“Net neutrality:” Ain’t over ’til it’s over
The U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the Obama FCC’s bid to expand its regulatory powers over the Internet this afternoon. As Clarice Feldman headlined the ruling succinctly:
Your refresher course via ReasonTV (more background here):
Adam Bitely’s right. The speech redistributors may have lost this battle, but they won’t give up on the war. It ain’t over ’til it’s over:
Don’t expect progressives to give up on Net Neutrality now because of a court ruling. At this time, more than ever before, we should be keeping a watchful eye on what they do next to sneak these Internet regulations through. Progressives never take no for answer.
***
More on the Left’s ‘net control alliance.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Letter from an Indiana reader about Brett Kimberlin
May 25, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
16 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
96 Comments
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be “Julia”
May 4, 2012 09:27 AM by Michelle Malkin
188 CommentsTwitter has a problem
April 30, 2012 09:09 AM by Michelle Malkin
101 CommentsAl Gore among first inductees into ‘Internet Hall of Fame’
April 24, 2012 01:31 PM by Doug Powers
36 Comments
It’s time for NBC News to appoint an independent ethics watchdog
April 9, 2012 02:06 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Categories: Blogosphere,Web 2.0
Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?
This is a HUGE 1st Amendment win – which means the Stalinists will try again.
“Progressives” never give up, and they attack on all fronts.
‘Net Neutrality’ sounds just as Orwellian as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’.
But, then, everything the Dims propose is Big Brother-ish.
DEATH BY 1000 CUTS. Otherwise known as the communist/progressive agenda.
Good, I enjoy a target-rich environment.
Good news but STAY VIGILANT ~ Progressive don’t quit!
The libs are probably blowing the dust off their old “Fairness Doctrine” papers, and making a few minor changes so that they can submit it again.
Sort of like the “Akaka Bill” or “Marriage Act.”
And it’s never over-if not this issue there will be another. Two hundred years ago, 1941, whenever, there is always the would tyrant, fascist, king, comrade or emperor willing to enslave his fellows. That is why we have fine young men on the wall: we can do no less at home. Speech Codes, Net Neutrality and the Nuremberg Laws–the same mind set every time.
Keep a list
Check it twice
Should push come to shove
Don’t miss anyone
That would not be nice
Thought some of you guys might like what I posted on this earlier today…
http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/
Please feel free to leave comments. They’re wide open.
Wow! A federal court got something right? That is the amazing story here…
It never ceases to depress me how many people in this country think that life would be better under a dictator.
Kinda makes you wonder if you got it wrong.
Don’t lots of libertarians and free marketers support net neutrality too? I’ve heard lots of support among Ron Paul and Reddit types.
SILENCE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhVpoRaTdj0
Just FYI, this had nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It’s all about separation of powers.
Congress could potentially still pass a law mandating net neutrality, and this opinion would have no effect on it.
November is important.
They took one in the broadsides … The pace is quickening, the race is all out to the November election.
November is becoming ‘for all America’s marbles’.
You are correct. However, the FCC attemping to tell Comcast what it can and cannot do is just another attempt to end up with Federal control of the Internet (IMO). It isn’t much of a stretch to think that they would end up squelching free speech along the way (think “fairness doctrine.)
From one of the links: “Net neutrality proponents responded to Tuesday’s ruling by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates. The agency “should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation,…”
Exactly.
The anti-American socialists/statists/collectivists/opposite worldview-holders are no different from ants when sugar is around, or from water in the presence of gravity.
Temporary (temporizing) measures will not end the problem.
….
Personally, I see net neutrality as an attempt at mitigating the negative effects of a monopoly. I don’t know about where you live, but by me, I have two options for high speed internet (not a true monopoly, but pretty close). As a result, I can’t do much if they both decide to start throttling traffic. If there were a legit competitive market, however, I wouldn’t have to worry about throttling. Net neutrality forces the companies to act as though there were a competitive market.
Agree. This issue is a lot more complicated than people realize. So characterizing it as another Obama power grab is being a bit simplistic.
Obowmao’s marxist administration will just say they need to explain net neutrality to the American public better. We didn’t get it the first time.
