one, and now they want to charge you and the content provider.

Add to this some of them want to control the content you are able to view, which is patently wrong. They set up shop as an internet service provider, not an internet service regulator; see the difference?

Now, if the ISP's were all hurting and posting huge losses every quarter it might be understandable, but they are not. In fact, they are making money quite nicely, so the argument about cost of infrastructure they claim is behind this doesn't hold water.

I keep hearing entitlement this and entitlement that, show me where some jerk is entitled to make 25, 50, 100 million, a billion or more A YEAR, but that company can claim they are hurting financially and have to raise prices to cover expenses. This is the real joke being played on America.

So now we have gotten to the real problem at hand, greed. It has nothing to do with just and fair profit for use of equipment, it has to do with lining pockets. And yes, I do own a business, and would never dream of accepting a salary like that. There is not a single person on this planet that does a job worth that much pay, period.

To cut the inevitable argument off at the path, if you can build your wealth through ownership, development, sales, etc. there is nothing wrong with that, you built it and earned it. You build 20 car dealerships from the ground up, more power to you, but there is not a salaried position worth that kind of money. And that is what this extra income is going to pay for.

About all that up there, see antitrust law.

As for the bottom paragraph, agreed.

 

[mrqs]

You are almost never powerless. Sometimes you have to bend, or break the law, but it can be done.

brilliant, then you won't mind if there are laws to enforce net neutrality, you can always just break them

There is a difference between monopoly & price fixing vs what a company does with their property.

there's a lot more to abusing a monopoly than price fixing, including stuff they do with their property

There are different kinds of regulation. To lump them all in the same category just doesn't fit the bill.

you've many times said that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want - those comments include all of the kinds of regulation in the same category

I've said it before in this thread, the FTC needs to be involved, not the FCC.

i couldn't care less who's involved - i don't know anything about the ftc nor the fcc - i just know there should be oversight by some independent organization who have the authority to enforce net neutrality



you obviously see that there are problems which need a solution - you say competition is that solution, but you haven't addressed these points in any way:

competition isn't just magically going to appear even if you close your eyes and wish really really hard; especially in a field like internet service providers

and even if there was competition, believing that those companies wouldn't make deals with each other to screw the customers over is fairly naive

point is, i don't believe competition to be a viable solution, because there's never going to be enough competition in this field

 

[IOWA]

brilliant, then you won't mind if there are laws to enforce net neutrality, you can always just break them


there's a lot more to abusing a monopoly than price fixing, including stuff they do with their property


you've many times said that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want - those comments include all of the kinds of regulation in the same category


i couldn't care less who's involved - i don't know anything about the ftc nor the fcc - i just know there should be oversight by some independent organization who have the authority to enforce net neutrality



you obviously see that there are problems which need a solution - you say competition is that solution, but you haven't addressed these points in any way:

point is, i don't believe competition to be a viable solution, because there's never going to be enough competition in this field

Certain laws need to be broken. For instance, the seat belt law. If you are an adult, who is the government to tell you what risks to take with your life. That law was created for insurance companies. Besides, people do much more dangerous things than not wear a seat belt wether br for workand/or play.

Competition is the answer, but we need a viable way to introduce competition into play. What the governemnt can do, is offer substantial tax break, grants to new companies, etc. Also with the emergence of new 4g wireless networks over the next few years, that will introduce competition. As wireless speeds improve, it will become more and more of an option for home internet. Within the next ten years, I. Suspect wireless speeds with match or even surpass todays wired speeds. For most people, that will work just fine.

What we don't need, is government agencies overstepping their bounds. Its called checks and balences.

 

[Hangdog42]

Competition is the answer, but we need a viable way to introduce competition into play. What the governemnt can do, is offer substantial tax break, grants to new companies, etc

Already been done. See any new players? Building out networks is a hugely expensive business, like building roads or roads, sewers, electric transmissions lines, etc. Network access should be a regulated utility like Ma Bell used to be.

Also with the emergence of new 4g wireless networks over the next few years, that will introduce competition. As wireless speeds improve, it will become more and more of an option for home internet.

Sure it will be more of an option for home internet, but guess what, it is controlled by the same players. Due to the fact that the government auctioned off the spectrum, only huge, wealthy companies could afford to buy. And those are pretty much the same huge, wealthy companies offering wired internet service. Believe me, Verizon Wireless isn't going to compete in any meaningful way with FIOS.

I take it none of you have ever owned or ran a business. Fact is, courts ruled because the way they did because it was the right thing to do.

For the record, yes I do own a business and have for several years. Starting a new one too. Was the court right to not allow the FCC to regulate the Internet. Maybe. Since the internet didn't really exist at the time the FCC was created, the laws are vague. However, the courts have ruled, so the best option is to make sure that some agency has the authority to enforce net neutrality regulations. Congress needs to act soon.

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE in the united states can get broadband via satellite. So your arguement is moot anyway.

LOOOOOOOOOOOLLLL!!!! I can tell you've never had to use satellite. It makes dial-up look good. There is a reason nobody really uses it.

Rules that "make sense" are subjective at least. To Hitler, exterminating jews "made sense"

Invoking Hitler is a sure sign of someone at a complete loss. Too bad, you seem pretty sharp otherwise. In case you hadn't noticed, companies in all industries are subject to laws and regulations that don't apply to individuals. That is largely because companies are driven entirely by profit motive and unless there are some regulations in place, will behave in manners that are very destructive to society. Take a look at what Wall Street did. In the name of profit, they came closer than any foreign country ever has at completely destroying the US. Why do you think there are so many anti-pollution regulations? Because polluting is frequently the cheapest way to get rid of waste. Clean air and drinkable water have no meaning to a company. You can't put those on a balance sheet.

