Breaking: Appeals court rejects FCC authority for Net Neutrality

posted at 12:05 pm on April 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The DC circuit Court of Appeals gave the Obama administration a big dash of cold water on the limits of its authority to impose rules on communications networks today.  In essence, the court recognized Comcast’s property rights to determine its own terms of service for Internet use, and the implications could affect Barack Obama’s plans to mandate broadband expansion as well (via Story Balloon):

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 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.

The decision was unanimous, and it substantiates a warning from an FCC commissioner who declared the 2008 ruling “unlawful,” as Declan McCullagh reports for CNet:

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Even though liberal advocacy groups had urged the FCC to take action against Comcast, the agency’s vote to proceed was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the FCC’s ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority “is sure to doom this order on appeal.”

Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of current FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules — even though Congress has not given the agency permission to begin. (Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg, for instance, has said that new regulations would stifle innovative technologies like telemedicine.)

In fact, Democrats have been singularly uninterested in pursuing the kind of legislation that the FCC needs to extend its authority.  They certainly campaigned on the issue, and progressives expected action on it in this session of Congress.  Unfortunately, Democrats fumbled the health-care bill so badly that they probably have no time left to consider net neutrality, or for that matter, the stomach for another hard-Left agenda item before the midterm elections.

The lack of jurisdiction may also doom White House plans to dictate broadband expansion.  It doesn’t look promising, although the opinion by Tatel doesn’t appear to completely close the door on the notion.  He writes that the FCC has to show that its attempt to impose “ancillary authority” on a private company’s network-management practices derives from a “reasonably ancillary” part of its overall mandate.  The FCC and the Obama administration may find more solid ground in arguing that expansion of access is “reasonably ancillary” to the FCC’s mission of encouraging the broadest possible reach of American communication services.

This decision does make it clear that the courts are willing to act when executive-branch agencies attempt to arrogate authority and jurisdictions without Congress granting them in law.  That will be useful in this administration.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I have had such a hard time explaining to the average person why net neutrality, and more importantly FCC’s attempts to regulate internet, is wrong and unconstitutional.

I’m glad a court was able to undestand property rights. The government did not build the internet’s infrstructure, private industry did. Now the government wants to more stronly regulate internet providers, and force development on their dollar, along with things like net neutrality. It will stifle development.

Vincenzo on April 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Wow the 3rd branch of the Government comes through. Hallelujah!

Dr Evil on April 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM

This decision does make it clear that the courts are willing to act when executive-branch agencies attempt to arrogate authority and jurisdictions without Congress granting them in law. That will be useful in this administration.

Anyone know how this effects the EPA’s over reach on things like carbon dioxide control?

obladioblada on April 6, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Sanity from the courts? Hallelujah!!

csdeven on April 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Wow the 3rd branch of the Government comes through. Hallelujah!

Dr Evil on April 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM

hahaha…religious experiences abound today!

csdeven on April 6, 2010 at 12:11 PM

The Obama administration, overreaching. Again.

This time, they got their hand slapped.

UltimateBob on April 6, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Anyone know how this effects the EPA’s over reach on things like carbon dioxide control?

obladioblada on April 6, 2010 at 12:09 PM

I think that’s why the EPA had to declare CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. That’s they only way they can regulate it legally.

Daggett on April 6, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Next, go after the EPA.

Then the Department of Education and the Department of Labor.

Why are we taxed billions to operate agencies that work against the interest of the vast majority of the American people?

NoDonkey on April 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM

This decision does make it clear that the courts are willing to act when executive-branch agencies attempt to arrogate authority and jurisdictions without Congress granting them in law. That will be useful in this administration.

Whew. The judicial branch gets it right. Hallelujah indeed!!!

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Don’t think this will stop the fascists.

jukin on April 6, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Does this mean Duke still won?

faraway on April 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Maybe this will rub off on the SC if this health care bill goes before them and they will rule if illegal! This is good news for us today against the fcc.
L

letget on April 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Guess who just got put on the list for invites for next years POTUS SOTU scolding?

cntrlfrk on April 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Related parody: Obama Convention Delegates to Administer “Net Neutrality” Rules http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-convention-delegates-to.html

Mervis Winter on April 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Oh my goodness….Drudge does it again with a killer headline:

COURT: NO INTERNET CONTROL FOR FCC; BLOW TO JULIUS, REGULATION, RULES

He’s openly calling Obama a “Caesar.” Will be fun to watch Gibbsy & MSNBC respond to this.

