Net Neutrality shut down

[Bu🤠ns]

http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court-ruling/

[Bu🤠ns]

"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."

"To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm's having market power, but that itself is not market power," the court asserts. "There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers."

Citing Google fiber?  WTF?

The court has no fucking idea about technology.

It's time for Kevin Mitnick to whistle into a telephone.

[LMNO]

Um. There is no high speed broadband content provider other than Comcast in Boston. There are other PROVIDERS, but they don't have the infrastructure to support high-speed broadband.

Da fuq?

[Cain]

Now the market has been deregulated, there will be!

And if there still isn't, it just needs to be deregulated more!

[Bu🤠ns]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/195360-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules#ixzz2qOM5U82J

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority by prohibiting Internet providers from blocking or discriminating against traffic to lawful websites.

By classifying Internet access as an "information service" as opposed to a "telecommunications service," which is the classification used for traditional telephone companies, the FCC cannot impose its "anti-discrimination" and "anti-blocking" rules on Internet providers, the court said.

So if the FCC doesn't have the authority, we look to Congress? 

[Cain]

Given the FCC is the telecom regulatory body as well...yeah, that smells like bullshit.

[Telarus]

Looks like it was the court that "reclassified" it as an "information service". I was wrong. Huh.... that does smell.

[Bu🤠ns]

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

Source.

Posting for later reference.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

We didn't really want this whole Internet thing to be a multi-way communication system anyway. One-way is more than enough. Back in my day, we didn't get to talk to each other over the teevee. We used it for getting the evening Truth and watching Beaver Knows Best, and that's it, and we got along just fine. I don't see why we'd want the Internet to be anything other than that. Too many options is bad for Freedom.

[Left]

Um. There is no high speed broadband content provider other than Comcast in Boston. There are other PROVIDERS, but they don't have the infrastructure to support high-speed broadband.

Da fuq?

Verizon monopoly area here.
Comcast is the only other provider in area, seems to be agreeing to allow verizon a monopoly of sucky and overpriced service.

[whenhellfreezes]

We didn't really want this whole Internet thing to be a multi-way communication system anyway. One-way is more than enough. Back in my day, we didn't get to talk to each other over the teevee. We used it for getting the evening Truth and watching Beaver Knows Best, and that's it, and we got along just fine. I don't see why we'd want the Internet to be anything other than that. Too many options is bad for Freedom.

Speeds of up to 25 mbps! Oh wait you wanted to use that to upload, uh, uh, here is 6.

[whenhellfreezes]

Also not even all that long ago some ISP were arguing that google fiber be disallowed because google could use it as a lose leader to its other industries. Therefore the ISPs were arguing google could create a verticle integration monopoly. Then not that long later they argue against net neutrality and they no longer seem worried about fiber but instead cite it as an arguement for deregulation. Wouldn't this deregulation make google doing verticle integration more of a threat???

[Left]

Relevant, I guess...

More than 80% of new subscribers to high-speed Internet service are going with their local cable providers. It's not because they think those providers are just grand; it's because in most of the country there's no choice. Local cable service is a monopoly almost everywhere; fiber companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which have the technology to bring you higher speeds, won't spend the money to compete.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/23/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130823

[Bu🤠ns]

http://www.webpronews.com/akamai-as-proof-of-a-non-neutral-net-2008-01

This article is out of date but I now wonder what a company like Akamai will do with this deregulation.  If ISPs have control over web traffic that seems like it would directly impact the service that Akamai provides. Considering that Akamai is purported to route 25% of web traffic from sites like Twitter, reddit, whitehouse.gov, Apple and so on, it seems like they would have an even bigger interest in keeping the net neutral.

Although searching, I can't find any information about their position on this.

[P3nT4gR4m]

"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."

"To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm's having market power, but that itself is not market power," the court asserts. "There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers."

Citing Google fiber?  WTF?

The court has no fucking idea about technology.

It's time for Kevin Mitnick to whistle into a telephone.

This is the thing about the whole net neutrality deal. It's like it based around this idea that it's somehow possible for ISP's to prevent access to specific websites via their networks. Now a bunch of clueless dinosaurs like Govt Inc and the Church of Copyright I can understand but there's a counter movement of people who ought to know better, actively campaigning against this ridiculous fiction.

I'm sick of hearing about it. "OMG - your government want to block your access to torrent sites!" Good for them, I want an unlimited supply of solid gold Lamborghini's, so it looks like me and the gestapo are in the same boat. Actually, come to think about it a solid gold Lambo isn't outside the realms of possibility. How to shift the focus of Net neutrality campaigners to something plausible?