It’s all about control. Period.
Exactly.
I’d be very suspicious even if what these socialists said was simply that 2 + 2 = 4.
I’ve heard that Plan B is to regulate the internet as a utility. Remember, Obama has ways of leap-frogging or doing an end run around those laws and/or branches of government that get in his way.
When the Feds control it it’s a monopoly too, but run by completely incompetent idiots.
“The battle over the FCC’s legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast’s cable TV business.”
Progressives don’t give up on anything. They pushed healthcare until it passed. They will push for amnesty until it passes. They will keep ramming stuff at us until we boot their butts out of our lives. These people should never be allowed to have any positions of power ever again in this country. Let Chavez employ them.
Progressives are un-American. Period.
Keep your hands off my Internet!
Net neutrality.
I thought it had something to do with badminton.
Where I live, choices abound. Why should the entire country be smothered by one rule?
Why don’t conservatives share your concern for worrying about carriers “throttling” traffic, especially since we DO worry about the left trying to throttle free speech through the “fairness doctrine”?
And if there’s “no competitive market”, why do I receive an offer for lower, faster service from Comcast and Verizon every other week?
As for #20′s quoting what some progessives say should be done in spite of the decision: where is the statutory authority for doing it?
Re # 28: so…..some companies are arguing “net neutrality” for competitive reasons, and they go to federal agencies to help get their sweet way. and to hobble their rivals. Of course, they cloak their claims with self-serving notions of “fairness”.
That’s been going on for a looooong time, folks. All regulatory and legislative outcomes create winners and losers.
But when companies game the system they ought to be called out on it, the way GE did when they foisted those miserable compact fluorescents on us.
Crony capitalism is neither left nor right, but it must be opposed every time governmwent action threatens our liberties and wallets, and when it actually or potentially freezes out competitors and competition itself.
The idea of everyone’s content having equal access by net users is a noble one, but I’ve long-ago stopped expecting Barry to use noble means to accomplish ANY task.
Mr. Universe; “Can’t stop the signal Mal.”
Us ranks 29th in Internet Connection Speed
There is certainly some competition, but it’s not a true competitive market as required for efficient markets. Granted, no market is perfectly competitive, but some are better than others, and high speed internet is one of the worst.
bluesoc is smoking something funny. This is not about ending “monopolies” in high speed internet! In fact, it is GOVERNMENT REGULATION that restricts competition in high speed internet to begin with!
Restricted competition in this market could be wiped away with the stroke of a pen! And if bluesoc claims not to know this then he obviously isn’t worth listening to to begin with.
This is all about control and control of content specifically! The GOVERNMENT cannot stand the fact that the internet is free and open!
The troll strikes again! I can almost see him hiding under the bridge…
and you think the givernment can do a better job of controlling broadband…let me guess your in favor givernment health care, right?
He knows that, but being the good comrade he is, he has to make an effort for the party.
Good grief! Did bluesoc even read his own link? He typed the ranking wrong (the use is 28th and NOT 29th as bluesoc stated) so I suspect he didn’t read it or didn’t understand it or both!
I could go out tomorrow and pay my ISP to double or triple my download speed. There is nothing but my checkbook and perceived marginal utility preventing me from doing so. And I could go to at least three other companies tomorrow and get other service if I don’t like my current ISP! That appears to be competition to me…
I’ll say it again. Control is the issue!
Back to packing the court.
What you are saying is that the market is not competitive enough. Guess why?
Regulation is ALWAYS preferred by incumbent businesses (as a generality), as it greatly increases the cost of entry for new competitors.
When you have the government in control, you can be assured you’ll be dealing with a monopoly or quasi-monopoly.
See this…
http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/03/crash-why-collectives-love-of-monopoly.html
And, when you have THAT, you have no hope of suing the regulators, or seeing increased competition.
Remember the phone company: “We don’t care…we don’t have to…”
Net neutrality sounds so right until you stop and ask yourself, has there been a problem? No, there hasn’t. Would there be a problem if the politically controlled FCC were to “make some rules” that private industry would have to abide by? Oh, yeah, Big time. Well, what do you know? Another government takeover of a private, if somewhat regulated, industry! And Obama says no one can say why we call him a socialist! Dude, it’s because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a socialist duck.
