U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

[Efilroft Sul]

Source: BGR.com

Any semblance of net neutrality in the United States is as good as dead. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s 2010 order that imposed network neutrality regulations on wireline broadband services. The ruling is a major victory for telecom and cable companies who have fought all net neutrality restrictions vociferously for years.

The original FCC order said that wireline ISPs ”shall not block lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management” while also mandating that ISPs “shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service.”

In its ruling against the FCC’s rules, the court said that such restrictions are not needed in part because consumers have a choice in which ISP they use.

“Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options,” the court writes. “They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

Developing…

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-kills-net-neutrality-152413671.html

---

Everyone loses. Except for the telecoms.

[Locrian]

1. a Choice?!

Comcast or ATT (for me). Some choice.

[proReality]

19. You're lucky

Cable ends 2 miles down the road from me, so I'm stuck with AT&T as my only option.

[Miles Archer]

84. I hate AT&T with a PASSION

Never again, unless I had NO other option.

[marsis]

57. Like others here

I have one choice or dial-up, period. After reading about court cases such as this one it makes me wonder if any of the judges all the way up to the Supreme Court ever step foot in our world.
Like the Citizens United ruling, where the hell do they get their information? It's rarely founded on our reality.

[RKP5637]

88. They live totally in an alternative universe. They have absolutely no F'en conception of what

goes on in the majority of this country.

[billhicks76]

78. That Court Is Corrupt

There is no choice. The Telecoms need to be broken up under anti-trust laws. And to think tax dollars helped build their infrastructure and now they are against the people. They are worse than the airlines.

[Kablooie]

83. No choice here. Charter or nothing. Not even DSL.

[amerciti001]

100. Perhaps this US Appeals Judge should...

view this link about going to another ISP to realize that it doesn't matter which ISP you use, you're screwed

I wonder whom his(or her) ISP is...

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Corporations win again!

[blkmusclmachine]

64. Was there ever any doubt?!!

[BlueCaliDem]

90. I guess I still liked to believe that we're still a democracy.

I don't like what the writing on the wall is reading: fascism.

[Sgent]

3. #^!&@$&^#&*$% Assholes

“Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options,” the court writes. “They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

Since when is it a courts position to second guess regulators? The can look for abuse of discretion or inability to find a rational basis, but this is major overreaching.

[CFLDem]

76. +1000000

[pangaia]

103. Just what I wass going to Copy And Paste. !!

What a joke!! On us.
Or, as the Teabaggers would say We The People.. :&gt )

[dixiegrrrrl]

107. "Since when is it a courts position to second guess regulators?"

About 2 nano-seconds after corporate shills were added to the courts.

[djean111]

4. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/09/d-c-circuit-judges-voice-skepticism-of-fcc-net

“I was hoping for a better argument than this,” Andy Schwartzman, a media attorney who supports the rules, said in an interview. “It doesn't look good for the commission.”

A ruling striking down the anti-discrimination rule would be a blow to the Obama administration, as well as to companies like Google, Facebook and Netflix, who could begin having to pay Internet providers for priority access to users.

Helgi Walker, the attorney representing Verizon, told the judges that Verizon will consider charging certain Web companies for faster service if the rules are overturned. The decision could result in a multitiered Internet where users are able to access certain sites at faster speeds than others.

[Efilroft Sul]

8. Coming soon: The Internet Entertainment Gold Package Plus by Verizon.

Only $150.00 per month for unlimited bandwidth for streaming and gaming, plus access to the sites you want.

Yeah, it's sarcasm, but it's probably in the works at Verizon.

[Plucketeer]

30. You betcha!

We (the citizens of this once great nation) can find solace in knowing that WE own the airwaves. We have NO power over them, but we own them!

[Dash87]

51. Any site except AT&T's, or sites that don't match the CEO's politics.

"Don't like it? Go to our competitor! Hahaha, just kidding losers! Maybe Santa Claus will help - he's real too!"

[RKP5637]

89. No doubt! Verizon is a parasitic leech. n/t

[niyad]

5. a choice of which set of tubes to use, you mean? who appointed the jerks on that court?

[xocet]

33. Here is the opinion....

To answer your question, they were appointed by Clinton, Clinton and Reagan, respectively - I too wondered:

From page 3 of the opinion

...

