Court rules FCC doesn't have authority to impose net neutrality
By Nilay Patel 
posted April 6th 2010 11:16AM
posted April 6th 2010 11:16AM
No hard details yet, but opponents of net neutrality just scored a big victory -- the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has sided with Comcast and ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority under current law to impose regulations on internet service providers. Obviously we're super interested in the wonky minutiae, so we'll be digging for them -- stay tuned.Update: Okay, we're reading the opinion (PDF below) and basically it boils down like this: the FCC ordered Comcast to stop filtering Bittorrent on its network in early 2008, and Comcast filed suit, saying the FCC didn't have the authority to intervene like that. Since there's no specific law giving the FCC the authority to regulate the internet, the FCC told the court it was using its "ancillary powers," which allow the agency to take actions needed to fulfill its role -- and the FCC was interpreting its role as promoting net neutrality based on the policy statements of Congress. The court said that wasn't good enough, obviously -- we'd bet this gets appealed immediately while Congress goes to work on a specific law authorizing the Commission to impose net neutrality.
Update 2: Here's the FCC's response to the opinion:
The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies -- all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers -- on a solid legal foundation.
Today's court decision invalidated the prior Commission's approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.
Good thing the democrats are in charge. They can ram through a bill allowing the FCC to stop companies from throttling internet connections.
Reminder, the internet is an invention by Big Government, that is subsidized by Big Government. They have every right to regulate it to their hearts content.
I'm all for this ruling. However, I would like to see utility monopolies vanquished. This is the only band-aid available when the only competition is Time Warner.
When is the U.S. Supreme Court going to rule on my body?
@kklier Because the inherent limitations of building out a physical network, there will always be local monopoly's. That's why ISP should be regulated with a heavy hand.
Remember, they would have never been even able to afford to build out their networks without government money, so why shouldn't the government have a say in how they use government paid for property? We paid for it!
Jesus you guys are complaining about one non issue and completely overlooking exactly what they want you to. While the FCC claims to want nothing but the best for it's Internet citizens with one FACE, they along with the government are secretly negotiating ACTA which will make the DMCA look like a walk in the park.
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=420
You want to actually accomplish something to help protect your freedom on the internet then go to the following website and actually DO SOMETHING! Don't sit on your ass writing snarky comments on Engadget. WRITE A GOD DAMNED LETTER! CALL YOUR REPS IN CONGRESS. Make them do their God Damned jobs, not take payoffs from companies like Comcast and AT&T. You want to realize what letting these companies do whatever they want with internet bandwidth will bring. Just look at how long it's taking for us to be able to finally use cell phone bandwidth for something other than making a damned phone call. The ability to do more with IP based traffic has existed for a long damned time and yet only now (in very limited ways) are we able to use the internet ability of almost every cell phone in america to do things besides text messaging (extra charge) and e-mail (extra charge Mr. Executive). Forget that e-mail is not the purview of big business any longer and has not been for nearly 5 years. Forget that we already pay sometimes in upwards of $60 to $80 for what amounts to slow ass access speeds on our phones and False advertisements of unlimited (read 5GB) per month bandwidth.
That's what you have to look forward if we can't tell these companies to back off from time to time. So yeah, cry Big Goverment while using that 3MB dsl you have when countries like Japan have GB speeds to the home. Most of these companies took huge tax writeoffs when promising to run fiber to provide high speed internet access, some writeoffs in the neighborhood of 2 Billion. Yet never actually followed through and stopped after running tons of Fiber that to this day remains dark. Fiber that could be used to greatly improve the speeds that some of you will NEVER see without these types of connections until Wireless technologies (which still depend on those same fiber runs) improving and coming to your rural areas (fat chance).
