http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-court-rules-against-FCC-on-apf-78990100.html?x=0&.v=4

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

 

The court case centered on Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning the company from blocking its broadband subscribers from using an online file-sharing technology known as BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net-neutrality principles it adopted in 2005 to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers. Those principles have guided the FCC's enforcement of communications laws on a case-by-case basis, and now Genachowski is trying to formalize those rules.

 

"Net Neutrality" is a way for the government to assert authority over the business decisions of ISPs, which would effectively make all ISPs the same, destroying the possibility of competition and innovation. Governments also like to argue taxpayer money be used to expand ISP coverage in rural states, but it's unnecessary - the ISPs should be required to grow their customer base organically (using the profits from existing customers, as well as other means), just like every other business. Government handouts and regulations lock existing structures into place, which slows progress.

Where's the pretty pictures :sad:

Here's a picture of the internet:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Internet_map_4096.png

 

And I should point out that this ruling has only slowed down the FCC. I fully expect it to eventually use a backdoor method for regulating the net.

Would the government regulate my pornography downloads?!

 

That picture is mind blowing :shocked2:

^Mainly because I don't really know what I'm looking at.

:thinking: looks like what happens when I close my eyes.

the internet should be free. Plain and simple.

Yeah. We have really shit internet and plans in New Zealand. Finally someone is trying to lay a huge cable across the bottom of the ocean to get better internet...

the internet should be free. Plain and simple.

 

i agree... any people should be able to do whatever they like w/ it

Yeah. We have really shit internet and plans in New Zealand. Finally someone is trying to lay a huge cable across the bottom of the ocean to get better internet...

 

Really? That's pretty cool.