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Freedom of Speech stands.

“failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress

For now.

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Phew!

Y-not on April 6, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Oh my goodness….Drudge does it again with a killer headline:

COURT: NO INTERNET CONTROL FOR FCC; BLOW TO JULIUS, REGULATION, RULES

He’s openly calling Obama a “Caesar.” Will be fun to watch Gibbsy & MSNBC respond to this.

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM

He means Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair.

Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2010 at 12:18 PM

When you divorce the free market from speech, who does that help? It helps the people that nobody wants to hear. You have the right to speak, but you don’t have the right to make other people pay for your bullhorn.

RBMN on April 6, 2010 at 12:19 PM

I don’t think I fully understand what net neutrality is. But I know Obama is for it, so I am against it and happy with this decision.

angryed on April 6, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg, for instance, has said that new regulations would stifle innovative technologies like telemedicine

Stifling innovation is the plan. Further development of all sectors of the economy that is not tied to “green economy” has to be stunted in order to make “green economy” viable.

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:19 PM

The Left is already weeping over this.

By calling this “Net Neutrality” the Left had cleverly implied (to the dim-witted) that someone how the Net WASN’T “neutral” now…and thus was discrimintating!

Had the FCC won this they would have very quickly started ensuring “Fairness”…but monitoring and regulating content “for the good of all”. BLECCCCH!

Hoorary for Freedom…for now at least!

Justrand on April 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM

He means Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair.

Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Oh! Thanks Ed. Could it be a double entendre?

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Not sure I like this…but the decisions has been legitimately made through the proper channels, and I’ll just have to live with it.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

He’s openly calling Obama a “Caesar.” Will be fun to watch Gibbsy & MSNBC respond to this.

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:16 PM
He means Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair.

Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Down boy until you’ve read the story. *SNORT*

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

“The court acted stupidly.”

How is PBHO expected to get his message to the people if the people don’t allow him unrestricted access and control of all forms of modern communications?

Next thing you know, the courts will decide that the required photo of Dear Leader hanging over the mantel is un-Constitutional.

Bishop on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

He means Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair.

Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2010 at 12:18 PM

LOL, killjoy!

JusDreamin on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Anyone know how this effects the EPA’s over reach on things like carbon dioxide control?

obladioblada on April 6, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Great question.

mikeyboss on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

The opinion is up. The takeaway:

Yet notwithstanding the “difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change” posed by the communications industry, “the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer . . . Commission authority.” NARUC II, 533 F.2d at 618 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Because the Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any “statutorily mandated responsibility,” Am. Library, 406 F.3d at 692, we grant the petition for review and vacate the Order

The question is whether declaring the Internet the regulatory successor to Plain-Old-Telephone-Service, which appears to be the plan, would get past that roadblock.

steveegg on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Not sure I like this…but the decisions has been legitimately made through the proper channels, and I’ll just have to live with it.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

What is it about government control that makes you wet?

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

While I agree with the ruling as far as the legality of trying to block the rights of providers, I also am hesitant to give this sort of power to a company like Comcast. One of the worst companies on planet earth as far as customer service and the greed factor.

Consider their recent efforts to claim that the “unlimited” broadband they advertise isn’t really unlimited when certain customers go over some limit Comcast has set on downloads.

I’ve already canceled my TV service with them but still have internet access through them as there isn’t really a better alternative around here. I picked up Netflix and watch shows through that and Hulu. What’s to keep Comcast from either setting download limits from those sources or blocking access to them completely in order to force customers back on to their TV service?

Benaiah on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

It seems some one will be all wee weed up with caesar salad. The EPA is now in 16 court cases and is next in line for being told they do not make laws and tax citizens. When it is over, the EPA will need to explain why thousands more die when driving small cars that get in accidents. Lying lips like Barney Fwank will be hit with the fact the FCC is not in control of the airwaves and cable.

seven on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Keep in mind that the Lefties “ideal state” of government is one modelled on Star Trek – they honestly want to try and create it.

