ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Court sides with Comcast, challenges FCC's Net Neutrality efforts

By | April 6, 2010, 9:40am PDT

Summary: A federal appeals court today ruled against the FCC and its Net Neutrality efforts, finding that it does not have the authority to regulate ISPs such as Comcast.

updated with Comcast’s statement

Comcast scored a victory today when a federal appeals court shot down the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to regulate Internet service providers. (Techmeme)

Essentially, it’s a blow to so-called Net Neutrality efforts, the push that would keep Internet Service providers like Comcast from differentiating - and treating differently - heavy users of the Internet. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (PDF) said that FCC does not have the authority to require Comcast to treat all Internet traffic the same on its network. From the ruling:

The Commission may exercise this “ancillary” authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is “reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities…”

The Commission has failed to make that showing. It relies principally on several Congressional statements of policy, but under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create “statutorily mandated responsibilities.” The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast’s network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast’s petition for review and vacate the challenged order.

Beyond that, the ruling puts the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, which was submitted to Congress last month, in legal limbo because Net Neutrality was an integral part of it. Almost immediately, public interest groups started to chime in on the decision. Washington-based Public Knowledge, for example, said the decision harms consumers. From its statement:

Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others. The ability of the FCC to support broadband through universal service is in jeopardy, as is the agency’s ability to protect consumer privacy, ensure access to broadband-based emergency communications or promote access to broadband for the disabled.  In our view, the FCC needs to move quickly and decisively to make sure that consumers are not left at the mercy of telephone and cable companies.

update: Comcast issued an official statement in response to the court’s ruling:

We are gratified by the Court’s decision today to vacate the previous FCC’s order. Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want. Comcast remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
114
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

People just don't listen, do they?
vulpine@... 9th Apr 2010
How can you go to another ISP when (name your provider) doesn't allow
any competition? If they've negotiated a monopoly where you live to the
extent that they are the ONLY provider, You are quite literally stuck. If
they were being fair (and believe me, they aren't) they would accept
competition and prove their superiority by their service--which is
currently abysmal.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, that sucks for us
ejhonda 6th Apr 2010
Not sure what they're thinking.
0 Votes
+ -
Here's that they're thinking...
crazydanr@... 6th Apr 2010
Now this is a court, so they just interpret the law.

However, your congressmen (if you're in the States) need money to keep campaiging, so they can keep their jobs.

Who's got a lot of money? Comcast does! They influence leaders of our legislative branch through contributions and other forms of "free speech" to pass laws in their favor, giving them increased market share / profits. People continue to vote down the party line and the chuckleheads get re-elected, and the process starts over.

I say it's about time for same campaign finance reform.
As devils advocate... The Constitution is written to limit the power of gov't. Maybe, without a specific law granting the feds the right to regulate, the courts decided they didn't have that power.

The FCC can't decide they have the right to regulate. The Executive and Legislative branchs must grant the FCC that power. Without that - ANY agency could just decide they had the right to regulate anything that sounded like it might fall into their realm of control, no?
0 Votes
+ -
Very true, regulation needs to be kept in check.
crazydanr@... Updated - 6th Apr 2010
However, given the past few years (Enron, toxic mortgages, privatization of the military, insurance and financial insitutions failing, rampant and systemic abuse in the health care system) it's pretty clear that the regulations are not working.

I would argue in many cases we need more regulation (health care, finance, insurance, cable/telco, energy). We also need to make sure the regulators are effective and not susceptible to corruption. Given free reign, companies will pursue profit without regard for the environment, the health and welfare of their workers, the stability and security of the country, and so forth.

And since the legislative / executive branches define how things are regulated, and by who, they are responsible for any troubles brought about by poor or ineffective governance.