Not to split hairs, but Obamanomics is not socialism.
It is fascist economics. Look up the term on google. Fascist economics is…to my mind….MUCH more dangerous, as it seems much less threatening.
Thanks for the typo correction.
I guess I’m just not convinced of that. Perhaps it’s because I first heard of net neutrality issues from libertarians. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that whole thing was started by a bunch of internet nerd libertarians and not by progressives.
I think it’s because the upfront capital required is a huge barrier to entry. The only two options I have are att and comcast. Comcast already owned all the cables and att owned the phone lines. Also, att just started offering service last year.
So, in a year, competition for your market increased by 100%…??? Not too shabby.
Moreover, try a simple google search for ISPs in your zip code. You might find you have LOTS more options.
Living in rural Texas, I used to use a satellite internet provider. Not DSL speed, but WAY faster than dial-up.
Actually, it took over a decade for a single competitor to show up.
Trust me, I’ve searched near and far (and dial-up doesn’t count).
Slower than DSL?!?
This is because we have an older communication infrastructure than the rest of the world.
What makes you think higher ranked countries have more choice?
Two providers isn’t close to a monopoly.
It’s irrational to fear that both AT&T and Comcast would ever have the same reason to throttle your internet speed.
Overall, your supposed concern about choice is completely disingenuous.
Can’t you get a Sprint card?
Why not?
My truck doesn’t do 300 MPH, but it gets the job done, same thing for dial up.
I get the impression that what you seek breaks the rule of ‘fast, good, cheep. Pick any two’
Is it 2012 yet?
The R’s better be vigorous in slaying attempts to pack the courts with fellow travelers and sympathizers like Liu. The job of restoring sanity and freedom is going to be hard enough without fighting an ideologically skewed court.
This is one small victory, and not time to rest easy.
To the legal eagles among you. I’m curious; what legal recourse covers countering (job background killing) character defamation/slander and malicious credit card number/medical information posting online?
James Greenidge
Queens New York
I don’t think they necessarily have more choice. However, if the high speed internet market were competitive here, you’d expect that we’d have the best internet in the world. The technology exists, but, for some reason, no one is providing it in the US.
I think there’s a more mundane explanation for slower US internet speed; our country is larger and more diffuse than many Euro and Asian countries. It takes longer to replace all the cables/routers when they wear out.
bluesoc is all over the place as trolls tend to be. Actually, bluesoc, it took either 234 years, 10,000 years or 14 billion years for the competition to show up. Depends on where you want to start counting…
If you counted the miles of fiber and cable laid in this country and the number of people it serves it would certainly dwarf the same statistics in any other nation…
More people in America have more and better access to the internet than any place in the world.
Did you know the average speed on the autobahns in Germany is way faster than the average speed on the interstate highways in America? Does that statistic alone mean they have a better highway system?
Did you know the average calories consumed daily by Americans is much higher than the average calories consumed daily by those in other nations? Does this one statistic mean Americans have the best diet in the world?
From site, Sweetness and Light:
Here’s where the progressives get ahead of us (every freaking time!!).
Starting with this ruling, progressives will drill words like non-discrimination, openness and equality into this issue.
Opposition media and internet freedom folks need to have descriptive words to lead thought (rather than counter).
Using words in Video from Reason TV, I say: The internet should be regulated by market pressure rather than political pressure.
I have not read many comments yet, but this ruling could be a great legal weapon against Obamacare. The IRS also has no statutory authority for their participation in the penalty scheme.
This and the other legal challenges to Obamacare could decimate the “progressive” assault on America – on several fronts.
Exactly. And we were communicating with each other a lot earlier than in other countries.
Pioneers do the dirty work!
Well that kinda ruins your argument.
Only those ignorant of the technology and technology infrastructure would “expect” that.
Why didn’t you ever ask why the rest of the world had a higher quality television system (better picture) than the United States for 50 years? Maybe you knew that theirs was better because it was developed AFTER ours – you know – AFTER the technology improved. Much like other aspects of communication infrastructures.
