Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet United States Your Rights Online

FCC Wants Net Neutrality Suits Stopped 108

Posted by timothy
from the you-bet-they-do dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "The FCC moved to dismiss the net neutrality challenges filed by MetroPCS and Verizon, claiming they were 'filed prematurely.' Verizon and MetroPCS have both sued the FCC, arguing that the commission did not have the authority to hand down its December net neutrality rules. The FCC maintains that it does indeed have the right to regulate broadband, thanks to provisions in the Communications Act."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Wants Net Neutrality Suits Stopped

Comments Filter:
  • The FCC loses... (Score:4, Informative)

    by j0nb0y (107699) <jonboy300 AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday January 30, 2011 @09:25AM (#35048448) Homepage

    The FCC loses... because the FCC *always* loses. They've lost every major case for the last fifteen years.

  • Not suprising. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by novar21 (1694492) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @09:48AM (#35048506)
    Corporations don't want to be regulated because it can cut into their profits. The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet. The corporations want to regulate the Internet for profit. So they jump the gun on filing a law suite. They will refile and in the meantime they push the cost of the law suite onto their customer. It's just a sad state of affairs. Actually the FCC should just proceed and get the law suite over with and not challenge that they filed to early. Why postpone the inevitable?
    • by Starcub (527362)
      Premature not because the rules haven't been published, but because the FCC probably has no intention of enforcing them, and even if they attempted to, they would probably fail in the courts, again. Despite what the FCC says publicly, there is now certainty in the market, which is why we're now seeing more companies than just Comcast jump on the bandwagon to stovepipe the net.
    • Corporations love to be in a regulated business because it keeps competitors out. In his case, cellphone providers don't want to be regulated as bing in the same market as ISPs (even though they are starting to be).
    • by gangien (151940)

      The FCC wants to regulate the corporations not the Internet.

      why is it that on slashdot, with the talk of violation of civil liberties by the government, this general attitude about the FCC/net neutrality still exists? It's so sad that you guys who understand the value of civil liberties do not understand the government really is not pro individual or pro freedom. it's pro power. If the FCC had the power to regulate the internet and did so, and even assuming everything was as people wanted, how long do you think that would last? how long until we get the FCC spyin

  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @09:51AM (#35048520) Homepage Journal
    its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.

    this is what the ISPs say. they are attempting to do make monkeys out of the people, on people's land, with people's money, with people's rules.
    • True, and the decision we made was for the FCC to keep it's regulatory hands off.
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by khallow (566160)

      its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.

      That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.

      this is what the ISPs say. they are attempting to do make monkeys out of the people, on people's land, with people's money, with people's rules.

      This pathetic whine again. Too bad you don't see how these sorts of complaints backfire. The only way to screw over these companies is to break the peoples' rules. That opens the door to other entities (hey, like the FCC or tho

      • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @10:29AM (#35048708) Homepage Journal

        That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.

        public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.

        The point you seem to miss is that the rule of law is more important than your misguided sense of fairness. One can always change laws through lawful means, if they are unfair.

        dont use stupid wordage like 'pathetic whine' etc when you dont get shit about what you are talking. the rule of the law, is the commission you named as FCC has the authority to CLASSIFY methods of communication.

        fcc ITSELF has classified the internet as something before. now, it is classifying it as something else. it has the authority to do it. arguing the opposite means that you also do not recognize the prior classification based on lack of authority, which went on for two decades and you have ACCEPTED that status quo. if anything, no moron has the right to object to something they had went along with, accepting as legal, for two decades.

        however foremost, a commission that has the authority to classify something, has THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY IT AGAIN.

        if you have not been able to perceive the above concepts, dont reply to me. youll be ignored.

        • by Fnord666 (889225)

          public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.

          Then how come some cities are charging extra for SUVs to drive on their streets?