Before: ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and
SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge

...

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

Here are links to the judicial biographies of these judges:

Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson

Born 1939 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on November 17, 1993, to a seat vacated by Clarence Thomas. Confirmed by the Senate on March 10, 1994, and received commission on March 11, 1994.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2041&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Tatel, David S.

Born 1942 in Washington, DC

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 20, 1994, to a seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Confirmed by the Senate on October 6, 1994, and received commission on October 7, 1994.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2341&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Silberman, Laurence Hirsch

Born 1935 in York, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 11, 1985, to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. Confirmed by the Senate on October 25, 1985, and received commission on October 28, 1985. Assumed senior status on November 1, 2000.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2189&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

I am not qualified to analyze the opinion, but these seem to be the relevant parts:

On page 63 of the opinion:

IV.

For the forgoing reasons, although we reject Verizon’s challenge to the Open Internet Order’s disclosure rules, we vacate both the anti-discrimination and the anti-blocking rules. See Northern Air Cargo v. U.S. Postal Service, 674 F.3d 852, 860–61 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (appropriateness of vacatur dependent on whether “(1) the agency’s decision is so deficient as to raise serious doubts whether the agency can adequately justify its decision at all; and (2) vacatur would be seriously disruptive or costly”); Comcast, 600 F.3d at 661 (vacating the Comcast Order). We remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

On page 64 of the opinion:

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I am in general agreement with the majority’s conclusion that the Open Internet Order impermissibly subjects broadband providers to treatment as common carriers, but I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that § 706 otherwise provides the FCC with affirmative statutory authority to promulgate these rules. I also think the Commission’s reasoning violates the Administrative Procedure Act. These differences are important since the majority opinion suggests possible regulatory modifications that might circumvent the prohibition against common carrier treatment.

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

[Lifelong Protester]

91. OK, not to be an 'ageist' jerk or anything

but my spouse is a little bit older than some of these judges and proudly knows NOTHING about the Internet or computers (albeit by choice). Do these judges have any grasp on the reality on the ground???

[dixiegrrrrl]

108. Most excellent post!

[Marthe48]

6. We better learn Morse code and

mirror signals, drums signals, smoke signals, get some homing pigeons, learn to print handbills, and have secret signs to have secret meetings to exchange real news. I'll check the Internet if I want to see cute pictures....

[Bjorn Against]

7. Many people do not have a choice

Especially in rural areas it is often the case that there is only one company that provides broadband service to the area.

[ctsnowman]

45. Yup.

[druidity33]

75. some of us can only get SATELLITE TV and internet...

and while satellite TV is cool, satellite INTERNET FUCKING SUCKS. Sorry for the caps there, but it's really true.

[japple]

106. You're right! Satellite is my only choice in my rural community. My neighbor has

Comcast cable & DSL capability, but that's because he built his own home and pulled the cable from the house across the street. Comcast & AT&T both would supply broadband connections to my house if I would pay them $3,000.00 to run the cable to my house.

[dixiegrrrrl]

110. why/how does satellite internet suck?

blackout during snow and rain?
I ask because we are rural and have dsl, and no other options.

[druidity33]

112. Well mostly because of bandwidth restrictions...

i am limited to 250MB of downloads per any 24 hour period. If i exceed that, they bump me down to dial-up speed for 24 hours. 250MB isn't enough to view any extended video or do any large system updates. It's barely enough for browsing for 3 people in the evenings. And it's not fast... at all. Barely DSL speed.

[dixiegrrrrl]

113. wow..that does suck.

Guess I should not complain about our shitty dsl, then.
a tad slow, but no limits on how much we use.

[onehandle]

9. Fuck. nt

[LongTomH]

10. The courts are the least 'democratic' of all the three branches of government

They are not elected and they cannot be easily removed from office. Thom Hartmann has pointed out that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to give courts the power to overrule the elected representatives of the people; the courts, over time, gave that power to themselves.

[Bragi]

86. As it should be

Judges need to be learned in the law. Period. They don't need to be popular.

[nikto]

97. I just wish...

Justices weren't Corporate Property.


Too much to ask?



Yep.

[mikeysnot]

11. Activist Judges legislating from the bench

for the big tele-cons.