But _we_ put them into office, so until the populace decides to educate themselves on what their own government is doing, the status quo will remain.
0 Votes
+ -
Ultimately, the reason the Constitution grants to Congress the power to regulate interstate trade is because the founders understood that Capitalists are, by definition, entirely dedicated to the shareholders (capitalists) and are immoral in all other considerations, therefore some force far greater must be leveled against the for-profit motive when it becomes destructive to the gain of all for the benefit of the few.
Remember, the top 5% own 88% of all shares of stock, and therefore all of capitalism works FOR THEM, against US.
0 Votes
+ -
Capitalism
tcrimmins1953@... 6th Apr 2010
Nothing could be more true: Those who have have control. Those who DON"T have must pay the price, whether it's oil, groceries, clothing, financial services....media services....
They are the ones who seem to be called "Conservatives"...ie, this is the way we've always done it, whether it works or not. (Note that it always works for "them".) Money talks, and what it's saying today is that "We have it, you don't, and we're going to continue to bilk you and the general public as a whole out of as much as the markets will bear, for as long as we can get away with it.
If you think I'm wrong, you need to put a window in your stomach so you can see where you are going with your head stuck up your a$$.
0 Votes
+ -
How can it be capitalism's fault?
tkejlboom 6th Apr 2010
It's the government and PUCs that force everyone
to do business with Comcast in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
Another wow.
People 6th Apr 2010
Jaw hits floor in amazement.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The "horrors" of capitalism
branchman67 7th Apr 2010
Because socialism worked so well for the Soviets and Eastern Europe. Capitalism has its flaws, and it only as good as the people who operate under it, but there's no other system that works better. Any system of 're-distribution' works to kill incentive to produce. As the saying goes, "Capitalism is the worst system, except for all the other systems."
0 Votes
+ -
Wow.
People 6th Apr 2010
Unbelievable, and sad.
0 Votes
+ -
If there were more democracy...
JCitizen Updated - 7th Apr 2010
in the stock ownership system, WE would own the majority of the stock, and WE would quit hiring greedy no good for nothing robber barons, because WE would control the board room and be the major players in corporate boardrooms.

This would be the next revolution in capitalism, and would be a radical and well thought out change for America!

Too many people have been complaining about how America does business, when they could BECOME the business; however without better rules on corporate stock holder governance, we will continue to see stupid things like the last meltdown on Wall Street, and the regulatory nightmare THAT FAILED THE SYSTEM by the WAY!!

What good is it to regulate and regulate, when the stupid regulators won't even do their job in the first place?!!?? Maybe if some of them were thrown in jail along with Mr. Ponzi scheme himself Bernie Maddoff, perhaps we would be having less as many of these conversations also!!!
0 Votes
+ -
What in the world is wrong with you people SLAMMING capitalism? In every country where Socialism has been tried, it has been an abject failure. Capitalism is the only system that has worked whenever it was tried!

My god the ignorance in this comment thread is staggering.
0 Votes
+ -
You are totally twisting my goal..
JCitizen Updated - 7th Apr 2010
my goal is PERFECT capatalizm, where the people own the stock and have a say in it!

There is no wrote book or design on stock ownership, the present system isn't working because the little guy hasn't any say on the board, because his less than preferred stock isn't good enough to garner votes in the proxy elections.

It is my contention that all non-preferred stock owners should have a vote and a man on the board as long as they collectively own more than 50% of the total stock.

You would see less of this good-buddy fat cat CEO's robbing the company blind and making off with golden parachutes even if they don't perform correctly.

If they don't do something like this soon, it will become a regulation to control CEO power and pay, and THAT IS A BIG FAIL!!

There is really is nothing wrong with our system that a few tweaks wouldn't fix. They weren't enforcing the regulations we had on the books before, what good are stiff regulations if you don't use them?

If they would employ this and fix our antiquated patent office to protect intellectual rights; this country(US) would get going again, in good order. We just need some natural checks and balances in our capitalistic system to make it more viable for the future! The entrepreneur need a little protection and small businesses would flourish!

I feel our government has become the enemy of the middle class, and that has always been the bane of history.
0 Votes
+ -
Excuse me? Profit is immoral?
SAStarling 7th Apr 2010
Are you serious? Please tell me you're being facetious! Capitalism is NOT evil; socialism IS! When was the last time you got a job from a poor man? Geez-o-petes, the ignorance in this thread so far is mind-boggling. And truly sad. Wow...just wow.
0 Votes
+ -
We as consumers
Sheldont 7th Apr 2010
It is we as consumers who have the power to regulate the so called capitalists. If we do not like the price of a product or service or the price a company charges for it, then we have the option of not purchasing it.

Capitalism in theory is a great thing. But when greed becomes a factor in any form of society then it is up to the people to regulate it. The US government works for the people. When it oversteps its' bounds, again it is up to the people to regulate or control it through the election process.