PJ Emeritus on April 6, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Down boy until you’ve read the story. *SNORT*

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Glad I could provide some daily humor. :-)

I’m sticking with the double entendre interpretation, so there.

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:23 PM

This decision does make it clear that the courts are willing to act when executive-branch agencies attempt to arrogate authority and jurisdictions without Congress granting them in law. That will be useful in this administration.

This won’t go down easy for The One – what fireworks will come from Obamaaxelrodrahm next?

Dead fish? Public diatribe? Scapegoat?

tru2tx on April 6, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Next, go after the EPA.

Then the Department of Education and the Department of Labor.

Why are we taxed billions to operate agencies that work against the interest of the vast majority of the American people?

NoDonkey on April 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Still my beating heart.

heshtesh on April 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM

“Meh, I’ll just break out one of my executive orders and do it that way. So let it be written, so let it be done”

- His Royal Highness, Barack Hussein Obama.

turfmann on April 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Not sure I like this…but the decisions has been legitimately made through the proper channels, and I’ll just have to live with it.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

You should be thrilled. You can continue trolling blogs and looking foolish.

Knucklehead on April 6, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Glad I could provide some daily humor. :-)

I’m sticking with the double entendre interpretation, so there.

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Hey, bathtub boy might go with it.

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Not sure I like this…but the decisions has been legitimately made through the proper channels, and I’ll just have to live with it.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Wow a reasoned response from a troll.

Now I’ve seen it all.

angryed on April 6, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Glad I could provide some daily humor. :-)

I’m sticking with the double entendre interpretation, so there.

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Oh, I’m with you. I saw that huge red headline and thought, “Drudge, you magnificent bastard!”

Rational Thought on April 6, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I see several reasons ISPs have decided that they want control over how bandwidth is allocated.

1) It has become a commodity…and when something becomes a commodity, prices drop along with profits. With the buildouts of infrastructure in the late 90s, we’ve had a surplus of bandwidth available.

2) They’ve overextended themselves with gross claims of ultra-fast speeds when only a small portion of their users actually get it. Now, with photo and video sharing sites that take up TONS of bandwidth, the usage has spiked and they’re backpedaling en masse.

3) Secret dreams of controlling the Internet in some manner. Call me a tinfoil-hatter if you will, but I don’t think it impossible any longer.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:27 PM

If they can control the internet, they can tax the internet.

Abby Adams on April 6, 2010 at 12:28 PM

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Double entendre=a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent.

Bathtub boy agrees with me.

Oh, I’m with you. I saw that huge red headline and thought, “Drudge, you magnificent bastard!”

Rational Thought on April 6, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Your moniker is so fitting!

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:28 PM

“Meh, I’ll just break out one of my executive orders and do it that way. So let it be written, so let it be done”

- His Royal Highness, Barack Hussein Obama.

turfmann on April 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM

daesleeper on April 6, 2010 at 12:30 PM

This decision does make it clear that the courts are willing to act when executive-branch agencies attempt to arrogate authority and jurisdictions without Congress granting them in law. That will be useful in this administration.

Ed, I appreciate your analysis and wisdom on this issue. nice work.

ted c on April 6, 2010 at 12:32 PM

What Net Neutrality was Water Neutrality?

The federal government would ensure that all farms have unrestricted and unlimited access to water. State and local governments, that usually control water supplies, would be powerless to stop anyone from consuming as much water as they want.

WashJeff on April 6, 2010 at 12:32 PM

“I have had such a hard time explaining to the average person why net neutrality, and more importantly FCC’s attempts to regulate internet, is wrong and unconstitutional.”

Not only is it wrong an unconstitutional, it will break networks. For example, many people have VOIP telephones these days (Voice Over IP). You use a thing called QoS (Quality of Service) to limit the amount of bandwidth certain applications can use and to ensure enough bandwidth is left for the telephone to work. That way a properly engineered network will still allow a telephone call even though your kids are downloading a cartoon.

They can also limit some applications to prevent their taking up all available bandwidth (BitTorrent for example) so other people can still browse the web and get email.