[Veilex]

12. "They can go to another broadband provider "...

umm...no... I cant. And the lack of anti-trust suits has guaranteed that I have but one choice for internet.

[Triana]

18. Most people I know CAN NOT go to another provider as one provider has monopoly

over the area in which they live, so that is BULLSHIT.

[LittleGirl]

42. exactly! I can only chose Comcast for cable

and I won't touch them or their expensive package deals. it's bs and I live in a fairly large city.

[glinda]

70. We are semi-rural and Charter has been putting up Ads big time for the last month.

I hate Charter.

[cvoogt]

37. Right

So say the judges who make oodles of cash, much more than the average person who also might not live in a great part of town that has choices.

[closeupready]

47. Yup. I see almost every commenter saying the same thing

in almost every source I'm reading this at.

[jeff47]

13. Apparently, some folks think we all live in NYC or other places with ISP choices.

Previous place I lived my choice was Time Warner or nobody. The phone company offered slow DSL service, and the cell companies only had 3G and very low bandwidth restrictions.

At least where I currently am I can get roughly the same service from Time Warner and AT&T, but I strongly suspect they will have similar "pay for usage" profiles.

[DLnyc]

14. The choices for cable in NYC: Time Warner. That's it.

No choice whatsoever, in other words. And their service is spotty and their price has doubled over the last couple of years.

Cable is generally a monopoly. I don't know what "choice" they are talking about.

[jeff47]

16. For cable TV. But there are other options for ISP.

For example, the phone company actually offers high-speed Internet. There's also 4G coverage.

[LiberalElite]

80. Where you live it's

only Time Warner. In some other parts there is a choice. I can actually choose from Time Warner, RCN and as of this month Verizon FIOS. There's also DirecTV and Cablevision in some parts. They just don't uniformly compete across the city, who knows why?

[SamKnause]

15. Internet

I have 2 choices for access to the internet;

1. Through a land line phone.
a) I have access to 1 landline phone company where I live. Have you ever checked out all the numerous taxes you pay on your phone bill ?


2. Satellite

a) It would cost $50.00 per month + numerous taxes.
b. I would have to pay extra for unlimited bandwidth.

3. There is no cable in my area.

There are so many monopolies in this country, that continue to gouge U.S. citizens, courtesy of our upstanding judges and judicial system.

[proReality]

25. Your story is my story

And I'm sick of paying for DSL and getting little more speed than I did on dial-up. If I try to watch a 3 minute video I have to let it run all the way through and then hit replay to see it in its entirety. Otherwise I sit for 45 min. while it buffers after every 3-5 words all the way through.



Edited to add a missing word...and then to correct a spelling.

[SamKnause]

29. Reply

I feel your pain.

[totodeinhere]

34. ISP charges are getting outrageous. In my area its either dialup, satellite

with its bandwidth caps and latency issues, or mediocre DSL that costs as much as satellite does. I pay $65 monthly for a 3 Mbps DSL line. In this country we have some of the worst Internet coverage in the developed world.

[SamKnause]

36. Reply

With internet access comes knowledge.

I don't think the powers that be what us to get too uppity.

They certainly are terrified shitless of truth and justice !!!

[pangaia]

104. THAT is the truth. !!!

[cer7711]

17. Beyond Terrible!

Broadly, the giant communications conglomerates track conservative.

This ruling is another arrow in their quiver to further degrade, marginalize and/or strangle those progressive or out-of-the-mainstream sources whose dissenting voices challenge the status quo.

We will see the results of this ruling almost immediately.

[Vashta Nerada]

20. So are we going to go back to the days of tiered internet?

I rather much enjoy my unlimited high speed internet for $50/month. I refuse to go back to the days where I have to make sure I'm not going over my monthly internet usage like I had to do in the late 90s.

[mountain grammy]

21. Choices? What choices? Fucking corporate judges!

[OneCrazyDiamond]

23. Is the Judge

David S. Tatel?

[Efilroft Sul]

28. Opinion for the Court was filed by Circuit Judge Tatel.

Case was argued before Circuit Judges Rogers and Tatel and Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. Silberman concurred in part and dissented in part from the overall opinion.