I can’t remember the term but it’s used in regards to company business plans/models that do just that. Allow the pioneer to jump the legal hurtles, spend all the money and work out the ‘bugs’ then come in later new and improved and steal the customers away.
Fiber Optic technology comes to mind.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but bluesoc is typical of those of leftist persuasion. He is looking at perhaps one part of “net neutrality” that might be “positive” and neglecting the 99% of this that has “unintended consequences”. Of course, in this case, the consequences are entirely intended! Trolls/progressives have such narrow focus, they look for one thing that might be good and use it for talking points ad nauseum. Forget the negative aspects that are horrendous!!
Then perhaps you should start lobbying your local officials in protest of the exclusivity agreements they sign with the providers.
The more government interferes with a market, the less free it is, no matter how good the intentions are.
If there’s a significant demand for higher speed internet access, rest assured one of those two providers will supply it, albeit you might have to pay more for it.
Hate to burst the bubble here, but the case in question came about due to Bush’s FCC trying to reign in Comcast throttling of Peer to Peer traffic. In other words, Comcast blocked access to their users to download content. Nowhere in any contract between users and Comcast was there language limiting access to peer to peer technology.
Net neutrality is a means to guarantee that monopolies can’t start blocking access to internet services they don’t like. It’s not like there are dozens of internet providers at every location. In most cases there is a choice between two gigantic corporations, and in some locations there is only one choice. If these companies decide you shouldn’t access Google or michellemalkin.com, for example, you’re screwed. You have no alternative outlet except to move to a country that has more internet freedom.
As computing moves towards a cloud-based service model, Net Neutrality will become ever more critical.
Here’s what you could get in a Net Neutrality-less world:
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/04/windstream-in-windstorm-over-dns-redirects.ars
I’d say yes. Have you seen the potholes in Massachusetts lately?
But that still leaves the question of why our infrastructure hasn’t improved. If there were a competitive market, wouldn’t you expect other companies to be providing such an infrastructure? Please answer this question for me.
It’s not that we’ve hit a technological roadblock. Like I said earlier, the technology is there, just no one is delivering it.
Then you’d expect to see speeds comparable to the rest of the world in densely populated areas of the US. I honestly don’t know if that’s the case, but I would suspect that it’s not.
I suppose you have a point. Speed is not the only thing that makes an ISP good. I also care a lot about reliability. I currently have comcast. They were ridiculously unreliable for a while, but are getting better. Although, I do have to reset my modem just about once every day.
I honestly don’t know what reliability is like in Asian and European countries with faster access. If any one wants to look into it, I’d be happy to learn.
This is a bit of a tangent, but this is the reason we have things like patent law…to try to mitigate this problem. Patents create temporary monopolies to increase incentives to innovate. That way, pioneers can have a little bit of time to recoup their initial investment.
Patents are a perfect example of government interference that increases efficiency. Anyone who claims that all government interference is bad should think about that.
Doesn’t it make sense to simply switch providers before taking the drastic measures of leaving the country.
If an internet provider started blocking access to Google, then a rival provider would be funded within the week.
It’s downright stupid for you to imply that the infrastructure hasn’t improved.
1. The cable companies have been pushing hybrid fiber coax deeper and deeper into neighborhoods, curbs, and homes for the past decade. Are you really implying that cable modem speeds haven’t increased over the past decade? And have you noticed that cable companies now offer ON FREAKING DEMAND? Remember that ancient channel called Pay-Per-View? You had to revolve around its schedule – not the other way around. Did you have more High Definition channels during the 1990s, or had you not heard of the term back then?
2. The ILECs spent the first part of the last decade pushing better and better DSL equipment deeper and deeper into neighborhoods in order to squeeze more and more data through the ancient, unshielded copper. They’re now pushing fiber optics into the home which is providing more bandwidth than you’ll need over the next decade.
3. Wireless carriers have been filling out their coverage maps of mobile voice and data service over the past decade. 3G speeds surpass dial-up speeds and rival early DSL. These speeds are available for mobile devices and laptops. How can you say that’s not an improvement?