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:33 PM

What’s to keep Comcast from either setting download limits from those sources or blocking access to them completely in order to force customers back on to their TV service?

Benaiah on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Nothing. If Congress doesn’t like this practice then it needs to pass a law prohibiting it. The FCC does not have the authority to do it.

rockmom on April 6, 2010 at 12:33 PM

He means Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair.

Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I think it’s both mentioning Julius the FCC chair, but also calling Obama Julius as he has a photo of Caesar up with the headline.

Enoxo on April 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM

If they can control the internet, they can tax the internet.

Abby Adams on April 6, 2010 at 12:28 PM

They also want to ban content and political speech.

They will eventually use Chavez style methods.

tetriskid on April 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM

The government did not build the internet’s infrstructure, private industry did. Now the government wants to more stronly regulate internet providers, and force development on their dollar, along with things like net neutrality. It will stifle development.

Vincenzo on April 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, but didn’t subsidies paid for with tax dollars contribute significantly to the creation of the communications infrastructure on which the internet runs?

I’m kind of ambivalent about this whole thing. The Net Neutrality initiative happened because the telecoms receive government-granted localized monopolies from municipalities. It’s basically the same thing Obama’s done with Government Motors, but on a municipal scale. Federal regulation may not be the proper response to that, but something does have to be done to ensure a competitive market.

Caiwyn on April 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Anyone know how this effects the EPA’s over reach on things like carbon dioxide control?

No effect. The ruling specifically applies to the FCC’s statutory authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (amended in ’96).

The EPA’s authority derives from separate statutes.

cy13 on April 6, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Call me a tinfoil-hatter if you will

OK fine, but Spathi has ya beat there hands down…

SHARPTOOTH on April 6, 2010 at 12:36 PM

If they can control the internet, they can tax the internet.

Abby Adams on April 6, 2010 at 12:28 PM

And they can also control spech transmitted over the Internet. That’s what the Left really wants. This decision, coupled with the SCOTUS decision allowing corporate political speech, really throws a roadblock into their plans to control and eliminate opposition to their transformation of America.

rockmom on April 6, 2010 at 12:36 PM

So finally we have precedent on our side. Hallelujah indeed.

carbon_footprint on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

but something does have to be done to ensure a competitive market.

Okay, how about little red tape and lots and lots of competition?

Sarjex on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Maybe the Socialists will just Nationalize that industry?

Chip on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I think it’s both mentioning Julius the FCC chair, but also calling Obama Julius as he has a photo of Caesar up with the headline.

Enoxo on April 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM

conservative pilgrim, I guess I should have check Drudge’s front page before I opened my big keyboard, apologies.

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Enoxo on April 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Yep. don’t think Drudge didn’t make a message there. Who knows who “Julius” is? Everyone will think Caesar. It’s plausible deniability.

lorien1973 on April 6, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Does this mean Duke still won?

faraway on April 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM

FAIL!

BobAnthony on April 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM

So finally we have precedent on our side. Hallelujah indeed.

carbon_footprint on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

FOR ONCE. But you can bet your last ounce of gold, Obama and his Chicago thugocracy will challenge this!

BobAnthony on April 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Oh, the irony.

Years from now, the “I want free everything” generation can sit in their basement and read about the founding fathers on the web while they wonder where their freedoms went.

cntrlfrk on April 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM

There is no such thing as “the Internet” it is all a bunch of private networks. If you don’t like Comcast blocking something, you are free to choose another provider that doesn’t block it.

But .. if Comcast were to block something, they would already be doing so as this ruling only upholds how things are done currently. It does not give them any additional authority they didn’t already have.

A provider is free to deny service to anyone for any reason.

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM

What’s to keep Comcast from either setting download limits from those sources or blocking access to them completely in order to force customers back on to their TV service?

Benaiah on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

The same thing that would keep them from deliberately filtering political sites they didn’t like: NOTHING. If we thought the Microsoft monopoly was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Net Neutrality as a concept doesn’t need actual legislation to achieve. Agitation and organization has worked thus far, with Google voluntarily adopting neutral standards on their fiber networks. Others will either follow suit, or deal with the market consequences.

ernesto on April 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM

I had no idea that conservatives were supposed to be opposed to net neutrality. I just assumed that most people who cared about the future of the Internet supported NN.

