U.S. appeals court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules

Comments (17)
Calvin2k wrote:

“Facing strong resistance from Republicans…”

Once again the Right Wing sides with corporate interests over the interests of the consumer.

Jan 14, 2014 2:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

Another example of Executive branch over-reach; FCC developing ‘net neutrality’ regulations that negatively impacts the ownership and use of ‘private property’. Verizon has every right to manage it’s network the way it seems fit; it belongs to Verizon and its shareholders, not the FCC. If consumers don’t like the service or price Verizon provides, they can move to AT&T, T-Mobile, Comcast, Sprint, Dish, etc..
This whole ‘net neutrality’ issue is a way for ‘Content Providers’ like Netflix, Google, Apple to force Verizon to carry their content for ‘free’ on the backs of consumers; as a result, content streaming is often 30% – 40%+ or higher of all internet traffic at peak times (early evening). If Netflix wants priority service they should pay Verizon for it and include it in their monthly service charge. Hope this goes to the Supreme Court on appeal.. Another nail in Exec over-reach..

Jan 14, 2014 2:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueInBama wrote:

How dare the gub’mint tell internet providers they can’t restrict access to certain content based on how much that site is willing to pay! This country was founded on the principle of free-market economic extortion by unwieldy robber-baron monopolies. Next them lib’rels will be trying to say that big business has no right to reap the benefits of legislation they have bought and paid for with their hard-earned lobbying dollars!

Jan 14, 2014 2:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueInBama wrote:

“Verizon has argued the rules violated the company’s right to free speech…”

So, let me get this straight. The FCC telling the internet providers they can’t violate a website’s right to free speech by making them pay up to display their content faster (if at all)…somehow violates Verizon’s right to free speech? Oh, that’s right. Money = speech. Silly libtards.

Jan 14, 2014 2:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Hey internet people, you know what this means??? YOU GET TO PAY MORE for the same thing you get today!!! HAHAHA!!!! Free market SUCKA’S!

Jan 14, 2014 2:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

People pay for a service but they have no rights. Only corporations have rights in the USA. It will get worse if the Trans Pacific Trade Pact passes in secret.

Jan 14, 2014 2:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rocque wrote:

I am with the FCC on this one. I think that consumers will lose if the FCC is not upheld. If Verizon claims “free speech” rights then let them work for free. Free speech is about political dissension, not private profit.

Also, let’s not be knee-jerk adherents of either political party’s position. Let’s look a the issues, not the names associated with the issues.

Jan 14, 2014 2:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UauS wrote:

“Verizon has argued the rules violated the company’s right to free speech…” – as absurd as it sounds… the companies can actually speak! and soon they’ll be able to eat and drink, make love and give birth as well… just need a good, honest, well paid and well connected corporate lawyer.

Jan 14, 2014 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

The USA has perished and been replaced by the USCA. Long live the board of directors! Long live the CEO!

Jan 14, 2014 5:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
QuietThinker wrote:

Basically this ruling says that free speech is a right for large corporations and absolutely no one else. Verizon and AT&T can now freely block any communication from flesh and blood people and smaller companies they want.

Jan 14, 2014 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
padams wrote:

Typical of the Republican FCC member to equate net neutrality to “micromanagement.” We’re talking about how the entire Internet is managed for all the people!

Jan 14, 2014 6:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MacMan wrote:

I live in the middle of Los Angeles and my only provider choice is TWC. Or AT&T DSL, which tops out at 1.5mbps. Not much of a real choice.

Non-custom broadband options in most office buildings in places like Beverly Hills are even more limited.

The DC Court of Appeals is WRONG and I hope either this moronic decision is overturned, or Congress does something meaningful to ensure that we really have a free market and choices in this segment.

I really hope that the court is just ignorant, because I would hate to think that somebody took a judge or two to lunch and promised a job to them or their offspring in the future.

As far as all the yahoos who never attended an economics class and are blabbing about “free market” and “it’s Verizon’s property,” monopolies are hardly free market supporters. There is a reason that despite the hume amount of subsidies and tax breaks these guys have received over the last decade and a half and all the promises they’ve made to Congress about 100mbps end user pipelines by mid-2000, the US network is falling behind even that of countries which were classified as “Third World” two decades ago.

Jan 14, 2014 8:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ereilad wrote:

Sounds like they want the internet to be a tool reserved for the wealthy. Seems like it would dampen a lot of the imagined future uses of the internet. Reminds me of the old days in Germany when they had meters on the telephone for local calls, you were charged by the minute.

Jan 14, 2014 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

Keep in mind, Twitter helped start and organize revolutions. Twitter and other social media helped create and organize the “Occupy” movements and rallies.
Do you really think the internet will be allowed to stay free and uncontrolled?

Jan 15, 2014 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
NerdUno wrote:

Why would companies like Comcast and Time Warner ever want to restrict VoIP or movie providers’ access to their pipes? What would ever make you believe they are greedy?