'Power to the people!'
0 Votes
+ -
Regulation kept in check ????
tcrimmins1953@... 6th Apr 2010
Have you been paying attention ???? This ruling effectively gives Comcrap the ability to control content and anything else it deems appropriate or inappropriate on it's network. They've already proved that derugulation can't work, either for Internet Providers OR Media services....There is no competition in a market that looks more like price-fixing than anything else, and letting the providers dictate what and how we receive media services ??? Madness.
You can't blame the politicians, although apt appointments might not have forced Digital TV and HD down our throats....wherein these damn providers decide for themselves that they are charging "fair" prices.....and that we need it, them, and their services....this is ALL bul$#&*, and it's about time we looked at the JUDICIAL system, which IS responsible for this anti-consumer judgement......New Constitutional laws, perhaps ???
0 Votes
+ -
I hear the claim that "deregulation doesnt work" but nobody is able to point to any meaningful regulations that were suspended.

If comcast decides to block content you wish to view, will you remain their customer?

Perhaps we should do as you say and let govt control everything--like they do in China--they dont censor anything.
0 Votes
+ -
Umm... deregulation of the energy market?
crazydanr@... 6th Apr 2010
Remember a company called Enron? Manipulating the energy market to force prices up and make a killing?

And I have no broadband alternatives in rural America, so Comcast can (and does) stick it to me fairly regularly.

No, government should not control everything. But corporations shouldn't have complete free reign either, should they?
Maybe you should look at some of the banking regulations that were
repealed by Congress during President Regan's term of office. Maybe
you should look at some of the communications regulations that were
repealed during the first President Bush term and others during
President Clinton's term. All you have to do is search for the word
'Deregulation' to find almost every example.

"If comcast decides to block content you wish to view, will you remain
their customer?"

I will--for one simple reason. I have NO choice. Comcast has a
negotiated monopoly in my area preventing any and all competition by
any entity that could offer television programming over wires. This
includes FIOS and DSL. This kind of deal should be illegal, but obviously
the FCC has no control over the situation and Congress isn't likely to
change it.

On the other hand, if everybody here and everybody you know were to
vote ALL incumbent politicians out of office, maybe, just maybe, things
will improve.

Then again, they could get worse. As some would say, "Better the devil
you know, than the one you don't know."
0 Votes
+ -
A better solution...
JCitizen Updated - 7th Apr 2010
I've tried to start ISPs in markets that were dominated by one player (Sprint in this case) and run into REGULATIONS that kept me from such a startup!!!

Now I think what would be a better solution is to END THAT KIND OF RULE MAKING and let competition move in!

I think a law was passed not long ago that ends these types of monopolies in rural markets, but it was too late for me.

Their would be a LOT more competition if the big players did not have REGULATION in their favor!!
0 Votes
+ -
Finally, a voice of reason here!!
SAStarling 7th Apr 2010
Thank you otaddy. I thought I was going to go mad reading this thread.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, no... dude, I'm agreeing with you
crazydanr@... Updated - 6th Apr 2010
Read my post - I'm arguing regulation right now is failing miserably.

Why? Are the regulators corrupt? Are we tightly regulating some things and not others? Is the regulatory structure complex and ineffective? Yes to all those!

But the judicial system is only there to interpret law (which I'll agree with you, it's not been pro consumer as of late)

Congress needs to pass laws to get corporations under control.

Too big too fail? Unacceptable. Split them up.

Making a profit on somebody getting ill or dying? Morally reprehensible

Controlling information through monopolistic behavior? BS. Open the cable market up so providers around the country can deliver service anywhere.

We don't need de-regulation - we need to be more measured in where it is applied, how it is applied, who is doing it, and determine how we can prevent corruption at all levels.
0 Votes
+ -
Whine whine whine
cue.burn@... 7th Apr 2010
The cable market is opened up. In my area, I can get TV, Internet and/or phone service from Comcast, my local telephone company, or a satellite provider. I can also get Internet and/or phone service from Clearwire. There are plenty of options.

What Comcast did was not wrong. It limited or excluded certain services because a few people (ab)using these services were adversely affecting other users on their network. If you don't like Comcast's policies, you can:
1) Ask Comcast to change
2) Go with another provider
3) Go with no provider at all

Comcast's network belongs to Comcast. They invested the money as a business venture to build it and provide it as a service to you. If you want to use it, you abide by their policies.

If you live somewhere that only Comcast serves then get satellite, move, or quit your whining. Broadband Internet access is NOT a right.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen to that!
Ole88 7th Apr 2010
We don't need de-regulation - we need to be more measured in where it is applied, how it is applied, who is doing it, and determine how we can prevent corruption at all levels.

I agree totally. My question is: Why did they deregulate the natural gas industry in my area? To me it makes no sense, I pay a company that sends nothing more than a bill - I get charged twice for natural gas.