YYZ on April 6, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I had no idea that conservatives were supposed to be opposed to net neutrality. I just assumed that most people who cared about the future of the Internet supported NN.

YYZ on April 6, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Quick lesson on conservatism, YYZ:

Control by ‘the government’ = bad.

Control by corporations = good.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

By the way, Comcast has been disconnecting homes left and right in my neighborhood since AT&T UVerse came out. Comcast even closed their office in my town.

Looks like people are voting with their feet. AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon (and probably several more) all over high-speed broadband to the home but not in all areas.

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

. What’s to keep Comcast from either setting download limits from those sources or blocking access to them completely in order to force customers back on to their TV service?

Benaiah on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Nothing. But you have the right to leave them again if they do. Free market.

I live in a very rural area and would benefit from any Broadband mandate. But I do not want my high speed internet at that cost. i.e. govt control.

BierManVA on April 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Who has the monopoly on my internet access?

ROCnPhilly on April 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM

YYZ on April 6, 2010 at 12:42 PM

It’s just like the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check). It is actually the elimination of free choice. The name Net Neutrality is is anything but net neutrality. It would eliminate it.

mwdiver on April 6, 2010 at 12:45 PM

I had no idea that conservatives were supposed to be opposed to net neutrality. I just assumed that most people who cared about the future of the Internet supported NN.

YYZ on April 6, 2010 at 12:42 PM

There’s a common liberal fallacy trap. The misrepresentation of the actual intent of the NN movement belies the name. Of course, who could be against net neutrality, for it is such an innocuously named concept. Nevermind the fact that it would strip freedom of providers and individuals to interact in the newest frontier of freedom that exists right now—the internet.

ted c on April 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM

The same thing that would keep them from deliberately filtering political sites they didn’t like: NOTHING.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Err… I think that would be Barry’s intention, not Comcast.

katy the mean old lady on April 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM

What the FCC was aiming for (and probably still is as far as talk radio) was an eventual “fairness doctrine” in which “balanced” programming representing “all points of view” was required. This would kill talk radio, which is predominantly conserative

That Air America went bankrupt because no one wanted to listen to liberals is of no importance. The free market of ideas must bow down to “diversity.”

Wethal on April 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Maybe the Socialists will just Nationalize that industry?

Chip on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

They already have. Chances are there’s a government-granted monopoly on cable and/or phone service in your area. The city grants a monopoly to the cable company in exchange for a 5% cut of the profits.

Caiwyn on April 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Funny, not a word about this on Kos, Moveon, CNN! MSNBC does.

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Eh, corporations don’t force me to buy their stuff.

Corporations gave me flush toilets, modern electronics, state of the art welding machinery, and snowmobiles.

The government wants to take all of that away.

Bishop on April 6, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Control by ‘the government’ = bad.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

And proud of it.

mwdiver on April 6, 2010 at 12:48 PM

conservative pilgrim, I guess I should have check Drudge’s front page before I opened my big keyboard, apologies.

thomasaur on April 6, 2010 at 12:37 PM

No problem. The Caesar picture is what made me think of that. Anyway, a judicial ruling for America!

conservative pilgrim on April 6, 2010 at 12:49 PM

ernesto on April 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM

What, you don’t like the idea of paying a little extra for a Quality of Service (Qos) guarantee for your website? You think big ol’ Google should be able to get the best speed for free?

Not having “Net Neutraility” will not shut down a single website. Remove the tinfoil hats, people.

BradSchwartze on April 6, 2010 at 12:49 PM

“I just assumed that most people who cared about the future of the Internet supported NN.”

NO! And most people do not understand it. What it came down to was some network operators wanted to charge companies like Google and Yahoo and MSN a premium for prioritizing their traffic higher in their networks as they account for the majority of the traffic. Why should only the end user pay for the network? The content providers are basically using Comcast’s network for free to deliver their service. Comcast wanted the providers to shoulder some of the burden.

So Yahoo, Google, and MSN get this “net neutrality” thing going that would prevent the network operators from managing the traffic giving the content providers unlimited access to all networks with only the content consumer paying for it.

