http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/01/what-ruling-against-fccs-open-internet-laws-means-you/356997/

 

You can easily find other sources by a simple Google search.

 

Basically, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC does not have the power to require ISPs (internet service providers) to treat all internet traffic equally. What this means is that ISPs such as Time Warner Cable and Verizon will be able to block and slow down websites. This could lead to having to pay more to access certain websites, smaller websites could be slowed down and larger websites with big wallets will be sped up, and a whole lot more if this isn't changed.

 

According to the court, only Congress has the power to enact such laws, so until they do so or they delegate that power to the FCC, ISPs are free to do whatever they want.

According to the court, only Congress has the power to enact such laws, so until they do so or they delegate that power to the FCC, ISPs are free to do whatever they want.

Well unless we "donate" $1M to every member of congress, they will never get anything done, especially with this. It's a shame. I also hate the fact that I am forced to use Time Warner Cable, as there are no other ISPs in my area that provide a usable speed. Even TWC is slow for me at times. Thus, I am royally screwed if TWC starts charging a premium for certain sites.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Does Congress ever get anything done? Hopefully the FCC brings it to the Supreme Court and they actually do something.

Does Congress ever get anything done? Hopefully the FCC brings it to the Supreme Court and they actually do something.

My faith in Congress is around... hmm... Zero. I expect nothing Congress anymore, and this goes for both sides. Each side does they want and that's about it.

Anyways, I digress. I'm not sure if this is something that will be brought to the SCOTUS or not, I'm not familiar enough with the laws (my AP Government class never helped much back in high school).

That...actually seems pretty reasonable. The Internet is not treated like the phone network under US law; the FCC does not and should not have the power to go past what Congress has said. The only power an executive branch agency like the FCC has is to apply the laws as Congress wrote them; federal regulations have to be permissible constructions of the applicable acts of Congress.

The judge actually agreed that internet regulation would be desirable, and that this ruling will lead to a bad outcome for consumers. That doesn't matter. The court rules on the law; it does not make political judgments, and does not weigh what would be better for the American people. If unelected, life-tenured judges could make political decisions and decide what the "best" outcome is, as opposed to applying established laws and principles, it would be way, way worse.

My faith in Congress is around... hmm... Zero. I expect nothing Congress anymore, and this goes for both sides. Each side does they want and that's about it.

Anyways, I digress. I'm not sure if this is something that will be brought to the SCOTUS or not, I'm not familiar enough with the laws (my AP Government class never helped much back in high school).

 

If the FCC wants to appeal the court of appeals' decision, they'd have to have the Supreme Court review the case. 

 

This is the whole appealing process: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx

 

"The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case."

That...actually seems pretty reasonable. The Internet is not treated like the phone network under US law; the FCC does not and should not have the power to go past what Congress has said. The only power an executive branch agency like the FCC has is to apply the laws as Congress wrote them; federal regulations have to be permissible constructions of the applicable acts of Congress.

The judge actually agreed that internet regulation would be desirable, and that this ruling will lead to a bad outcome for consumers. That doesn't matter. The court rules on the law; it does not make political judgments, and does not weigh what would be better for the American people. If unelected, life-tenured judges could make political decisions and decide what the "best" outcome is, as opposed to applying established laws and principles, it would be way, way worse.

 I agree that the ruling is reasonable, but the whole idea of restricting the internet to whatever the ISP's feel like offering and charging a premium for the rest is what's ridiculous in my opinion.

 

If the FCC wants to appeal the court of appeals' decision, they'd have to have the Supreme Court review the case. 

 

This is the whole appealing process: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx

 

"The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case."

Thanks.

Yes, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to review the decision. They basically get to choose which cases they will review; there are very few cases that they have to hear (most often, lawsuits between states, which they hear directly instead of on appeal). They have a couple of other options as well - they can apparently ask for a rehearing from the same panel, or they can ask for an en banc review from the whole DC Circuit (this decision, like all initial federal circuit decisions, was made by a panel of 3 DC Circuit judges; en banc means the entire 11-member court hears it).

That...actually seems pretty reasonable. The Internet is not treated like the phone network under US law; the FCC does not and should not have the power to go past what Congress has said. The only power an executive branch agency like the FCC has is to apply the laws as Congress wrote them; federal regulations have to be permissible constructions of the applicable acts of Congress.

The judge actually agreed that internet regulation would be desirable, and that this ruling will lead to a bad outcome for consumers. That doesn't matter. The court rules on the law; it does not make political judgments, and does not weigh what would be better for the American people. If unelected, life-tenured judges could make political decisions and decide what the "best" outcome is, as opposed to applying established laws and principles, it would be way, way worse.

 

I think the ruling is correct as well, but this is removing the whole "open internet," "net neutrality" thing that everyone likes and fights for. The problem is that ISPs will have control over what we do on the internet now more than ever. Verizon says nothing is going to change for the consumers, but I highly doubt that will be true. All companies are always looking for more ways to make money, and I'm sure over time we will have to pay more to access more of the internet. Similar to how cable is already - you can pay for a basic package and just get basic channels, or you can pay extra for more channels. With the internet, they'll be able to charge you to use certain sites now. "Want to access all your favorite social media sites? Sorry, you'll have to buy the 'social media' package for that." Hopefully that doesn't happen, but it is entirely possible now.

I agree there should be regulation. However, until Congress gives the FCC the authority to regulate ISPs like common carriers or the FCC comes up with a set of rules that falls within the bounds Congress set, or the FCC comes up with better reasons why these laws *do* fall within their authority, it's better to wait. Procedure does matter; it's worse to have executive branch agencies be able to create law themselves than for ISPs to restrict traffic based on who pays what.

Also, I'm pretty sure pre-existing antitrust law means that ISPs can't arbitrarily restrict speeds. I don't think it would be legal for Comcast to restrict Netflix's speed while making their own streaming video service faster, for example. They could maybe make Netflix pay, but I think there are restrictions that would stop them charging a zillion dollars for it.