7 ms·

Is this ruling not the FCC regaining "teeth"?

rkangel 10y ago
No, this is validation that the FCCs position is legal. Nor they need a mechanism to enforce it properly. That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The FCC has existing complaint-based, investigatory, and other enforcement mechanisms, which have been around for a long time, and have been available to use (e.g., complaints have been accepted) under the Open Internet Order since it was issued (heck, they've had successful enforcement actions under the part of the old [2010] Open Internet Order -- the transparency rule -- that weren't struck down in Verizon v. FCC, such as the $100M penalty against AT&T Mobility for misrepresenting its "unlimited" plans.) What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    On paper you are correct, but I doubt the person who runs the FCC gets to golf with the president[0][1]. [0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with-comcast-ceo-170524 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      That's a pretty ironic view. This all got started when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking file-sharing services like BitTorrent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080101205.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08... Comcast sued and the FCC spent the next eight years fighting.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I'm having trouble seeing the irony. Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Especially ones that own media companies and donate heavily to political campaigns[0]? It's entirely possible the FCC has no teeth, or is muzzled by some paymaster. [0]http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political
        pdabbadabba 10y ago
        The irony, of course, is that you insinuate the FCC would never go after Comcast despite the fact that going after Comcast is the very thing that kicked off the entire net neutrality debate. > Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Well, if we're staying with the FCC, this would seem to qualify: https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-misleading-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-mi.... The FCC fined AT&T $100 M for violation of an Open Internet rule--the FCC found that they essentially "mislabeled" their broadband Internet service as'unlimited' without disclosing that speeds would be throttled after a user exceeded a certain soft cap. $100 M seems to me like a pretty robust fine for that kind of violation.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        While likely a large number to you and me, we are talking about a corporation that claims 120 billion in sales a year. That is less than a single days profits. Not nearly punitive enough to prevent this behavior in the future.
        pdabbadabba 10y ago
        What amount do you think would be reasonable, given that violation?
        cmdrfred 10y ago

No, this is validation that the FCCs position is legal. Nor they need a mechanism to enforce it properly. That doesn't just mean the ability to impose penalties (which is part of it) but also means the power to know what's going on so that penalties can be imposed.

dragonwriter 10y ago
The FCC has existing complaint-based, investigatory, and other enforcement mechanisms, which have been around for a long time, and have been available to use (e.g., complaints have been accepted) under the Open Internet Order since it was issued (heck, they've had successful enforcement actions under the part of the old [2010] Open Internet Order -- the transparency rule -- that weren't struck down in Verizon v. FCC, such as the $100M penalty against AT&T Mobility for misrepresenting its "unlimited" plans.) What do you imagine it doesn't have that it needs with regard to the Open Internet Order in this area?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  On paper you are correct, but I doubt the person who runs the FCC gets to golf with the president[0][1]. [0]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with-comcast-ceo-170524 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/obama-golfs-with... [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bou...
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    That's a pretty ironic view. This all got started when the FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking file-sharing services like BitTorrent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080101205.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08... Comcast sued and the FCC spent the next eight years fighting.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      I'm having trouble seeing the irony. Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Especially ones that own media companies and donate heavily to political campaigns[0]? It's entirely possible the FCC has no teeth, or is muzzled by some paymaster. [0]http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political http://littlesis.org/person/2261/Brian_L_Roberts/political
      - pdabbadabba 10y ago
        The irony, of course, is that you insinuate the FCC would never go after Comcast despite the fact that going after Comcast is the very thing that kicked off the entire net neutrality debate. > Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Well, if we're staying with the FCC, this would seem to qualify: https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-misleading-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-mi.... The FCC fined AT&T $100 M for violation of an Open Internet rule--the FCC found that they essentially "mislabeled" their broadband Internet service as'unlimited' without disclosing that speeds would be throttled after a user exceeded a certain soft cap. $100 M seems to me like a pretty robust fine for that kind of violation.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        While likely a large number to you and me, we are talking about a corporation that claims 120 billion in sales a year. That is less than a single days profits. Not nearly punitive enough to prevent this behavior in the future.
        pdabbadabba 10y ago
        What amount do you think would be reasonable, given that violation?
        cmdrfred 10y ago