Bill for Net Neutrality in the US struck down

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

From the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462

WASHINGTON?A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out federal rules requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally, raising the prospect that bandwidth-hungry websites like Netflix Inc. NFLX +1.12% might have to pay tolls to ensure quality service.

The ruling was a blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed the idea of "net neutrality." And it sharpened the struggle by the nation's big entertainment and telecommunications companies to shape the regulation of broadband, now a vital pipeline for tens of millions of Americans to view video and other media.

For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up.

"It takes the Internet into completely uncharted territory," said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who coined the term net neutrality.

I can only hope that Europe gets to avoid this fate, but odds are someone will think that this is a "Good" idea.
I don't get it, everyone knows this is a bad idea, even the people pushing for it, why the hell did they still make the ruling? I know Judges are often rigged over there and all, but fucks sake guys...

Edit: Fixed title.

 

[senordesol]

It's just an appeals court. This argument won't stop until it reaches the Supreme Court.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Well you could always come to Canada. And enjoy our service which can somehow be even worse than the US a lot of the time. Fuck you if you live outside of a town and have to deal with ExploreNet for your internet access. Or how your township is nice enough to dig up your front lawn and put a new fibre optic highspeed cable through it, and then not hook you up because they can't be arsed to replace the old phone lines.

 

[Keoul]

Capitalism Ho!

I guess it's kinda inevitable when there's money to be made, here's hoping there's an ISP out there that will voluntarily have net neutrality when everyone starts doing it..

 

[StormShaun]

Well, I doubt the citizens of the internet will allow this to happen.
After all, the internet is a big ass thing for people these days. This probably goes double for the people who uses all those services. A shame really, TotalBiscuit's newest video really does twist my screws, even though in Australia, we have our own problems to deal with.

I guess the thing I should say, is that everyone in the world deserves equal internet. A great speed, no limits, no censorship, no bullshit. Alas, only a dream in my mind. If I was to be a bit selfish, all I want is better internet. :|

EDIT: Hah, our government just wonders why we are a country of pirates, well guys, maybe because everything is all expensive bullshit, and a lot sucks.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

This isn't the end. It's not over till it reaches the Supreme court, and trust me it will. Also nothing is currently stopping Congress from just making Net Neutrality a law, but good luck getting that to go through.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

This isn't the end. It's not over till it reaches the Supreme court, and trust me it will. Also nothing is currently stopping Congress from just making Net Neutrality a law, but good luck getting that to go through.

Yep! I'd put money on it being a 5-4 decision, conservatives over liberals like always. Or maybe Roberts will surprise us again...

 

[Artemicion]

The public's been rather vocal about this. Combined with the big internet companies throwing their support behind net neutrality, it should be pretty hard for the Supreme Justices to ignore the dissent.

Not saying they won't, of course - I'm sure there isn't a single Justice on the bench who genuinely understands the situation and what's really at stake here. But here's hoping.

This is as good a time as any to remind anyone who hasn't done so already (Thanks Greg Tito):

1. Go to http://www.fcc.gov/comments
2. Click on 14-28
3. Comment "I want internet service providers classified as common carriers."
4. Hit the confirm submission link
5. Done

Hey OP, can you put this in your first post, just to ensure people see it? There's still time.

 

[GeneralFungi]

Why is it that the people who are signing the bills and making big decision in relation to technology can't even be expected to do a little bit of research? It strikes me as a complete failure of the law system to base the signing of bills to people who really can't take the time to educate themselves. A simple google search could take you directly to a video explaining the situation. There really isn't any excuse for senators not to know exactly what this is.

I'm just hoping that Canada doesn't follow suit. My government representative will got a lot of lengthy phone calls if this starts being a thing here. Keep this issue out of Canada for that poor man's sake.

 

[Tarsus]

That is some frighteningly uninformed drivel.