What we don't need, is government agencies overstepping their bounds. Its called checks and balences.

What we do need is proper regulation of what should be a public utility. The only reason we're in this pickle is because a bunch of morons thought that competition is always the answer to everything. They never understood that some markets are natural monopolies no matter what tax breaks are offered and therefore need to be treated as utilities.

 

[burton71]

Umm no? I take it none of you have ever owned or ran a business.

I have been running my own business for 15 years. WHich is why I know that the ISPs network is not truly their own asset because of the BILLIONS of dollars in government subsidies they recieve. And that is, partly, why this is a huge gray area.

Fact is, courts ruled because the way they did because it was the right thing to do.

And it will be challenged or the ability to regulate (or prevent regulation for that matter) will be passed on to another agency (FTC, DOJ, etc...)

Monopolies are not allowed to exist. That has nothing to do with censorship in anyway, shape or form.

It has to do with anti-competitive behavior in the market place.

I'm pretty sure EVERYONE in the united states can get broadband via satellite. So your arguement is moot anyway.

Compare prices and performance of the two. If this ruling stands it will only make it worse and less competitive.

I've said it before in this thread, the FTC needs to be involved, not the FCC.

Both the FCC and FTC should be involved. The easiest thing to do would be to simply reclassify ISPs as Title 2 service. Making ISPs basically "dumb pipes". This would make it a truly competitive marketplace unlike the government-granted "natural monopolies" that we have today and they would fall squarely under the FCC controls.

 

[Caloy]

OH GOD! I hope I won't be late again today. I'm already late *sigh*.

I'll make this quick! I hope the Supreme Court Overturns the Court of Appeals ruling.

Now I need to go... Cya tonight!

 

[IOWA]

Making Internet Access is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Seriously. Utilities are a necessity. You don't need internet to live. Classifiing ISP as a utility would be downright ******ed. We gonna make cable TV a utility as well?\


And yes, refering to Hitler really means your at a "loss"

I'm still trying to figure out how you came up with that one.

 

[kamk2k8]

Wow this got heated, let me just jump in the ring for a second...

As far as the internet being a "right", well I tend to think rights are fluid concepts that should evolve as a society evolves.

Simply because the internet has not existed since the beginning of time is not sufficient justification to imply it is not a necessary utility to function as a part of mainstream society in 2010.

No, it's not oxygen, but if phone lines are considered a utility to be protected by the FCC, then the internet most certainly should as its function and prevalence have eclipsed that of simple LAN lines and will continue to widen that margin as we move forward.

In sum, it's basically a method to exercise our freedom of speech, even if it is being largely done on this unprecedented medium it should still be available and not preferentially allocated to the most affluent

Also consider: gigantic corporations actually do not have our best interests in mind, rather their attention is focused on the bottom line, at all costs, even if that cost is the consumer.

 

[mrqs]

Making Internet Access [a utility] is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Seriously. Utilities are a necessity. You don't need internet to live. Classifiing ISP as a utility would be downright ******ed. We gonna make cable TV a utility as well?

you might wanna look up the meaning of the word utility

none of the things classified as utilities are a necessity and you certainly don't need them to live - they are a public convinience
List of public utilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
note of interest: a telephone line is a utility - you figure internet is a big stretch from that?

 

[burton71]

Making Internet Access is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Seriously. Utilities are a necessity. You don't need internet to live. Classifiing ISP as a utility would be downright ******ed. We gonna make cable TV a utility as well?

Explain why a company like Verizon can have cable, internet, and TV all run through the same physical network and the government should, in your opinion, only be able to regulate two of the services?

 

[Hangdog42]

Making Internet Access is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Seriously. Utilities are a necessity. You don't need internet to live. Classifiing ISP as a utility would be downright ******ed. We gonna make cable TV a utility as well?\

Are you friggin serious? The Internet is no longer a luxury and hasn't been for a long time. No, you don't need it to live like you need food and water, but it is as critical to the functioning of the economy as electricity and roads. Businesses all over the country use it to cut costs and offer services that are otherwise impracticable. In the case of my own businesses, I use the Internet every single day. For consulting it allows me to hold vidoconferences and avoid the massive costs associated with travel. This allows me to charge my customers less. They get the same service for cheaper.They're happy. In another business I offer online training and it allows customers to do the training at their own pace and at their own time. I guarantee that business would not exist if I had to travel and do it live because it would be prohibitively expensive.

According to the Census Bureau, e-commerce between businesses in 2007 amounted to about $3 trillion (yes, trillion) dollars, which is about one-third of all B-B commerce. Sales to consumers amounted to about $251 billion. And those are just measurable sales. When you factor in cost savings like I mentioned above, the impact on the economy is absolutely staggering.

Yeah, tell me how unnecessary the Internet is and why a small number of companies should be allowed to do as they want with the economy. And you accuse me of not having any business smarts.

 

[mrqs]

none of the things classified as utilities are a necessity and you certainly don't need them to live - they are a public convinience

just realized i should probably clarify that a bit before iowa makes a remark about needing water to live and ignores every valid point made since his last visit like usual - the utility is the plumbing getting running water in to your house, without which you'd still have access to drinking water