These companies while taking a decade or more to provide decent internet access actually have the balls to fight the government when they attempt to step in and provide what they will not.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=32721
Wide Open West claims that you all have ample broadband in your areas. I don't know about you, but there are two options for real broadband and I live 40 minutes outside of Chicago, there is Comcast and DSL, and DSL runs over your local telephone lines and tops out at like 10Mb (if you live 5 feet from the building that houses their local loop that is). FIOS just announced they will actually be stopping their rollouts and you can forget about most of those services unless you live in a house as companies like Comcast have a stranglehold over apartment complexes by giving people free access to the basic channels without a box ( something they have been reducing in use every year since by moving more and more channels to encrypted digital tiers, which oh yeah you pay more for)
So yeah, lets argue about how the FCC didn't get the ability to inflict harm against these companies who have real competition. Because the more you focus on what they want the sooner they can implement even more draconian law that will impact your "Day to Day" life on the internet over the next 20 years.
Oh and just something to put your claims that these companies have plenty of competition.
IF THE COMCAST DEAL TO PURCHASE NBC GOES THROUGH THEY WILL BE DOING SO WITH "$6.5 billion in cash and contribute cable channels worth $7.25 billion for its 51 percent stake"
Yeah they are really hurting from all that competition.
Gee, I wonder what they will do with a controlling majority of one of the three major TV Content producers in the country. It's not like they would do something immoral or ethically controversial like filter internet traffic secretly while denying it in public, would they? Naahh, that's just crazy talk.
@ttringle Seriously, you need to learn how to do research.
No cable company has ever gotten any substantial tax breaks to build cable TV. They, as a matter of fact, collect a TAX that local governments tack on to your cable TV for the "privilege" of using the right of way. Which BTW costs the local government NOTHING.
So your answer to not liking them is to let others come in, on EVERYONE's dime, and over build them, subsidizing competition with TAX DOLLARS regardless of if that many companies can stay in business after all these wires are over burdening the poles?
Hey, let's write some laws that don't let people like you, who's eye color i don't like, have to stay indoors too? Or maybe we can write a law to make you have to wear an adult diaper instead of requiring public bathrooms?
Yeah, that's it. Let's let the nanny state tell everyone and every company what to do.
Oh, one more thing. Those companies, AT&T and Comcast that want to fight your government providing money to Schools (ie; your children) for high speed internet access. They want to charge upwards of $30K to $50K over 5 years to run Fiber Connections to school buildings. I know because I work on proposals for Schools and Libraries for just such contracts. I know it's expensive to run cable but to crap on the schools TWICE!!
Yeah that sounds like they have real competition.
Thank god, one small step in beating back the incessant attempts to regulate the private sector out of existence.
I'll admit I'm surprised. Surprised but grateful.
this is bullshit. the court system is so fucked up.
The internet is not a right but given that its advancement in communication and the disseminating of information then one can argue that it has become a right. Besides I think the ruling was more to do with how the fcc tried to present its argument where it didn't have the proper levy to do so.
Try being in the UK, where it's legal for any internet provider to keep a record of everything you do and then sell the information to advertisement agencies. well at least the EU is imposing net neutrality laws now :D.
And by the way, any country that's making internet a right isn't some kind of fascist state :/, stop being scared of anything "un-American".
The Internet!
First Isohunt gets ripped to shreds by some bullshit California judge, now this?
Two words: we're fucked.
@kenny goo From what I understand ISOHunt was advertising way too heavily the kinds of things you could get on their service. They should have gone out of their way to advertise the legal uses for newsgroups and the legal files you can obtain from them.
But we all know why we subscribe to things like ISOHunt. Mainly it's because these idiots won't put back episodes on Hulu for a reasonable price or the fact that their trying to compete with themselves and not committing to Hulu. What the hell was the point if you only halfass it NBC and ABC?
@ttringle
As far as TV shows are concerned, I'm not paying a few dollars for each episode, and I'm not paying a lump sum for a season pass. I already pay $40 a month for cable, and I don't have the cash to do much more than that. I'm also not gonna pay an extra $5 or $10 a month just to have one DVR in my house because that's fucking ridiculous.
I have no problem watching standard definition episodes with passable bitrates with 5 minute commercials where the commercial breaks would normally be. I have no problem contributing to your ad revenue by sitting and watching ads so I can watch my TV shows. But if you put expiration dates on episodes and I miss those dates then I'm fucked. It's a stupid system and they're shooting themselves in the foot by using it.