Are you trying to imply that government surveillance would magically stop if corporations were allowed to slow down or speed up sites at will?
The only difference in the regulatory powers of government is that they can no longer prevent ISPs from charging exorbitant fees for workable bandwith, and slow down anyone who cant/wont pay. Thus allowing them to control the internet and potentially crush any would be start ups that might threaten existing sites.
Of course this could also be used for internet censorship which is why the US govt is pushing for it.

As for corporations "not having done anything wrong"? .. seriously, what planet are you living on?

Claiming net neutrality is "anti competitive" makes me wonder if you even understand what net neutrality is.
It is in fact the opposite of anti competitive since it lets everyone compete on an equal ground.
In case you have not been paying attention, internet speeds have increased dramatically since its inception and competition between ISP's ensures that this continues to this very day.
Granted, the duopoly in America means they can collude to keep speeds slow, but for the civilized parts of the world where there are functioning anti-trust laws internet speeds increase constantly.

 

[Hoplon]

From the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462

WASHINGTON?A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out federal rules requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally, raising the prospect that bandwidth-hungry websites like Netflix Inc. NFLX +1.12% might have to pay tolls to ensure quality service.

The ruling was a blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed the idea of "net neutrality." And it sharpened the struggle by the nation's big entertainment and telecommunications companies to shape the regulation of broadband, now a vital pipeline for tens of millions of Americans to view video and other media.

For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up.

"It takes the Internet into completely uncharted territory," said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who coined the term net neutrality.

I can only hope that Europe gets to avoid this fate, but odds are someone will think that this is a "Good" idea.
I don't get it, everyone knows this is a bad idea, even the people pushing for it, why the hell did they still make the ruling? I know Judges are often rigged over there and all, but fucks sake guys...

Edit: Fixed title.

You know what really gets my goat with this, the idea that companies like Netflix don't already pay a shit load to these bastards. they pay for every gig of bandwidth they use up or down and then the ISPs also charge the customer for access. so not only are they getting paid twice, they want to add a third payment on top of that.

This is seriously some higher level arseholishness.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Also nothing is currently stopping Congress from just making Net Neutrality a law

You do realize that even if Congress did make a new Net Neutrality Law, the Courts would simply strike it down again, right? That's how America's Political System works. When a Court (Any Court) finds a law unconstitutional and strikes it down, Congress simply can't say "Oh Yeah? Here's another law nearly identical to the one you struck down". If that where the case, then Black People in the Southern States would still be Segregated (And possibly enslaved) and the Police wouldn't follow the law at all. The only way to change a Court's ruling is to either wait for a new Court's ruling or change the Constitution.

OT: It's a shame that Net Neutrality might end up dying in America, but hopefully Internet Providers won't end up screwing over all of the internet. I'm certain many providers will act as if Net Neutrality is de facto, because it would be bad for business to screw over other businesses and well as the Internet...

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Also nothing is currently stopping Congress from just making Net Neutrality a law

You do realize that even if Congress did make a new Net Neutrality Law, the Courts would simply strike it down again, right? That's how America's Political System works. When a Court (Any Court) finds a law unconstitutional and strikes it down, Congress simply can't say "Oh Yeah? Here's another law nearly identical to the one you struck down". If that where the case, then Black People in the Southern States would still be Segregated (And possibly enslaved) and the Police wouldn't follow the law at all. The only way to change a Court's ruling is to either wait for a new Court's ruling or change the Constitution.

OT: It's a shame that Net Neutrality might end up dying in America, but hopefully Internet Providers won't end up screwing over all of the internet. I'm certain many providers will act as if Net Neutrality is de facto, because it would be bad for business to screw over other businesses and well as the Internet...

It wasn't a matter of consituationality, but a law specific law.

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers," Tatel wrote, "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462

The FCC has not regulated ISP providers as common carriers, which is against the Communications Act. If that law was changed, repealed, or Congress made a law stating ISPs are common carriers, the ruling would no longer apply.