Didn't.... Take long for this to happen. We all seen this before and I've been saying it all along.
Re: Didn't.... This story is good reading for those who've been mercilessly criticizing the FCC for the weak Net Neutrality rules. You have to remember they only have a knife to bring to the gunfight. They only have as much authority as Congress has given to them in the Communications Act. It's not unlimited. They've already had previous attempts against Comcast struck down by the courts. And the current Congress certainly ain't gonna give them more regulatory authority.
Re: Didn't.... Uh... if they just reclassified telecom under Title II, they'd have the authority to do whatever the heck they want.
Re: Didn't.... Yea, and until/unless they do that, they're severely limited. Do you think they ever would? Politically I don't think they could get away with it.
It may just be me, but... Net neutrality seems like the wrong argument to have. I think the right approach is to not allow vertical integration. That is, a company that provides voice, data, or TV service needs to be treated as a common carrier. They must provide the 'dumb pipe' and let others provide the service over that pipe. This will spawn innovation and deliver on the communications promise. As it is, each vendor is spending scarce resources on not being a 'dumb pipe'.
I do not see how Net Neutrality can deliver this. Vertically integrated companies (say Comcast/NBC) can be forced to treat all sources equally. But, they have no incentive to innovate. Just look at the STBs that TV providers produce compared to any other consumer electronic device.
| |ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
Re: It may just be me, but... exactly. they should either maintain and improve infrastructure or provide the information that is going across it. Not both.
| || I guess I view this a little bit differently. First of all without being able to overcharge customers and show a significant profit stream where will we see innovation in the actual pipes? Why will a company roll out new fiber or upgrade existing networks if they don't think they can make tremendous profits off them. Its the huge cost barriers for entry that prevents real competition.|
Think of any of the turn of the century robber barons and how their massive initial investments built the systems that were eventually broken up(steal, railroads, ect.) The real question I have is are we ready for the breakup yet? I don't think so.
| |HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968.Premium
this is funny. they help the FCC write the laws then sue them over it. is this whole charade ever going to stop? nope.
welcome to the United States of Corporate America.
"Oh no. This is Earth, isn't it." - Thor
Looks like Verizon is more concerned about what the FCC may do in the future based on the FCC claims of regulatory authority than they are about the new rules just promulgated. This is a preemptive strike against the FCC by challenging their rights under the law to do anything regarding the Internet.
Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves
The ISPs have been successful in the past in court challenging specific rulings. But this time they are asking the court to strike down a regulatory agency's right to even issue rules. It will be much harder to get a court to issue such a ruling. But it will have the effect of putting the FCC on the defensive for the next year or 2 and may prevent them from issuing more rules in the meantime. That then gives the ISPs time to lobby Congress to limit FCC power over the internet.
Re: Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves The Courts have already told the FCC they have no power to control the Internet. the problem is the FCC does NOT listen. Congress needs to slap the FCC and tell them they need to start doing what they were created for to regulate the public airwaves for public radio. NOT the Internet.
Re: Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves
said by hottboiinnc:I guess you haven't read what Congress wrote in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and before that in the 1934 Communications Act that created the FCC. They gave the FCC far more authority than just over the public airwaves. It pretty much covers the whole sphere of communications. They just happen to have limited authority over "information services" like ISP's.
Congress needs to slap the FCC and tell them they need to start doing what they were created for to regulate the public airwaves for public radio. NOT the Internet.
Re: Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves So are you saying that the FCC is above Congress and the courts?
Saint Louis, MO
Why rock the boat? With the rules being so incredibly lax, I am wondering why they are rocking the boat. If it does get struck down then congress will have to act. While congress is paid well enough they may (if a big stink gets raised, think TW cap/overage thing a couple of years ago) actually do something meaningful. I am surprised that they are taking the risk.
Re: Why rock the boat? To ensure the FCC can't move the line or toughen the rules in the future.
Saint Louis, MO
Re: Why rock the boat? Yeah, but they could make the same challenge then (after they actually made them do something) as they are making now. Right now they are not being made to do anything, but if they fight this some regulations MIGHT be put in place that does actually make them do something. Risk/reward thing. Occasionally congress will actually do something if a big enough stink is raised. Net neutrality has been in front of people long enough now that people(regular people not just us) are starting to ask why no one has dealt with it.
What about blocking DNS addresses? Discovered this morning with my new Verizon DSL line, all the non-Verizon DNS addresses won't work.
Calling the kettle mauve, huh?
Actually a good thing I actually see this as a good thing in that perhaps it will force the FCC's hand at having broadband re-classified.
Re: Actually a good thing I like how you think
Actually the FCC has the weapon! It's really simple. Rather than bend over backwards trying to give carriers 90% of what they want by avoiding fully using the Communications Act for what it was meant for, just use it fully. Define Verizon and AT&T and Comcast etc as common carriers complete with full regulation and line-sharing requirements for copper, coax, fiber, and wireless!
Its not regulation, its simply the law. The challenges that the FCC keeps losing are because the FCC tries to find a middle way between regulating them as common carriers which the law was written to do and not regulating them at all which is what the monopolists want. The FCC should completely implement the Comm Act and then lets see if the Corporatist DC Circuit Court can try to figure out a way to rule in Verizon/Comcast's favor again given that the FCC took the law exactly as intended and implemented it like they used to do.
Afterall if a baby bell is not a common carrier, then nothing is a common carrier.
| |TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
Re: Actually the FCC has the weapon! And they should use it immediately, before any more of this nonsense takes place.
Why sue? they own enough members of Congress to get the FCC muzzled. Verizon would love to regulate content by charging extra to just access specific sites or block them entirely.
verizon will win because they pay enough to Congress.
Yeah They should just make them common carriers, and add rules that would make it easier for new companies to start up and compete.
New Orleans, LA
All big companies will spend like crazy in DC and around the country to make sure that they can charge whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want with little to no care for consumers