4 ms·

The author is missing the point that the ruling was about the specific language of the FCC regulations. See: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes

The author is missing the point that the ruling was about the specific language of the FCC regulations. See: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/ http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fcc... "That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order." It seems very likely that the FCC will rewrite their regulations to fix this. Everyone knows that net neutrality is important, and this ruling is just an issue in legalese. It's a little early to resort to torch-and-pitchfork hyperbole.

virmundi 13y ago
Perhaps you're right when you say, "Everyone knows that net neutrality is important". My gut says otherwise. There is a strong contingent on the hill to allow companies to do what they want. They want to make money like this. The government will allow them to do so. Heck the head of the FCC is one of the companies that want this. So I doubt she'll be running off to change phrasing anytime soon.
fredwilson 13y ago
I am "the author" and I do understand that but the point of my post was to simplify the issue for the vast majority of folks who don't get the net neutrality issue
declan 13y ago
It seems very likely that the FCC will be slapped down a third time in court if they try to "rewrite their regulations" a third time. They're 0 for 2 so far before the DC Circuit. "General authority to regulate" is a legal term of art. It probably won't take you as far as you like.

virmundi 13y ago

Perhaps you're right when you say, "Everyone knows that net neutrality is important". My gut says otherwise. There is a strong contingent on the hill to allow companies to do what they want. They want to make money like this. The government will allow them to do so. Heck the head of the FCC is one of the companies that want this. So I doubt she'll be running off to change phrasing anytime soon.

fredwilson 13y ago

I am "the author" and I do understand that but the point of my post was to simplify the issue for the vast majority of folks who don't get the net neutrality issue

declan 13y ago

It seems very likely that the FCC will be slapped down a third time in court if they try to "rewrite their regulations" a third time. They're 0 for 2 so far before the DC Circuit. "General authority to regulate" is a legal term of art. It probably won't take you as far as you like.