4. In case you were asleep over the past few years, television is now broadcast throughout the country digitally. Picture quality has certainly improved.
5. Satellite Radio….
6. Etc.
7. Etc.
See above. Or are you referring to some other infrastructure?
OK, what’s not being delivered to you, personally?
What speeds aren’t fast enough for you? What speeds are you envious of?
Wait! What? So now you admit that you’re not sure about the claims you’ve been making? Thanks for wasting my time.
No, they don’t. They just restrict others from using the same exact technology or process. The same service or good can still be offered via other technologies and processes.
GladzKravtz point is germane.
The laissez-faire conservatives on this website are probably few and far between, but great job manhandling them the way you did.
I was responding to someone who said the reason our internet isn’t the fastest in the world is because we don’t have the best infrastructure. Well…why don’t we have the best?
Internet as fast as that in South Korea.
Hmmm…talk about being disingenuous.
Sounds like a monopoly to me.
My first thought was:
Sign says: ‘No shirt, No Shoes, No Service.”
I know what you were responding to.
What makes you say that we don’t have the best? What criteria are you using? What’s your definition of the best?
Really? What speeds are you being offered by AT&T and Comcast, and what speeds could a South Korean in a comparable neighborhood get?
I’m very ingenious.
I have no doubt that it sounds like a monopoly to you, but you’re wrong.
Google has patented search technology, but it’s hardly a monopoly. There are plenty of search engines available.
Nokia has patented cell phone technology, but Nokia is hardly a monopoly.
I could give you hundreds of examples. This is a very basic concept.
Speed and price.
Do a quick google search.
No one else can use google’s search patentened technology. They have a monopoly over them. Suppose there were a truly competitive market, you’d see thousands of sites using google’s technology.
Pharmaceuticals are one of the best examples. Once a drug company’s patent runs out you see a flood of generic drugs enter the market. And guess what, the price goes way down. Why? Because the monopoly is gone.
Without knowing where you live, I did extensive research on the subject and have concluded that your claims are bogus.
A monopoly isn’t the exclusive use of a technology. A monopoly is being an exclusive supplier of a market of a minimum size.
Look at fed and courts treatment of anti-trust regulation with respect to mergers and acquisitions.
That would be no less a monopoly than what exists now.
Just because a certain pharma has an exclusive drug for a period of time doesn’t mean that the pharma has a monopoly on the entire drug market.
So, at what level would one have a monopoly on the drug market? Would they need to supply every pharmaceutical drug?
If your definition of a market is large enough, nothing will ever be a monopoly.
Just because a drug is covered by patent doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have competition. A drug with a different mechanism of action will not infringe the patent yet might enjoy a higher market share than the patented drug. It’s beyond me how you can call that a monopoly.
I’m sorry if you don’t like the definition of monopoly. Maybe you can speak to antitrust regulators and ask them to change it.
I assume you’re done crying that South Koreans have faster internet access than you.
You should probably look at Bahrain, too. They were pushing to put fiber into every home severals years ago. It’s even a smaller country than South Korea so paying for and physically installing all that fiber is much cheaper and faster. The funny thing about it though is that there was NO comptetion.
I’m still quite certain that their internet is faster. But, there’s no bother in arguing over it with you.
Yeah, like I said earlier, the point wasn’t that countries with faster intent have more competition. It was that better technology exists, but we don’t have it yet.
The fact that prices go way down once the patent runs out seems to be a pretty good sign that there was a severe lack of competition.
Also, I’m using monopoly in the economic sense, not the legal sense. Perhaps that’s why we disagree.
Not only am I convinced that their internet is NOT faster, I’m convinced that you don’t even understand bandwidth, data rates, or multiplexing.
But by all means, tell me which techology exists that you don’t have yet? Is that kinda like the iPad existing but that you don’t have one yet?
Prices drop for reasons all the time – that doesn’t mean it’s caused by a monopoly bust.
Yes, monopoly in the economic sense. I can open the only lemonade stand on my street – that doesn’t mean I have a monoploy. I can open the only lemonade stand in my town, but I still don’t have a monopoly. Even if it’s the only stand in the state.- still no monopoly.