Here is the link to the PDF: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

[cyberswede]

22. Well, that sucks.

We have an excellent service provided by our tiny local phone company, but the big telecomm companies are always trying to change the rules so small, independent companies can't compete. I fear it's just a matter of time. Assholes.

[RKP5637]

92. Enjoy it while you have it. I use to have the same some years ago, and the

mega conglomerates sucked the lifeblood out of it until it was gone. Now, all that is left, is a major SH** super-corp providing typically horrible service and overcharging.

[Swede Atlanta]

24. Choice?

Really? The judges on that court are obviously totally oblivious to what is going on out in the market.

1. Providers dominate markets
- In my market in Atlanta we only have two "real" choices; ATT (slowwww DSL) and Comcast (which is what I have). There are other competitors but speed and reliability are questionable
- In many smaller markets there are even fewer competitors

2. Providers 'collude'
- They are all going to do the same thing - potentially restrict access based on content or add fees. For example they know online porn is popular so they might add an additional charge for viewing porn sites. As well they will find every way to limit your ability to, for example, stream a movie when you want.

3. ISPs are in fact "commodity" providers
- I don't understand why telecommunications have not become commodities and as such are subject to public service regulation. They are in fact commodities of what have become "essential" services just like water and electricity
- Some will argue that classifying them as commodities subject to PS oversight would quash innovation. Well let's see how the ISPs respond. I expect to see a 20% increase in my internet bill this year with new restrictions on bandwidth and content.

[jsr]

39. +1.

[closeupready]

49. +2.

[Dash87]

50. They're not oblivious. They just think we're stupid.

[savannah43]

53. And that we won't do anything about it.

If someone has the ability and money to set up a net neutral service, they will end up with all the business. The others will just have this judge as a customer. The "powers" do forget, sometimes, that we are customers and not slaves to them.

[Dash87]

55. The problem is, the telecom companies would bury any references to the neutral one.

Any sites advertising it could be banned, so nobody would ever hear about it. The amount of work and money it takes to set up a telecom company makes it hard enough - telecoms like Comcast are immensely powerful - if they couldn't contain the new telecom, they would just gobble it up.

[jeff47]

73. Yeah, it's only a few hundred billion dollars. I think I've got that in my other pants.

[awoke_in_2003]

96. We have three..

or maybe two- AT&T DSL, AT&T Uverse, and Charter Cable.

[happyslug]

26. Here is the actual opinion

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf

[William Seger]

27. This is BULLSHIT

When the very few suppliers have a common interest in maximizing profits, there doesn't need to be any overt collusion or conspiracy to do so. The hypothetical notion of "free markets" is just one example of why Libertarians are far too delusional for the real world. Without regulation, consumers get fucked, period.

[Enthusiast]

46. + a shit load.

A shit load of bullshit.

[OregonBlue]

31. These judges are wrong. If you live in a rural area, there is usually only one provider and

they are not cheap. Do they think everyone lives in the city?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I'm boxed in by Comcast.

Yeah, I can go Centurylink DSL, and have shit-all for bandwidth. That's not a choice.

[heaven05]

35. Corporate profit+control=owning all source of mass communications

appeals court gave the corporations, a big victory. One more nail in personal freedom's coffin.

[jsr]

38. Consumers have a choice???

Assholes.

[beerandjesus]

40. This is so much more important than Chris Christie

We're giving each other high-fives over Christie and this comes out.

GOD, it's hard to have a conscience in America today. One tiny bit of good news crushed by so much bad, it boggles the mind.

[Moliere]

41. This is an unmitigated disaster

So what happens when companies - established or startup - decide to create products that compete directly with the telecoms? I think I know, they will get blocked on multiple levels. Wonderful. Another job-killing, anti-innovation decision by techonologically uniformed old men

[Efilroft Sul]

43. I'm reading the partial dissent

This is in the ruling:

The majority puts it even more starkly, asserting that the Commission [FCC] "found that broadband providers have the technical and economic ability to impose restrictions on edge providers." Majority Op. at 38 (emphasis added). But the Commission never actually made such a finding. Its conclusions are littered with “may,” “if,” and “might.” For example, according to the Commission, a broadband provider:

• “may have economic incentives to block or otherwise disadvantage specific edge providers”
• “might use this power to benefit its own or affiliated offerings at the expense of unaffiliated offerings”
• “may act to benefit edge providers that have paid it to exclude rivals”
• “may have incentives to increase revenues by charging edge providers”6
• “might withhold or decline to expand capacity in order to ‘squeeze’ non-prioritized traffic”

25 F.C.C.R. at 17915-22 ¶¶ 21-29. To be sure, the majority correctly observes that we should defer to an agency’s “predictive judgments as to the economic effect of a rule,” National Telephone Cooperative Ass’n v. FCC, 563 F.3d 536, 541 (D.C. Cir. 2009), but deference to such a judgment must be based on some logic and evidence, not sheer speculation.

