It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FCC Can't Force Net Neutrality, Court Rules

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

FCC Can't Force Net Neutrality, Court Rules


stkarnick.com

The United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia handed down the 36-page decision on April 6. Commonly referred to as Comcast v. FCC, the ruling stated that the FCC’s “ancillary authority” over the broadcast and cable industries “is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities” on the Internet, too.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
YES!

Strike a rare blow for fairness and justice for the 'little people', for a change.

Although we certainly know this is far from over. Especially with the courts notion that the FCC must get approval from CONGRESS before such an enactment is put into place.

Knowing congress' propensity for control over the masses, I would not be the least bit surprised to see them acquiesce this request on behalf of the FCC.

Still, nice to see that the courts didn't just roll over at first glance of this, and actually recognized the potential for abuse of power. This is ALL about control.

stkarnick.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
that was in april?... so why all the hype about it now? thats all i have to ask for now. old news is better than no news i guess


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I had hope too, until I saw the date. Wikileaks changes everything in relation to this. Wikileaks is to cyber-freedom what 9/11 was to "real world" freedom. I bet the courts would have ruled full body scans would have been breaching the constitution and not allowed their usage pre-9/11.

Anyway, in a capitalist society, where money is power and the "government" has a plentiful supply of it (even if the country is broke, they don't care about that), if they want something to happen, it will happen eventually.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


This is good news! It means an open forum for free speech is still available to the masses. However I question whether or not it'll do any good.

Having a voice is great, but they are starting to get frustrated with our actions more then our words. Will they clamp down more on the right to free assembly, to keep us from acting when we realize enough is enough?

Last thought, doesn't this make their entire case against wikileaks illegal? I'm fairly certain I may be mistaken due to poor understanding of all the problems associated with how WL got the information, and it's true impact on the international communities relationship...S&F
edit on 27-12-2010 by the cynic jester because: If there is an afterlife, my heaven would be watching Tucker Carlson get eaten by ants for eternity.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I'm trying to figure out if that april date is the date it was SUBMITTED to the court, or the actual date OF this ruling?

The site which posted this story has todays date atop the story, and starts out looking like it was a ruling handed down today, but then the date below looks as if this was a previous ruling? Hopefully I didn't get mine and everyone else's hopes up for naught...If so, I apologize people.

Wasn't this supposed to be ruled on about this time though?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


The ruling took place in April. What the FCC is doing now is moving ahead with the regulatory steps without the authority to do so with the blessing of the White House and the progressives who dream this crap up...
edit on 28-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
So if that is what they're doing, why are the courts letting them? Why isnt the court that made this ruling stepping up and saying no?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Xavialune
 


They haven't done anything yet.

The second they do people are going to jail for contempt and violating a court order.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Alright, sweet!
2nd



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
eweek has the article on this type in FCC net neutrality in yahoo, thought you would like to know.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Somehow doubt that Big Brother is going to let a little thing like a court order stop him from controlling what the people think, read, do...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
Somehow doubt that Big Brother is going to let a little thing like a court order stop him from controlling what the people think, read, do...


how right you are. im sick of big brother.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
From my understanding of Net Neutrality, it is a United Nations treaty to allow each nation sort out it's own technological / social issues while keeping the channels of communication open. So in China, thier great firewall stays, in America big brother snooping continues, ect... Part of this means that America could shut down wikileaks in America, but cannot directly affect another countries DNS and global access to such a site. I think it is important that some censorship exist for sites promoting child pornography, terrorism and the such. It is going to be up to each nation to decide where to draw the line.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Honestly, I despair sometimes. There isn't 1 of you that has posted anything that suggests you understand what the FCC is trying to do. Frankly I just cant be bothered to rehash this argument.

Its like you're all suffering from an allergy to the word "regulation" that causes a short circuit bypassing the frontal lobes. Thankfully, there is an anti-ignorance-amine available. He's called Lawrence Lessig. You can get him free online. When you've understood what a Creative Commons Licence is, how it makes a great deal of user generated online content possible & that such free content is in competition with large media producers who would like to charge you for their own content, you may wish to buy the stronger version & read some of the man's books. You will then understand that the technology to analyse packet headers in real time & route the data according to what content it represents exists, which allows ISPs to restrict data that is in competition with their rivals. If they are allowed to do this, user generated content hasn't a hope of keeping up with corporate media outlets, but also you'll end up having to choose your ISP based on decisions like "do I prefer YouTube or GoogleVideo?". 1 thing's for sure, unless you want ATS plastered with corporate ads so the site owners can pay for full bandwidth delivery to you, nobody is going to give ATS anything but the slow lane.

If you dont want the FCC to prevent this, just who would you like to prevent private companies turning the peer-to-peer internet we've come to know & love into a 2 tier system of stagnating user generated content & fast access developing technology devoted entirely to bringing you more MSM?

Yes, I am annoyed. I work in media. We've known this was coming for a decade. Its not enough that new projects are being stifled b/c its way cheaper to put back-catalogue online. Its not enough that only those projects that fit neatly into a genre thats getting a lot of online hits get funded. No, now we have to bend over for another arse raping. Grrr!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
the fcc is just one of the corporations that are taking away all of our rights. we need to fight back. lets fight for net neutrality and shut down the FCC



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
This is a sweet victory for the masses. Funny how the court ruled in our favor, and yet the Fed's and DHS shut down Pirate bay, and other sites under the premise of " copyright" infractions, but if you take a closer look, the Fed's used pirate bay and others as their means to the end, or scapegoats.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Thanks for posting this!
People will find a way for free communication even if they break this network, but it's nice to see a step in the right direction.

.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
woohoo!
I'll take any little gain we ca get!
just excited to hear this.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Except none of that has happened. ISPs who restrict the access their users have to the internet have gone out of business or have changed their policies because of consumer demand.

What this net neutrality bs also does is give everyone equal bandwidth, which, if you know anything about how networks work, would slow the internet for everyone down considerably.

Today ISPs are free to manage network traffic. So if I'm surfing ATS and my neighbor is downloading a movie more resources are allocated to him for the duration of the download because he needs more bandwidth. With Net Socialism, everyone gets the same bandwidth and everyone has to deal with SUPER SLOW SPEED.

Edit:

As far as media companies charging for their content, it's their right. It's their content they can do with it what they will. Most news services know whether that model fits their business or not. The Wall St. journal charges for subscriptions to their online content and it is successful. If FOX News or MSNBC tried the same thing no one would visit their websites bar a few. WSJ doesn't have a TV audience. So they must rely on paper and web subscriptions as well as ad revenue to do well. TV based media on the internet can only rely on top dollar ads, same as tv, plus cable contracts.

Companies have to make money in order to keep providing content.
edit on 28-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16

log in

join