In other words, they wanted free unlimited access and wanted YOU to pay for it all. The network operators wanted to keep end user costs down and make the content providers pay it. So if some company starts putting out HDTV feeds that take huge amounts of bandwidth, they would have to pay something to deliver that to the consumer and not get a free ride.

The big content providers directly peer with the big consumer networks and so they don’t pay anything for “internet access”. They get their internet transit for free in most cases. The end user must pay for the service. The networks want the content providers to pay some of that cost of upgrading the networks to support these increased bandwidth applications (stuff like Hulu and NetFlix for example).

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:40 PM

They don’t need to “deny service.” The ISPs simply will put that website’s traffic on a lower-speed priority list, so to speak.

BradSchwartze on April 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM

“The court acted stupidly.”

How is PBHO expected to get his message to the people if the people don’t allow him unrestricted access and control of all forms of modern communications?

Next thing you know, the courts will decide that the required photo of Dear Leader hanging over the mantel is un-Constitutional.

Bishop on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Bahahahahaha!!! If I had a den, that’s where his pic would hang. Right above a table. On that table…a nice box of darts. ;)

capejasmine on April 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Control by ‘the government’ = bad.

Control by corporations = good.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Ya know, as a shorthand, that’s pretty accurate. Works for me.

russcote on April 6, 2010 at 12:53 PM

It’s just like the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check). It is actually the elimination of free choice. The name Net Neutrality is is anything but net neutrality. It would eliminate it.

This has become a traditional MO for the statist left.
Give the most atrociously destructive and liberty robbing acts and laws innocuous and positive sounding names.
They would have named Hitler’s Enabling Act the “Happy Cuddly Bunny Act”.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM

“They don’t need to “deny service.” The ISPs simply will put that website’s traffic on a lower-speed priority list, so to speak.”

Again that is NOT true. The priority never comes into play until a link reaches saturation. Once the pipe is full, it then begins to prioritize traffic. You can prioritize all you want on a link but if it is half utilized, the priorities will not come into play. Now when the pipe is full, you might say “I want to make sure I always send a voice packet even if I have to drop a web packet to do so” or “If I have to drop a web packet, I would rather drop one from Yahoo than from MSN” or whatever.

As long as the path is not congested, all traffic flows at the same speed.

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Ya know, as a shorthand, that’s pretty accurate. Works for me.

russcote on April 6, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I’ll take that as a compliment. In the screwy world of politics, very few such simple statements are really that accurate in the end…but I’m pretty sure that one is.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM

I think that’s why the EPA had to declare CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. That’s they only way they can regulate it legally.

Daggett on April 6, 2010 at 12:11 PM

So they can just declare CO2 as a dangerous pollutant, without any data, or proof? If they need data as proof, where do they get it? NASA? East Anglia?

capejasmine on April 6, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Next, go after abolish the EPA.

Then the Department of Education and the Department of Labor.

NoDonkey on April 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM

And do it through legislative action based on their not having any basis in the Constitution.

ya2daup on April 6, 2010 at 12:56 PM

If they need data as proof, where do they get it? NASA? East Anglia?

capejasmine on April 6, 2010 at 12:55 PM

From the same place where their heads are buried, natch!

ya2daup on April 6, 2010 at 12:58 PM

crosspatch on April 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM

That’s what I meant to say. Thanks for elaborating.

BradSchwartze on April 6, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Quick lesson on conservatism, YYZ:

Control by ‘the government’ = bad.

Control by corporations = good.

Dark-Star on April 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Dark, Comcast owns MSNBC home of Olby, Maddow, Shultz, and Matthews. Even so I would much rather have a liberal corporation decide what they carry or not carry than having the Federal Government decide. I can leave the Corporation and buy another providers product. It is much more difficult to change governments.

jpmn on April 6, 2010 at 12:59 PM

I think it’s both mentioning Julius the FCC chair, but also calling Obama Julius as he has a photo of Caesar up with the headline.

Enoxo on April 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Bingo. I thought as Ed at first until I went over and saw Drudge actually has a drawing of Caesar being saluted above the headline… that ain’t meant for the head of the FCC imho. The Julius he’s talking about lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

TheBigOldDog on April 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3