***

Okay, now that fourth bullet above has a 6 cited for footnote purposes. Footnote 6 reads:

In this case, Verizon has indicated it does wish to explore two-sided pricing (charging both edge providers and consumers).

It's not sheer speculation. It's clear that one such plan is in the works, and the FCC understands how companies like Verizon and Comcast have the economic ability to squeeze rivals, edge providers, and consumers to their benefit.

The Court thinks we all fell off the turnip truck yesterday. Does anyone remember the promise of the Telecommunications Act of 1996? More competition will lower prices. Riiiight. Media consolidation has raised prices. My cable bill alone for expanded basic went from $24 a month to $56 a month for the same service.

[Enthusiast]

44. It would be shocking if the politicians and the courts

did anything in the interest of we the people.

[RKP5637]

94. That, went out a long time ago in the US, as did a democracy. Now, citizens are

treated as a bunch of disgruntled employees by those holding the power and purse strings. Frankly, they don't give a shit about most citizens unless it affects their bottom line.

[Dash87]

48. The court opinion is straight bull crap.

Most places have 2 ISP options if they're lucky. I guess money always wins.

[Efilroft Sul]

52. Another doozy from the partial "dissent"

Nevertheless, the Commission justifies its aggressive, prophylactic regulation by asserting that the negative consequences of regulation (preserving the status quo) are likely to be minor, while the consequences of allowing the broadband market to evolve without regulation could be drastic and permanent. 25 F.C.C.R. at 17909 ¶ 12. I think this is quite wrong, but in any event, the agency’s judgment about the propriety of leaping before looking cannot displace the judgment of Congress which, in enacting § 706, did not so broadly empower the Commission. Rather, Congress required the agency to identify an actual barrier to infrastructure investment or a threat to competition, and the agency must have evidence that the barrier or threat exists.

***

Deregulation good! Net Neutrality bad! And yet, the "dissent" says the FCC should more identify threats to competition instead of worrying about how telecoms might use their technical and economic prowess to their advantage. What competition, judge?

[Efilroft Sul]

54. The closing insult

This regulation essentially provides an economic preference to a politically powerful constituency, a constituency that, as is true of typical rent seekers, wishes protection against market forces. The Commission does not have authority to grant such a favor.

***

Holy cow, that is one big FU to Net Neutrality, its supporters, and the FCC.

[cstanleytech]

56. What a lie, consumers like myself do not have a choice in which isp we use because

we live in small rural areas which more often then not have only one single provider to choose from.

[sulphurdunn]

58. Is the internet a public or a private domain?

Obviously, it is completing the transition from public to the private property of telecoms. If that is inevitable, then the solution is to require each of these thieves to provide universal access in each others markets. That would create the competition and choice as a matter of fact the court merely assumed as the pretext for its kleptocratic ruling.

[arcane1]

59. Would this permit my ISP to block DU, or make it too slow to be useable?

[FuzzyRabbit]

63. Yes, but they probably won't

It's all about stifling competition. The telecoms will use schemes to force their customers to use only their content or their business partners content.

For example AT&T will throttle down Skype, making Skype phone calls unintelligible. The only phone service AT&T customers will be able to use is AT&T.

Likewise, Comcast will throttle down Netflix, making Netflix unusable. To watch any movies Comcast customers will have to pay Comcast.

Welcome to your new corporate controlled information superhighway.

[arcane1]

65. Thanks. Making the "choice" a mere illusion.

Basically, we have to "choose" which services are more important, and go with the ISP that wrecks the fewest sites and services.

Whee.