Jan 15, 2014 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bnelms wrote:

I guess if all you have to do is sit at home and push a button then of course your going to say you dont want to pay more. If you built a network, have to upgrade it and pay personnel to keep it running then you may see the need to charge more. I suppose since your President thinks you should be on your parents HC plan until your 27 you may just sit there and whine because people have to run a business. Last but not least: If you dont like it turn off your devices and go play outside.

Jan 16, 2014 7:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
S.B. wrote:

It is right that this move against net neutrality generally has the populace up at arms. Unfortunately people who (a) haven’t been subjected to wrongful stifling, (b) haven’t learned the dangers of limitations on free speech by studying history, and/or (c) aren’t critical thinkers might not see the potential dangers in this type of move until it is too late. This should be ended posthaste…and I don’t state that on a whim. History is full of bad acting influential entities that have abused power that they should have never had in the first place. Think about these couple of scenarios:

1) A startup launches and its success is highly dependent on its ability to deliver various web content to the masses. However, a direct competitor owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines” (or is an associate of an entity that owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines”). No problem…just have the delivery of the startup’s web content degraded and/or charge the startup an exorbitant dollar amount. Ours is a fast-paced society full of people who are accustomed to instant gratification. That being the case it is a foregone conclusion that a startup that is subjected to inefficient and/or buggy web content delivery will fail if web content plays a significant role in its business model.

2) A group is fighting against influential wrongdoers and the group is effectively and rightfully utilizing the internet during the course of their warranted and rightful battle. However, one or more of the wrongdoers owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines” (or is an associate of an entity that owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines”). No problem…just have the delivery of the group’s web content degraded and/or charge the group an exorbitant dollar amount. Again, ours is a fast-paced society full of people who are accustomed to instant gratification. That being the case it is a foregone conclusion that a movement against wrongdoers that is subjected to inefficient and/or buggy web content delivery will fail if web content plays a significant role in the movement.

Those who have a problem visualizing the scenario outlined immediately above need do nothing more than look at corruption-plagued countries that are built upon cultures where censorship is par for the course. Of the many things that this net neutrality move might be, one of the things that it definitely is is a gateway to the implementation of an alternative form of censorship. I’ll repeat that so that it will sink in…a gateway to the IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF CENSORSHIP.

There are probably multiple other scenarios that could be listed above but the given scenarios are sufficient to make my point. Again, this is not the right move and IT SHOULD END POSTHASTE. Even if there are conceivably some significant benefits (not that we’re necessarily of the mindset that there are) the very real risks far outweigh any potential rewards. And just in case anyone is saying “if you’re in one of the two groups listed above then sue”, you are naïve. The victims—and make no mistake about it, in the scenarios outlined above they are VICTIMS—indicated in the above two scenarios are already fighting against nearly insurmountable odds and they don’t need any other problems piled on. In other words, in a manner of speaking they are already “down” and don’t need anymore “kicks” such as having their web content interfered with and/or being faced with exorbitant costs. Although some things are right about America, some things are definitely going in the wrong direction. People such as Hitler, those who conducted the Tuskegee Experiment, and those whom were responsible for disseminating smallpox infested blankets to Native American Indians (just to name a few) would have a heyday with this move if they were alive and engaging in their bad acts today. Reason being, it goes without saying that as it stands the internet is the average joe’s most efficient form of a mouthpiece. And let us not forget that in America (as well as in the rest of the world) some of the greatest achievements have been accomplished by determined average joes who spoke out to the masses as efficiently as was possible. Rest assured that this move will make influential bad actors everywhere rejoice…they are likely already planning ways to exploit it (assuming that they haven’t already planned a plethora ways).

In case anyone somehow thinks that I have no idea what I’m talking about. I will state that I most certainly do. I am personally involved in a long-running, massive, warranted, and rightful fight against epic public corruption. I can tell you that it is an undeniable fact that that warranted and rightful fight has been plagued by civil liberties infringements carried out via wrongful attempts by bad actors to stifle our free speech. For the record the fight is called GATORGAIT and those who are unaware of it can find out more information at the damning, truthful, and lawful website www.gatorgait.com . Also for the record, the complete website and all of the website’s extensive content works perfectly and efficiently as of the time of this post (i.e. 01/16/2014). Additionally, there has been various other truthful and lawful Gatorgait-related content that has been posted online by us justice seekers and which has remained not interfered with…that content also works perfectly and efficiently as of the time of this post.

Generally speaking I have lost faith in man’s ability to consistently do what’s right. Over hundreds of years of bad practices and policies promulgated largely by those who have wrongfully and shortsightedly used their gift of intelligence to increase their power and “line their pockets” at the long term expense of mankind and the world we have, as a whole, lost our way. Let’s see where this recent net neutrality move takes us. Just as we opposed the most recent attempt to pass the far too intrusive CISPA we strongly oppose this net neutrality move. Pay attention…close attention. As indicated above I’m jaded; therefore, I have no confidence that if there isn’t an abrupt about face that bad acting men and women won’t ensure that action becomes warranted. It may be soon or it may be later, but rest assured that serious action will become necessary.

Best wishes to all,

“Some people see a problem and do something about it. Others do nothing but sit on their a$$e$ and complain. Be a doer.”

Jan 16, 2014 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.