FCC loses court case to Comcast regarding Net Neutrality

This is pissing me off.

"A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks," the Associated Press reports.

The wire service says that "Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so called 'net neutrality' obligations. It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its
massive national broadband plan."

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the FCC, has made the case that the Web should be accessible to everyone on the same terms with no legal content blocked.

Source

If you don't want the internet to become like cable is, please fill out this form and speak out against this crap: LINK

Hurrah for lobbyists. Want your own way? Buy it!

didn't we just get through

Hurrah for lobbyists. Want your own way? Buy it!

we need some pro-population lobbyists.

I hate Comcast; they're a bunch of bullying scumbags. This added to their potential ownership of Universal is indeed a sign of dark things to come.

I agree with you Nam. Maybe we could buy some pro-population lobbyists?

In comcast's defense I think the uproar over the 250GB a month limit was pretty overblown. That's over 8 gigs a day you can download.

At the moment "Net Neutrality" is only limited to the nerds and techies that know about it. Go out on the street and ask people about it and most of them won't have a clue what you're talking about.

But if all of this actually goes through and comcrap (and co) want to start actually charging for tiered plans, then of course it's brought to the public eye. Alot of things make me lose hope in America, but I'm sure if Comcast tried to take away their internet freedom, there'd be no end to the shitstorm until they stopped it.

The only way the tiered system works (and I'd agree with it) is if the 'top' tier was the current no restrictions browsing we have now, at the same price it is now, and they lowered the cost for grandma net like google + email only or whatever.

Then it'd be a good thing, because people could pay less to take away things they don't need, but if we have to pay -more- to not be restricted and censored by whatever they pick, then fuck that let's riot.

I say the current way of paying extra for more speed / higher caps is fine. Peering and paying for connections isn't done based on protocol or destination, simply how much you want to transfer, and how fast you want it transferred. Makes perfect sense to bill the customer in this way also.

I say the current way of paying extra for more speed / higher caps is fine. Peering and paying for connections isn't done based on protocol or destination, simply how much you want to transfer, and how fast you want it transferred. Makes perfect sense to bill the customer in this way also.

I agree, I just don't want to have to buy the internet like I'm buying channels on a TV

I don't like the government controlling anything, but in this case I think they're on to something. At the very least, the government is trying to slap corporate America's pee-pee and tell them they CANNOT overcharge for crappy, useless services- which, let's be honest, is what this is all going to boil down to. I'm signing your petition, NAM. I'm signin', you're signin', we're all signin'... It's not going to be payment for sevices rendered, which, I agree is fair. It's gonna be like cable TV where you pay 300 USD a month for a package of 600 channels that you use 5 of. No thanks. And now that you mention it, Rophster, maybe comcrud WILL start charging based on protocol or destination.


Fuck it. I'm moving to Sweden.