          • by unity100 (970058)
            that is a public decision, through public law. it is made to discourage usage of special UTILITY vehicles, which were designed to work OFF ROAD in the middle of a fscking city.

            its no different from smoking fines.
        • You just used a cuss word in that sentence. That's stupid wordage too.
        • by khallow (566160)

          public owns all the roads, and they have the right to travel on them HOWEVER they like. no road operator can decide who can travel on the road, and who cannot, and who will pay how much, separately from their vehicle classification.

          But I can decide who gets to ride in my car. Same with commercial vehicles. It isn't a public decision to decide what those vehicles carry, aside from satisfying safety and environmental regulation.

          It's worth noting here that ultimately, it is the responsibility of the customer not government to determine the quality of the service with their ISP. And almost all places in the US have access to at least three ISPs by venue: telecomm, cable, and satellite-based providers.

      • by fedos (150319)

        its built on public land, but WE own the infrastructure and can decide what you can do with it.

        That is correct. And what's the problem with that? Does the public own all cars parked or driven in public places (like highways, public parking, etc)? After all, you are using public resources just as much as the ISPs are. Of course not. The peoples' rules on who owns what are clear.

        The roadway equivalent would be me setting up a private toll booth for anyone wanting to drive on the public roadway that passes in front of my house.

        • by khallow (566160)

          The roadway equivalent would be me setting up a private toll booth for anyone wanting to drive on the public roadway that passes in front of my house.

          No, the original poster argued that ISPs didn't really own their infrastructure because part of it uses public land. That's exactly analogous to the typical car. A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the same claim to ownership can be made for cars.

          • Not at all. Assuming your analogy has any accuracy (which it doesn't) A driver occasionally uses public roads and public parking lots. Hence, the driver must follow the rules that these public roads and parking lots have. They must observe the speed limit, traffic laws, etc. They must make sure their car meets the inspections required for their state. They must go the correct way down a one way street. So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it. A dri
            • by khallow (566160)

              So an ISP who uses public infrastructure made with public money must follow certain rules to use it.

              The rules boil down to the utility has to inform the local government when it digs in certain spots. FCC regulation is not justified on these grounds, but because the ISP is engaging in interstate commerce.

      • The same power that allows the FCC to decide that it should arbitrarily implement some sort of policy which may or may not end up being net neutrality, allows it to screw over you in many ways.

        This is a really important point. Allowing a federal government agency, any agency, to assume powers not specifically granted under law, is a bad, bad idea. Just because the FCC is doing things we like today does not mean that will be the case 10 years from now. Allowing them to assume this power now means they could just as easily change their minds later.

        Net neutrality must be a decision of law, not policy.

        • by unity100 (970058)
          the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?

          so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liki
          • the powers to classify communication has been granted to FCC by LAW. its appalling that the morons who are arguing AGAINST fcc reclassifying internet, had not opposed to FCC classifying it as what it is now in the first place. it was LAW before that allowed it to classify internet, and now, the same law that allows it to classify things gone where ? to dust ?

            so, its all legal and good when something is done in the way you like it, you dont object, and it turns exactly the other way, when its not to liking of some private parties ?

            screw that.

            I think what I took away from your semi-coherent rant is that you adamantly believe the FCC is entitled under existing law to do whatever they like with the Internet, and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid.

            I'm probably just feeding a troll, but while I do wholeheartedly support net neutrality, I do not support a carte blanche for the FCC as the right path towards that goal. I want a clear law, voted for by Congress and signed by the President.

            If it were law protecting net neutrality instead o

  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @09:51AM (#35048522)

    We shall fight them in the lawcourts, we shall fight them in the media... you may take our lives but you'll never take your freedom.

    Love

    Corporate Exec

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Our choices seem to be to trust a small (but increasing) number of companies with our Internet access or to trust a single government organization of non-elected officials. I say increasing because it costs a fortune to run fiber, but LTE is starting to look promising as a sole means of Internet access. And while I wouldn't trust Joe's Family Cellular to get me phone service outside of town I would certainly consider using him for a fixed LTE broadband connection.