[Jerry442]

69. You're spot on about stifling the competition, but...

...it's not that hard to imagine DU (or Kos or Digby or whoever) mysteriously limping along after publishing articles critical of some provider. I mean, it's a whole lot easier than putting up traffic cones to block approaches to a bridge.

[RKP5637]

93. This, is exactly what is going to happen, there is absolutely no doubt. It will be a

form of internet censorship not only by despicable corps, but by TPTB, and for a sum of money, these shysters will be willing to slow up any data stream. It is crooked as hell, but we live in a country with a failing judicial system and also on the take.

[begin_within]

60. So basically, it mea

[whopis01]

85. Damn. The ISPs got him in the middle of his post. n/t

[Efilroft Sul]

95. ˆThread winner.

[The CCC]

61. U.S. appeals court kills net neutrality

A bunch of idiotlogues. They obviously have never heard of a Sophie's Choice.

[Erda]

62. There is a petition at

Freepress.net about this. Net Neutrality is not dead yet.

[2banon]

66. Here's the link to freepress.net

everyone who cares ANYTHING regarding News, Information, FCC rules and regs, etc needs to be linked to freepress.net

[octoberlib]

67. This country already has sucky broadband coverage. So let's make it worse!

The average U.S. household has to pay an exorbitant amount of money for an Internet connection that the rest of the industrial world would find mediocre. According to a recent report by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, broadband Internet service in the U.S. is not just slower and more expensive than it is in tech-savvy nations such as South Korea and Japan; the U.S. has fallen behind infrastructure-challenged countries such as Portugal and Italy as well.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=competition-and-the-internet

[blackspade]

68. What ISP choice are these buttholes talking about?

I have two choices: expensive and throttled and even more Expensive and throttled.
This is a terrible ruling for consumers.

[AverageJoe90]

71. This war isn't over yet.....

But we need to fight *HARD* against this bullshit. Whenever the backlash does start, let's make it count.

[ChromeFoundry]

72. Assholes...

Bought and paid for by large corporate interest.

[TimeToEvolve]

74. its a Brave New Fahrenheit 1894

[TBF]

77. K&R - this is important. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. They will make sure porn sites stream their video just fine.

[Ash_F]

81. More on the decision here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/d-c-circuit-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules/

Faced with this dilemma, the FCC may either choose to argue that its regulations do not fall under the rubric of common carriage, or attempt to reclassify broadband as a common carrier, according to outside observers. Neither path is likely to be easy, as major industry players are likely to resist any attempt to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.

[Kablooie]

82. If there was competition it would be one thing but they are all monopolies!

We don't have a choice of providers because the companies made agreements not to step on each other's territories.

Now they are allowing the monopolies to decide how to screw us over and there will be no alternative.

Something has to be done.

[RKP5637]

87. Wonder how much money and bribery flowed through back doors for this ruling? n/t

[truthisfreedom]

98. The US is not a country. It's a business.

Don't expect anything to be right.

[jsr]

101. +1.

[Lawlbringer]

99. The dinosaurs running the ISPs probably think

that it's like TV channels. That working in a tiered level of service akin to channel packages is the way to go, because to them, the ability to watch The Food Network is the same as going to do a research assignment on the internet, or connecting to a work network.

Access to the internet is akin to access to the streets. Granted, there are speed limits, and I have no problem paying more for higher bandwidth IN GENERAL because that's a whole different fight. But charging more for different "website packages" or lowering/blocking access to certain sites in favor of others is like being restricted to driving 25 MPH on the highway if you're driving to your mother's house vs being able to drive 55 MPH on the highway if you're going to Macy's.

[RedCappedBandit]

105. You give them too much credit.

They're not ignorant. They're greedy.

[Lawlbringer]

111. I hate the term, but I've got to "half agree"

They are greedy. But they are ignorant to the usage of the internet and the full extent of how networks work. As I stated before, I can 100% guarantee that they see the big picture with the false equivalence of TV Stations to Websites.

[woo me with science]

102. This is a dark, dark day in America.

As another DUer put it, "We have now lost control of information."

[tofuandbeer]

109. I saw this on the cover of the L.A. Times this morning...

it was like waking up to a nightmare!
This can (and probably will) be used politically, as well.
Damn. I really don't like the United States anymore. What's to like? Everytime there's a choice, it goes to corporations.