But that's just an aside. Anyway, I'm glad I finally learned how easy a proxy is to use, and I can still get to the old Isohunt that way, so I will as long as it's around. This shit is just stupid though. Getting past your ISP is as fucking chore.
@kenny goo Don't you really mean, "getting around the Law and a program producers legal ownership of his property so I can do with it whatever I feel i should be able to is a pain"?
Where do you work and what do you do? Can I come take some food out of your cupboard ever couple of days? You don't seem to worried about other people's rights.
@dataninja
This is something that I rarely say on these comments, but I really and truely mean it this time: fuck off. I'm sick and tired of you people crying foul when NBC Universal posts multi-billion dollar quartely revenues and hundreds of millions in profits. I'm not stealing groceries out of a mom and pop shop. Quit your bitching because you're by far in the minority here.
I already pay out the ass for cable just to have them take channels away from me every year and require I pay per room to get a cable box just to watch the channels I used to be getting for an even cheaper price. I don't have the time or the schedule or watch a show the same time every week, but I'm more then happy to settle for a low bitrate SD version of a show with normal length commercials to contribute to ad revenue. So please, fuck off, and do something more useful with your time and harassing me for asking for something completely reasonable.
It's a good ruling, but we aren't out of the woods yet. Congress might try to legislate what the Court disallowed today, and there are other bills working their way through Congress that entail even bigger and more egregious government take overs of the internet. Make no mistake, censoring and regulating the internet is one of the highest priorities the US Political class has right now. They know the internet is the greatest threat to their power.
@Everyone replying to LAY:
Don't feed the trolls.
If Comcast has never taken a cent of government grant money to provide Internet services, then yes, the FCC has no right to step in. But, I am certain that the US government has wasted countless millions of dollars on the atrocity that is Comcast.
Bend over and receive Comcast!
Everyone wants to view this as a decision about net neutrality, mostly since that's how it's being presented, but the decision is about the FCC's authority over the internet. Anyone who values the internet as a free medium protected under the first amendment should applaud this decision. But no, government interference is always okay when it gets you what you want. When I read things like "The FCC should have the authority to impose net neutrality," I cringe. The FCC should not have the authority to do jack crap about anything to do with the internet. Government regulation is the reason we have this problem at all. If the government (Fed, State, and Local) didn't artificially bottleneck the ISP market, we could all say, "Screw Comcast," and get our internet elsewhere. This country was built on (and made great by) the dynamic of free people interacting in a free market. Let's keep the internet on the same foundation.
@JaylanPHNX
You are crazy if you think regulation is always bad. Ex A: the financial meltdown we are still experiencing.
@zbot Bad example. The financial meltdown was caused by *gasp* government interference in the free market. The government (by way of FannieMay and FreddieMac) virtually guarantees home loans in a push to create more low income homeowners, so the banks make tons of loans they know they'll never recoup. The banks, to cover these inevitable losses, take these bad loans (pushed by the gov) and roll them into financial products that pass the buck on to the next bank. The housing market collapses, all this debt is worthless, and the banks almost fold. All started by the government influencing the loan market. Next?
@JaylanPHNX So why isn't the government requiring all "internet" to be the same speed? How about we go to the lowest common denonmiator, like phone modems, and never allow any internet faster then that? You want net neutrality? There you would have it.
This has been about speed, not availability. Comcast didn't block it, they slowed it down.
FUCK!!! This is bad.
Dang Lay I don't think that you are liked very much on here.
You don't like Comcast's practices, don't use Comcast. If enough people agree with you, comcast will change its practices. The majority, then, wins. It's the free market, love it or leave it.
We, the tax payers payed for the satellite in space and payed for the land that the lines run on. Soooo....its is not 100% free market for comcast, att, or dish/direct...if they want to use anyone of these items....THEY MUST PLAY BALL. If they dont want to play ball, "we the people" can say they dont use the satellites and land that they have their lines on. They can be as free as they want ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. That wire is on public or private property which does not belong to Comcast/ATT. I, part of this society, have the human right to shoot any airwaves as I want. I have that right. But of this society, I say "Ok" I wont shoot airwaves into the air, so these "big businesses" can work without problems. The court decision is short sighted and similar to China's decision on Google.
