OK, DUers, say you were in charge of the FCC

[Recursion]

The Appellate Court (thank you, rurallib: not SCOTUS) just ruled that network neutrality is illegal (those of you complaining did know that just happened, right?)

What do you do?

[rurallib]

1. Supreme Court? The appellate court ruled last January

And they didn't rule net neutrality illegal, just the way the FCC was trying to do it.

[Recursion]

3. Was it the appellate court?

I thought that was SCOTUS...let me re-read.

[Recursion]

4. Thank you. DC Appellate court (nt)

[rurallib]

6. The ruling was that the way the FCC defined the internet

would not allow for them (the FCC) to impose net neutrality. I believe they even suggested that the FCC redefine the internet as a common carrier and then they could be treated as other common carriers such as the telephones.

This is the sticking point at present as Tom Wheeler (former lobbyist for Verizon or Comcast) does not want to declare the internet a common carrier. He believes the FCC can maintain neutrality by providing "fast lanes" for the big boys and the rest get what's left of the broad band. This is pretty much what is the very opposite of net neutrality.

Or at least that is my understanding.

[Recursion]

5. (Last of 3 replies) they ruled the FCC had already deemed ISPs "communications providers"

And that common carrier provisions don't apply to them. The FCC could "re-deem" them, but that's a huge row to hoe.

[rurallib]

7. and reclassifying the internet is really the only way to maintain neutrality

Wheeler knows it but is trying to kick the can down the road.
This should have been done 15 years ago.

If Wheeler gets his way, i suspect that will be the end of net neutrality in the US with some rather severe consequences for our country both on the business and economic side and on the side of maintaining democracy

Edit to add - if Wheeler's proposal goes through I think you can imagine what will happen. The rich and corporate will buy most the bandwidth leaving those of us who dissent a slow and very crowded band to fight over. It will closely reflect what cable TV looks like with lots of choice of pretty much the same crap. Opinion on cable varies from the right to the very right. Dissenting voices are pretty much invisible.

[merrily]

10. Reclassification would not be that huge a row to hoe.

ETA: And, even if it were, so what? So much is at stake.

[merrily]

14. No, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC can regulate "common carriers" more heavily

than the FCC can regulate "information service providers," the latter being classification that the FCC gave broadband providers a few years ago, the last time that the FCC reclassified them.

Doesn't sound as though you've read the case.

[tkmorris]

16. The only people who are saying it's a "huge row to hoe"

Seem to be the very people who don't want that row hoed. Perhaps you are one of these, or perhaps the brazen attempts to discourage opposition to Wheeler's "fast lane" proposal have daunted you.

Not I.

[mindwalker_i]

2. Link?

[merrily]

12. You'll get a link to a case that over 80 pages.

Which no one will read.

That's how people claiming that the DC Cir "struck down" net neutrality get away with it.

Try this. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

It's a long OP, but it ain't 82 pages, either.

[mindwalker_i]

17. Thanks, I had read that post initially

I thought this was another case that had gotten to the Supreme Circus, and the decision seemed all too likely.

[merrily]

18. The SCOTUS claim has been made more than once, by defenders of the administration,

but it was the D.C. Circuit.

Kudos on making it through that post. I probably would not have attempted it if I had seen it on the board.

[liberal N proud]

8. If I were in charge of the FCC, Time Warner wouldn't be cutting channels while raising the fees.

With Net neutrality, It again comes down to how will it effect the bottom line for the users, not how will it improve the bottom line of the corporations.

Agencies were originally put in place to protect the consumer, but have become so polluted with cronies for big business that the consumer is the one who suffers each and every time.

[merrily]

9. That is not what the D.C. Circuit ruled. Please see

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

Thanks.

[msongs]

11. "Wheeler" is attempting to impose the views of the person who appointed him. You are complaining

about the wrong person.

[merrily]

13. The OP is not complaining about anyone in govt.

But, I blame Wheeler, as well as the administration. Why not?

[Recursion]

20. Hey, I blame Wheeler too, especially with the half-measure he apparently floated today

That nonsense gives us a "worst of both worlds" situation.

To answer my own OP, I would double down on Genachowski's attempt and simply keep putting the 2010 rules forward. Over and over again. It would keep Tier 1's and Tier 2's worried enough to not do anything stupid until we get a better SCOTUS.

That said, I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments: private fiber has been the only infrastructure investment in the past decade or so. We need a carrot for that.

[merrily]

21. Doubling down on losing cases? Why?

Genachowski is the one who should have re-classified.

That said, I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments: private fiber has been the only infrastructure investment in the past decade or so. We need a carrot for that.

Because obscene private profits and monopolies for all intents and purposes are not carrot enough?

