Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury

The NY Times reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Internet access is considered a public utility rather than a luxury. This means that the telecom companies that want to regulate at what speed users can access the Internet cannot be limited depending on how much we pay.

WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled in a sweeping decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users.

The decision affirmed the government’s view that broadband is as essential as the phone and power and should be available to all Americans, rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision.

Remember SOPA and PIPA? We can now add another huge victory for the little guys.

Here's the full text of the decision (pdf).

a reply to: Shadoefax

It is absolute lunacy to suggest the internet is not a utility. The internet is FAR more necessary in today's American society than the phone is... in fact, you can actually acquire telephone access via the internet nowadays!

Very excited to see some progress on this.

a reply to: Shadoefax

that's dodging a huge bullet...I'm sure they are quick to appeal

This is a rare issue I agree with the left on these days. Glad to see it as a utility. We must now watch both the telecom giants and the ftc so that neither overstwpea their bounds.

Is it a good thing? Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.

originally posted by: Blueracer
Is it a good thing? Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.

Government involvement in utility price control is not only a good thing, it is crucial. Because of the natural monopolistic tendencies that utilities have, there is nothing stopping them from price gouging us... except the feds.

And, just to ease the mind of the endless-profit-loving individuals, here's a quick recap of how utility price control works: The government forces the utility company to set their prices equivalent to their costs, so that they can capture no profits. However, they are allowed to call their executives' salaries costs, and they are allowed to set those salaries however they see fit. So basically, the utility is actually allowed to set how much profit they obtain... it just must be within reason. But their reasoning can be "Well the Walmart CEO makes so many millions per year, so as should I! I oversee a company of similar scope!" And that generally works for them.

By the way, just the process of setting the utility prices takes years. It requires a ton of research, debate, and really doesn't consist of the goverment "setting a price" nearly as much as you might think. The government just gets to have representatives that are allowed to vote on whether each "cost" is really a cost or not.

originally posted by: Blueracer

Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.

Government involvement isn't always a bad thing. Take the FAA for instance. Without government oversight and control, we'd have pilots taking off and landing their airplanes anywhere and anytime they felt like it. The skies would be chaos.

We can't have net neutrality decided by Big Telecom. We'd all end up paying more and more for less and less.

Government involvement will cause us to pay more. I think it was government involvement that cause the big collapse in '08 and look at healthcare.

Is it a good thing? Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.

Grow up and stop being blinded by dogma.

originally posted by: Blueracer
Government involvement will cause us to pay more. I think it was government involvement that cause the big collapse in '08 and look at healthcare.

"Government involvement" is so insanely vague though. What do you even mean? Do you mean building roads? Thats government involvement. Do we have roads to blame for the economic crash in '08?

originally posted by: CB328

Is it a good thing? Now there will be more government involvement in it. That is never good.

Grow up and stop being blinded by dogma.

Stick to the topic. Not personal attacks.

originally posted by: faint1993

originally posted by: Blueracer
Government involvement will cause us to pay more. I think it was government involvement that cause the big collapse in '08 and look at healthcare.

"Government involvement" is so insanely vague though. What do you even mean? Do you mean building roads? Thats government involvement. Do we have roads to blame for the economic crash in '08?

From the OP "...rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision."
That means we will get close government supervision. Also from the OP "Remember SOPA and PIPA?". The same people that tried to pass that stuff is now closely "supervising" the internet. It will be even more than they already are. Prices will increase. Just like in healthcare. And everything else it gets involved in.

Government roads? Just like the internet, if the government didn't do it, someone would. I suppose you are one of the people that believes that the government, not Apple, invented the iphone?

originally posted by: Blueracer
I suppose you are one of the people that believes that the government, not Apple, invented the iphone?

originally posted by: Blueracer

Stick to the topic. Not personal attacks.

originally posted by: Blueracer

Government roads? Just like the internet, if the government didn't do it, someone would. I suppose you are one of the people that believes that the government, not Apple, invented the iphone?

What? The government pays for our roads using our tax dollars... this is economics 101. Roads are infrastructure. In a way, roads are utility. If the government didn't build them, you're right, someone would have. But that doesn't mean they'd be better, and it certainly doesn't mean they'd be cheaper.

It never even crossed my mind that the government, instead of Apple, invented the iPhone... frankly I've never even heard such nonsense. So I don't know where the hell that came from but I'll just dismiss it as your frustration over something you don't understand.

And finally, back to the topic, the government will not be supervising the internet. Or maybe they will. I don't know. But deciding to regulate the internet as a utility instead of a luxury has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's a purely economic decision to protect the interests of the consumer. If anything, they will be supervising the companies that provide us with internet. But really, just their prices.

originally posted by: faint1993


What?

Not up on current events? Here is a link to what I am referring to. It's the same kind of logic that you are using.
Apple didn't invent iphone

It never even crossed my mind that the government, instead of Apple, invented the iPhone... frankly I've never even heard such nonsense. So I don't know where the hell that came from but I'll just dismiss it as your frustration over something you don't understand.

There is no frustration on my part for you to dismiss. Do you always get that way when someone disagrees with you?

And finally, back to the topic, the government will not be supervising the internet. Or maybe they will. I don't know.

They will. The OP's source pretty much says so.

But deciding to regulate the internet as a utility instead of a luxury has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's a purely economic decision to protect the interests of the consumer. If anything, they will be supervising the companies that provide us with internet. But really, just their prices.

And government involvement always drives prices up, like I mentioned in a previous post.

originally posted by: Blueracer
Government involvement will cause us to pay more. I think it was government involvement that cause the big collapse in '08 and look at healthcare.

Monopolies and oligarch cause you to pay more. This was the better of two decisions.

1. Kill the internet overnight by removing net neutrality principles.

2. Delay it's death by buying some time and turning it into a utility.

a reply to: Blueracer

No, I don't get this way when someone disagrees with me. I encourage it! But you're not just disagreeing. Your'e disagreeing and offering absolutely nothing for your side of the argument. It's just as if you are not responding to what I am saying at all. You just keep repeating the same things without introducing new ideas or even explaining the ones you've already presented.

And I don't understand how saying that the government is responsible for the construction of our road systems it the same logic that Nancy Pelosi has when she suggests the government invented the iPhone. Do you care to elaborate on that? Or on anything that you've said for that matter? This is not rhetorical.. I don't understand your point and would appreciate it if you could help me.

originally posted by: faint1993
a reply to: Blueracer

No, I don't get this way when someone disagrees with me. I encourage it! But you're not just disagreeing. Your'e disagreeing and offering absolutely nothing for your side of the argument. It's just as if you are not responding to what I am saying at all. You just keep repeating the same things without introducing new ideas or even explaining the ones you've already presented.

And I don't understand how saying that the government is responsible for the construction of our road systems it the same logic that Nancy Pelosi has when she suggests the government invented the iPhone. Do you care to elaborate on that? Or on anything that you've said for that matter? This is not rhetorical.. I don't understand your point and would appreciate it if you could help me.

My point is that government involvement isn't always needed. You seem to be in favor of more government. I disagree.

a reply to: Blueracer

Yes, it isn't always needed. Just like the right to bear arms isn't always needed, or eating isn't always needed. In this case, however, it absolutely is.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Blueracer

Yes, it isn't always needed. Just like the right to bear arms isn't always needed, or eating isn't always needed. In this case, however, it absolutely is.

The right to bear arms IS always needed. Whether you like it or not. However that doesn't have anything to do with the topic.