@magnovox Do you like the power you have? How about we let all your neighbors make deals to allow the power company to reach you? Hope you like cranking a generator.
At least you guys _talk_ and do something about Net Neutrality... poor Canadians like us are still living under the shadows of Robellus...
Well we can all kiss the internet as we know it goodbye. It was fun while it lasted.
@s73v3r
"You have neutrality with your phone packets. Your phone company is legally barred from interfering with your calls or degrading service just because you had the audacity to call someone who isn't in their network. Why would you stand for the same thing from an ISP? And before you say "I'll switch to someone else" there aren't many people who can do that. The vast majority in this country only have access to one ISP. "
Thanks for this crucial comparison. The precedent set by cellular phone regulation is pretty much exactly the precedent that should be adopted for the internet.
I would point out that this rule (unfortunately) does not (yet) apply to text messages or data, which is often why subscribers provide plans with a limited number of minutes but unlimited texting/data.
Probably a good idea to not let the FCC have too much power, but the FTC should be all over Comcast for their shaping.
It's funny how things work differently in different countries. In Australia we have capped internet usage (the more you pay, the more monthly GB allowance of downloads/uploads you get). Therefore, ISPs are *encouraging* bittorrent and the government does not want it (for the legal reasons of people pirating movies) - the opposite of the US ;)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Corporate Fascism - 5
The People - 1
People can claim its big business vs the people or US constitution vs big government but this is really just:
Big Business censorship - 1
Big Government censorship - 0
Technically the networks we use to post these comments and get internet access belong to the companies we buy the services (internet access) from and they have the right to control the information flow through them. Just as if you use GMail, Yahoo! Mail, etc. those emails on their emails can be viewed by them. As such Comcast can tell you no bittorrent and can limit it (although I really dislike this and is why I always use encryption when possible); this is the same as if you rented out a spare bedroom and barred the renter from trafficking illegal drugs.
Having said this however, internet access and as an extension, access to information, has become more than just a service and more a necessary public service. Thus in this way the government should be more involved similar to the regulation of other utilities such as electric generation or water.
A better solution than net neutrality could then be to have the local/state governments own the physical fiber/cable networks installed throughout a city or town (not including the ISP's servers and other equipment). Then breaking the current system of monopolies ISPs and cable companies have over areas opening their practices to the judgment of the free market. So, because no one company owns the fiber networks, several companies would be permitted to operate in any one area and if you don't like the policies of one company jump to another.
@JmHal yeah! let the government pay for the infrastructure!
How many billions has the post office lost every year for the last 10 years?
@dataninja
the government would not be running ISPs. So how much money the USPS has lost is irrelevant. All I'm saying is that in order to foster competition the current system of monopolies that most ISPs have over areas must be broken. And instead of using government power to screw over the ISPs which will result in the ISPs F-ing us harder it would be better to have the government use their power to increase competition and allow a free(er) market. Government involvement != socialization of the internet resulting in government mind control.
Local/State ownership of cable grids would allow for faster upgrading of internet related infrastructure as well as the opportunity for a larger number of ISPs to service an area. This would effectively split internet access into the service providers and internet "transmission" much like the electricity grid.
Money is everything.
So should the government make a law that forces YOU to let anyone that wants to get across town faster drive through your lawn? And that YOU would have to pay to keep it in good enough repair that they people can continue to drive through your lawn?
Or how about the government should make a law that let's your neighbor use your hose and water, which you pay the bill for, to water his lawn?
That's what you guys are asking for. Let the government tell YOU what you can do with what you own. To let the government control YOUR property.
BTW, there are laws that prohibit the government from doing this, so don't expect congress to be able to do it anyway.
@dataninja
"That's what you guys are asking for. Let the government tell YOU what you can do with what you OWN. To let the government control YOUR property."
The satellite is not their OWN. The satellite is not their property.