ETA: your Op didn't sound as though you blamed Obama (for stacking the FCC with cable lobbyists, like Wheeler) or Wheeler.

Sounded as though you were more critical of those who are complaining about the FCC.

[Recursion]

22. Clearly not

Because obscene private profits and monopolies for all intents and purposes are not carrot enough?

If they were, we'd have better infrastructure.

I don't really care how much money they make; I care about the status of our transit-free peered networks, which Wheeler's adventurism endangers.

Like I said, I'd double down on the losing case simply to make the Verizon's of the world think twice about this for now.

[merrily]

24. What?

Because obscene private profits and monopolies for all intents and purposes are not carrot enough?

If they were, we'd have better infrastructure.

Cable is not government infrastructure, any more than are oil refineries.

Government infrastructure does not yield private profits.

[Recursion]

25. Government infrastructure yields private profits all the time

What do you think the grazing fees standoff is about?

[merrily]

27. Grass is infrastructure now? Which private body is profiting from grazing on govt lands and why?

[Recursion]

29. Err... Monsanto, Conagra, ADM...

Really?

[merrily]

34. Again, grass is not infrastructure.

And you'll have to tell me how Monsanto profits because we charge grazing fees.

[Recursion]

35. Sigh.

Monsanto profits because we vastly *undercharge* grazing fees.

That said, I'm done. You've clearly made your mind up. Later.

[merrily]

38. Sorry, still does not explain how Monsanto profits from

the government charging grazing fees to graze on government land. Monsanto would still make money if we charged zero fees.

Nor does it explain how grass is infrastructure.

You've clearly made your mind up.

As have you. Difference is, I made up my mind based on reading the DC Circ. Court case. No clue what you are basing your decision on.

[tkmorris]

15. Starts with a false premise

Therefore it is a pointless question to answer, unless we wish to speculate what could be done in an alternate universe where the court had in fact ruled that net neutrality was illegal.

[merrily]

19. Why the FCC did not reclassify years ago is a mystery.

This is not the first case the FCC lost on this ground.

[Recursion]

23. Because ruling ISPs common carrier brings on a world of unintended consequences

That's why the whole phrase "net neutrality" was invented, to have a status somewhat lower than common carrier. Telcos per se can't do QoS because of CC rules, and nobody really wants to deal with an Internet without QoS rules.

[merrily]

26. You are mixing apples and oranges.

That's why the whole phrase "net neutrality" was invented, to have a status somewhat lower than common carrier.

The choice is between "information service provider" or "common carrier," not between "common carrier" and "net neutrality." "Net neutrality" is not a status. It is something that the FCC tried to (pretended to try to?) require of cable companies, but failed because the FCC cannot regulate isp as heavily as it can common carriers. So not, the term "net neutrality" was not invented for the reason you say. It was "invented" because it's the right thing to do.

Telcos per se can't do QoS because of CC rules, and nobody really wants to deal with an Internet without QoS rules.

If that is supposed to impress or intimidate me, it doesn't. So far, your posts on this thread have not exhibited a high enough degree of familiarity with the topic to warrant that attempt.

[Recursion]

28. OK, we seem to agree. "Net neutrality" is a slogan, not a policy.

If that is supposed to impress or intimidate me, it doesn't.

Jesus, no; I was trying to keep things easy for the lurkers. Like I said as far as I can tell we agree: "Net Neutrality" is a bastard status whose lifespan was dragged out as long as humanly possible, and those days are over now.

[merrily]

32. If we agree as far as you can tell, then you must not be able to tell much.

Again, "net neutrality" is not any kind of status. That's like saying a requirement that you stop at a red light is a status." It makes no sense.

Then again, neither does your comment about lurkers.

[Recursion]

33. Right. "Net neutrality" is not a status. It's a marketing slogan.

Which was exactly what I was saying.

I have no idea what your animus is here, but if you would just prefer to put me in the "bad guy" category and march on, do so.

[merrily]

37. Not what you were saying at all.

In two prior posts, you said it was a status.

It's not a marketing slogan either, any more than a requirement that you stop at a red light is a marketing slogan.

My animus is toward people who will say anything and deny anything to get to a certain result. And that is what you seem to be doing.

[merrily]

30. PS whatworld of unintended consequences are you talking about. Please be specific.

Besides, many, many things, if not most, that government does bring on unintended consequences, like serial drone murders and wars. Doesn't stop us. As the consequences arise, we deal with them as best we can.

This is a makeweight argument.

[zappaman]

31. Steve Earle always comes to mind when I see the letters F C C

[Fumesucker]

36. What the lobbyist with the deepest pockets wants

This ain't rocket surgery.