US Court Rules Against FCC on 'Net Neutrality'

[Echo In Light]

by Joelle Tessler

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday 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 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 on broadband providers.

The ruling also marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to officially set net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski argues that such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some online content and services over others.

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/06-7

[nemo137]

1. This is bad news

I think the next step is getting FCC authority over broadband passed by Congress, then?

[BanzaiBonnie]

2. Welcome to corporate America - Fascism

[cascadiance]

3. Time to look at some impeachments of some justices!

[onenote]

14. really? on what grounds?

Because a unanimous court found that the FCC didn't have authority over the Internet? I'd be curious to know, in your informed and expert opinion, where the Communications Act gives the FCC such authority? And if it is so clear, why have various members of Congress been introducing bills to expressly give the FCC authority over the Internet in recent years?

[cascadiance]

15. Didn't say there were grounds. But I think we should look to see if we DO have grounds!

In my book, these justices aren't working for the benefit of us the people, but for the corporate interests involved. Now how they may be tied to that, and whether or not those ties can be shown to be something impeachable is up to an investigation to show. But if you can find that data that links them to being bought off or something like that, impeaching these bums might hopefully send a strong message to other courts that working for corporate interests aren't going to be taken lightly and ignored. Unfortunately, I think that the opposite is in place now. They figure the rest of the government is too compromised to corporate interests at well, that nothing will be done about it, even if they have actions that can be found to justify impeachment.

I know that impeachment isn't just an emotional issue and finding ways to rationalize pushing someone out of office, despite the way it was used that way against Clinton. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue it at times if there exist solid reasons for doing so, and that by doing so, we help our government run more responsibly for our citizenship.

[onenote]

18. and how do we look to see if there are grounds?

Launch an investigation of judges every time there is a decision that those in the majority don't like? BTW, one of the three judges on the panel that decided the Comcast case is Judge Tatel -- indeed, he authored the decision. Before being appointed to the court by Clinton, he helped found the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, served as Director of the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and was Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter.

You think he should be formally investigated to see if he is on the take?

[cascadiance]

27. Well on decisions that have potential for great harm down the road, they should be scrutinized!

Perhaps there was some good "legal" reasons for his decisions and perhaps his motivations were to try to push congress to do some action, or for the FCC to "reclassify" the service under the Communications Act, which was placed outside the legal framework by Bush's FCC as noted here on FCC.net.

FreePress.net: The Courts Can't Take Away Our Internet

Glen Greenwald and others at freepress.net have said that they there's another way besides waiting for the Senate to get 60 votes to give back FCC its authority, but for the FCC head to reclassify broadband back to being a "communications service" that would give it authority again. Probably would piss off the Comcasts, etc. of the world, but it is probably appropriate.


I still think we need to scrutinize these judge's decisions to look at whose interests they are serving, and to see if any wrongdoing can be found. If so, then yes, we need to not just "let them get away with it", but take punitive action to prevent more such judicial actions in the future. Otherwise, we'll be getting far more decisions like this and Citizens United in SCOTUS more and more if we don't question what's going on behind the scenes with potentially even impeachments being the punishment given.

[thotzRthingz]

19. actually, i think its time for congress to enact laws which give the fcc the needed authority

[cascadiance]

28. Freepress.net thinks there's a third option that the FCC can do to reverse Bush's FCC's actions...

... that basically earlier redefined broadband outside of the jurisdiction of the FCC.

The Courts Can’t Take Away Our Internet

The FCC could just redefine broadband back to being a "communications service" and then reclaim jurisdiction over it.

[prairierose]

4. This is very bad news..The Supremes have to be...

gotten under control again. But I guess the conservajudges are going to do as much damage as possible while they can.

[City Lights]

5. Fuck corporate Murika.

And FUCK Comcraptic.

:nuke:

[cayanne]

6. And we know how the SCOTUS will rule nt

[Statistical]

7. I don't think it is a bad ruling.

Congress simply needs to pass a law giving FCC that power. BTW before I get blasted I am 100% pro-net neutrality.

However the FCC is limited in the scope of regulations it can pass. The judge isn't saying that scope can't be increased rather that under current legislation it hasn't.

I am not sure but I think scope could be expanded via Presidential Executive Order but then again EO are kinda gray area so I am not sure.

Bottom line the ruling simply says FCC currently lacks the scope for this kind of action it doesn't say FCC can't be granted that scope in the future.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Concur, but some care needs to be taken on how broad the FCC regulates things

[backscatter712]

9. Good luck with that...

Any net neutrality bill will die in the Senate. If the corporate bribery there doesn't kill it, Rupert Murdoch will then just have Glenn Beck go on his show with his chalkboard, label Net Neutrality "Socialism of the Internet", and get the Teahadists throwing bricks through windows.

[brendan120678]

10. I agree with what you're saying...

Net Neutrality is a good idea, but the FCC does not have the authority currently to enact it.
The court in this instance probably made the correct decision.

[Statistical]

11. Yeah sometimes the right decision is not the popular one.

Similarly sometimes criminals go free for lack of evidence however the reverse of that would be convict more innocent people in order to prevent more criminals from going free.

If a govt agency doesn't have the authority then the govt agency doesn't have the authority.

[tomp]

25. sure, and which particular politicians are going to vote against the interests...

...of their corporate masters like they did for say..health care "reform"? I do not have high hopes.

[Greyhound]

12. You'd think this would get some attention on DU, wouldn't you? n/t

:kick: & R

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. It is, considering the number of threads on it

[Greyhound]

22. Wow, I see what you mean. n/t

[conspirator]

13. Kick. This is important. The Elites cannot allow the internet to continue. Is too dangerous. nt

[Confusious]

20. Living up to your name?

"The Elites cannot allow the internet to continue. Is too dangerous"

Oh, they want it to continue, just on their terms.

[damntexdem]

16. This needs to be addressed by Congress.

Oh, horrors!

[upi402]

17. WTB an opposition party... /nt

[Odin2005]

23. K&R

This SUCKS!

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Net Neutrality is arguably the intent of the Telcom act of 1996.

Just data instead of voice.

[Echo In Light]

26. Yes, the one that maybe a few hundred out of three hundred million were even slightly wary of