Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
1–10 of 131 posts
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#2Note that the DC Court of Appeals is the one that the Filibuster Crisis was all about. According to the Wikipedia, it still(!) has three vacancies, and the Senate Republicans have spent the last ~N months preventing any of the Obama administrations nominees from being confirmed to the Court.
These things matter.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#3Note that the DC Court of Appeals is the one that the Filibuster Crisis was all about. According to the Wikipedia, it still(!) has three vacancies, and the Senate Republicans have spent the last ~N months preventing any of the Obama administrations nominees from being confirmed to the Court. These things matter.
I couldn't agree more. There's absolutely no way this ruling can benefit the customers. The article mentionned that the FCC could rewrite its rule so to fit under the law, so it may very well be far from over.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#4Note that the DC Court of Appeals is the one that the Filibuster Crisis was all about. According to the Wikipedia, it still(!) has three vacancies, and the Senate Republicans have spent the last ~N months preventing any of the Obama administrations nominees from being confirmed to the Court. These things matter.
I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Silberman).
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#5Note that the DC Court of Appeals is the one that the Filibuster Crisis was all about. According to the Wikipedia, it still(!) has three vacancies, and the Senate Republicans have spent the last ~N months preventing any of the Obama administrations nominees from being confirmed to the Court. These things matter.
I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Silberman).
Keep in mind that Clinton also signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A few key things that this act did:
- Allow for consolidation of radio stations (and thus, the meteoric rise of ClearChannel)
- Allow for consolidation of telecommunications companies (and thus, almost the major phone service companies are the progeny of the Baby Bells)
It also did some very good things, like requiring entrants into the data services market to interconnect with incumbents.
But it also allowed telecoms to rip off the USGOV and taxpayers in extraordinary lengths (see previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021057 )
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#6Intuitively, I would have thought that this would be horrible news for content providers/distributors, and great news for wireless carriers. However, today, Google, Facebook, Amazon &etc are flying, while Verizon and AT&T are falling.
Does anyone in the industry know what this is all about, and what importance this decision really has on the future of mobile?
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#7Intuitively, I would have thought that this would be horrible news for content providers/distributors, and great news for wireless carriers. However, today, Google, Facebook, Amazon &etc are flying, while Verizon and AT&T are falling. Does anyone in the industry know what this is all about, and what importance this decision really has on the future of mobile?
Well right now carriers can be gatekeepers until the SCOTUS takes stand or FCC pick up their game if I understand the whole mess correctly.
Everybody loses in the short term because the future is uncertain.
Edit: Wrong TLA agency
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#8Intuitively, I would have thought that this would be horrible news for content providers/distributors, and great news for wireless carriers. However, today, Google, Facebook, Amazon &etc are flying, while Verizon and AT&T are falling. Does anyone in the industry know what this is all about, and what importance this decision really has on the future of mobile?
Well right now carriers can be gatekeepers until the SCOTUS takes stand or FCC pick up their game if I understand the whole mess correctly. Everybody loses in the short term because the future is uncertain. Edit: Wrong TLA agency
> Well right now carriers can be gatekeepers until the SCOTUS takes stand or FTC pick up their game if I understand the whole mess correctly.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has nothing to do with this.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does.
> Everybody loses in the short term because the future is uncertain.
The incumbent carriers that had already been instituting practices that violate the at least the non-discrimination provision clearly benefit in the short term.
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#9So, the court agrees with many others that the FCC needs to re-label cable companies as communication common carriers before regulating them as common carriers. I guess that's good?
Is it a difficult thing technically or only politically for the FCC to change their minds / admit they did this wrong in the first place?
What is the downside of treating the cable networks as communications media?
There are some thoughts on that here, though note the source: http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/government-policy/the-fcc-hav... .
Re: Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC’s anti-blocking rules
#10Anyone who is interested in a really good overview of 20th century telco policy should read The Master Switch by Tim Wu (http://www.amazon.com/The-Master-Switch-Information-Empires/...).
It goes over the transition from telegraph to telephone to internet, talks about the rise of media conglomerates, and basically explains how we're in the mess we're in today. Quite an enjoyable read, especially when learning about the differences between old and new styles of monopolies.