    Considering I can't find a single offence

    • by Haedrian (1676506) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @10:17AM (#35048636)

      Strawman argument.

      Net neutrality = "Every packet is treated the same on the internet". It has nothing to do with the government enforcing regulations on the internet. It has everything to do with the government enforcing that NOBODY should enforce regulations on the internet.

      • by Rockoon (1252108)
        Its not a strawman when the FCC is not proposing net neutrality. They are just proposing something called net neutrality.

        The fools are those that care so much for net neutrality that they will bend over and let the FCC stick it directly into them, just because the FCC uses the words you care so deeply about.

        Here is an idea.. wake up and feel the shaft that is being introduced to your rear end by the FCC. They are slowly injecting it right now and you don't seem to notice, or care.
        • by Haedrian (1676506)

          Probably because I'm too busy noticing the shafts everyone else is introducing everywhere else.

          Note: Metaphorical shafts

          • by khallow (566160)

            Probably because I'm too busy noticing the shafts everyone else is introducing everywhere else.

            You should notice. Some parties such as a government agency are much more dangerous than others.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "Every packet is treated the same on the internet"

        Simplistic definitions like this are always fun. This is not a technical possibility. Small packets are queued differently from big packets within routers. ICMP is dropped before TCP. TCP flow control packets slow down connections. The idea that every packet is treated like every other packet is nonsense.

        Every website needs to be equally accessible? What about CDNs? Don't they violate net neutrality or is it OK that companies that can afford them get

    • by fedos (150319)

      Comcast has repeatedly been caught, and admitted to, committing offences that would be in violation of net neutrality rules, unfortunately the FCC had previously classified the internet as something that it couldn't regulate so they suffered no penalties.

      When given a choice between government control or corporate control, I will always choose government control. The government may be slow or difficult change, but at least the people have the ability to affect change in it's policies. We don't have the same

    • Considering I can't find a single offence these "evil corporations" have done that bothers me

      How very noble of you.

      Here's a thought: When the ISPs have the right to throttle or ban a protocol outright, that will eventually hit a protocol you care about. Also, throttling implies banning:

      (I couldn't care less if my BitTorrent traffic is throttled, BitTorrent is something I'd rather download overnight anyway)

      You clearly have no idea just how much torrent traffic can be throttled. Try a download that should take a few hours (or overnight) instead taking over a week. Do you care yet?

      I'd much rather see Verizon and Comcast fight for my business than have the FCC tell me what their vision of the Internet should be.

      Are you sure? Because Verizon and Comcast are both doing things we'd rather they stop doing. Who, exactly, am I supposed to be switching to? T

  • This is already happening. The ISP owners open its Internet shop and do not let other Internet shops into their network. I have this problem with at least 2 ISPs.

    The ISPs should be watched carefully. They should, speaking figuratively, maintain the bridge technically, but not be traffic regulators.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @12:11PM (#35049104) Homepage

    ...has moved for dismissal.

    Amazing. I'm sure glad you told us this. I certainly never would have guessed that the defendant in a lawsuit would move for dismissal.

  • Wish there was an undo button.

    • by Sulphur (1548251)

      Wish there was an undo button.

      Would an EASY button do?

    • by Sparx139 (1460489)
      If you're running firefox, install the moderatrix [userscripts.org] script for greasemonkey [mozilla.org]. It adds a confirmation button. I haven't had mod points since the site redesign so I'm not sure if it's still in working order, but if that's the case then it should be fixed soon
  • I saw this article [arstechnica.com] on Ars yesterday which is much better.

    There is one very interesting bit covered in the Ars article which is not covered in the pcmag one. Verizon is asking for the same court that ruled in favor of Comcast and has hired the same lawyer that represented Comcast. The FCC wants the court chosen by lottery.

I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.

Working...