Home  ›  News  ›

Federal Court Nixes FCC Net Neutrality Ruling

Article Comments  68  

Apr 6, 2010, 10:21 AM   by Eric M. Zeman

A federal appeals court has sided with Comcast and negated the Federal Communication's Commission's citation against Comcast (issued in 2008) for throttling internet traffic. The FCC had scolded Comcast for reducing the broadband speeds of users who accessed high-bandwidth file-sharing services. The appeals court says that the FCC doesn't have the authority to issue such citations nor to govern how private companies run their networks. The court said in its ruling, "The commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any statutorily mandated responsibility." The decision could have a wide-spread affect on how net neutrality is addressed in the future.

Wall Street Journal »



This forum is closed.

This forum is closed.


Apr 6, 2010, 11:11 AM

Take that FCC!!!!!

I think it sucks that comcast limits the speed of some of its users, but I think it is far worse that the FCC thinks it has authority over the practices of PRIVATE companies.

There is no such thing as the free market when you are dealing with monopolies and oligopolies.

I suspect that doesn't matter, and you just wanted to cheer on the "free market".

So, while cheering, remember that the "free market" has enabled u...
And, I'm so glad the Courts have ruled to allow corporations to spend as much as they want to elect friendly politicians and finance voter initiatives. I feel safe and warm now.
flip mode

Apr 6, 2010, 2:48 PM


I have comcast, unfortunantly and they're looking like some major greedy communists right now. they've been throttling the internet. they have no right to do so. i dont care what arguements anyone brings to this blog. the fcc DOES have the right to intervene. federal court is blind as hell. in this case they were fighting for MY RIGHTS! COMCAST, DON'T CALL IT HSI ANYMORE...CALL IT "PARTIALLY HIGH SPEED INTERNET WITH THROTTLING IF YOU USE IT FOR MORE THAN TO WEB BROWSE."
there is no net neutrality LAW. There needs to be one.

This ruling pushes us one step closer to having it.

It is a good thing.

and no, your ISP is not throttling you if you're using hulu/youtube/netflix. they are throttling you if you're us...

Apr 6, 2010, 2:21 PM


He's gonna COME IN and tell them SEC NO YOU DIDN'T. 👀

SEC gonna be all "yo we didn't mean no harm we just playinG!"

President Obama is FOR Net Neutrality. Heck, his election campaign centered around the internet... you know... that place that isn't restricted [yet]. Now, imagine if Comcast, AOL TimeWarner, and Verizon hated him and made all requests to www.barackob...

Apr 6, 2010, 2:29 PM

This ruling is NOT about Net Neutrality

It's about the fact that current law does not give the FCC the right to enforce (or inhibit) net neutrality.

Let me put it another way:

The FCC made their ruling against Comcast SOLELY based off of the current opinion of their governmental body.

This means that if someone else was running the show (and they didn't like bit torrent) they could've legislated that ISP's MUST limit the largest abusers of bandwidth so that everyone has a consistent level of service. How would all you "capitalism is evil" posters be reacting then? I bet you would be PRAISING the federal court for their ruling right now.

And that's the issue.

Net Neutrality is important, but it needs to be LAW, not just something that is enforced based off of the...
Agreed...well written...my post was more about what this could lead to...but your post is more of the conversation we should be having about this specific topic...

Apr 6, 2010, 11:43 AM

and SEC have authority??

and SEC have authority to tell me what i can or can not do with my money?
it' my freaking money, why is the government telling me what i can or can not do with my freaking money??
if you have 25,000$ in your stock account, you can daytrades as many times as you wish!
but if you poor and dont have 25,000$, you only allow to daytrade 3 times in 5 days period. isnt this discrimination?
it' like going to casino, if you bet 100$ per game, you allow to leave anytime you wish. but if you poor and bet 20$ a game, you not allow to leave the table until you played 8 hours??
Not trying to be negative, but, are you from the US? You repeated formated your money in 100$, when standard conventions in the US formats it $100.
Page  1  of 1

Subscribe to news & reviews with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram



All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.