If they continue with de-regulation the way they are, we really won't have any choices because we will ultimately be paying the biggest giant through whomever and paying what they deem to be a "fair" price. I think it's all crazy, worthless, bureaucratic BS!

It seems that the more you can put in a politician's pocket, the more you can make without any strings.
0 Votes
+ -
@Ole88...
JCitizen Updated - 7th Apr 2010
With so many alternate energy solutions coming out right now, their is plenty of competition there too.

NanoSolar is on the verge of coming out with solar panels that cost one dollar per watt. You would be better off paying for a home improvement loan (which most states have tax write-offs on) and getting your power yourself. Now this includes an integrated solution, which battery storage and windpower backup.

Most electric corporations in most states now have to pay you back for any extra energy that goes back into the power grid, so you would conceivably be making money to hedge against days where you were at peak energy usage.

Everywhere I've put a pencil to it, it has paid off. In most states you are also represented by a Corporation Commission, where you can lodge complaints about unfair charges or practices by energy concerns; this can be a great counter weight against such bad business. But you have to complain or they won't know their is a problem.

In the Midwest, this is the case, your area may differ.
0 Votes
+ -
The judicial system ...
SAStarling 7th Apr 2010
... is not meant to write new laws; it's meant to interpret the Constitution and apply it correctly.
0 Votes
+ -
Kept in check, or reinstated?
vulpine@... 7th Apr 2010
"... given the past few years (Enron, toxic mortgages, privatization of
the military, insurance and financial insitutions failing, rampant and
systemic abuse in the health care system) it's pretty clear that the
regulations are not working."

In almost every case you mention above, these regulations were
removed by Congress over the past 25 years, setting the stage for the
situation we find ourselves in today. Those regulations prevented Big
Money from abusing the People. Once dropped, the abuses slipped in
bit by bit until they became overpowering. These regulations were, in
most cases, put in place back in the 1930s to prevent a recurrence of
the Great Depression. Obviously, we cannot rely on the hearts of men
in power to 'do the right thing', it has to be made law.
0 Votes
+ -
What about the regulations they ignored?
JCitizen Updated - 7th Apr 2010
Their were a lot of regulations still on the books, that were not enforced and barely looked at - Bernie Maddoff anyone? What good are regulations when the stupid regulators don't do their jobs!?

If you are suggesting we string them up by the yard arm, I'm all for that!! Them an ol' Bernie to boot!!
0 Votes
+ -
Bernie Madoff?
SAStarling Updated - 7th Apr 2010
Bernie Madoff is spending life in prison for doing 1/10th of what the current administration is doing (especially with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac).
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
True - and also...
JCitizen Updated - 7th Apr 2010
The SEC knew about him and what he was doing for at least a year, maybe more, but just ignored it!

The FED chairman claims he didn't know what Freddy & Fanny were doing! HA!

Everybody on the street could see this thing coming seven years out!!

I don't believe a word of it!

If it was true, it was the worst dereliction of duty in history, and someone should at least spend some time in the stockade for it. And when I say that, I mean the old stockade, where they put your head and hands in a wooden yoke, and let the public spit on you for a few hours everyday!
0 Votes
+ -
You've all got it backwards
libertarian1 7th Apr 2010
You all have it wrong. This decision is a win for consumers. It will keep oppressive government regulation from stifling innovation.

You say we need to find regulators who are "effective and not susceptible to corruption"? And just how do you propose we do that?

You say, "given free reign, companies will pursue profit, without regard for the environment, the health and welfare of their workers, the stability and security of the country"? Of course their need to be regulations for environmental issues, but the reason companies are in business it to make a profit, so of course that is what they want to do! And how do companies make a profit? By providing customers with products and services that they want, and doing it better, faster, and cheaper than their competitors! Sounds pretty good to me, the consumer.
0 Votes
+ -
But...
KBot 6th Apr 2010
Internet nutrality is actually anti-regulation. The idea is to treat all traffic equally. A peer to peer application uses a protocol called UDP. This protocol has no fairness built-in, so technically enough users of a UDP application can slow down the entire internet. On the flip side, the efficient applications needed for regular use by responsibly parties are now cut short by Comcast's ability to reduce or block such activity. Its the common fight between freedom and security. There is no right side because there are major issues with both. On the freedom side, you allow for malicious parties to effectively kill the internet. On the security side, its data discrimination. Just because an application uses one particular protocol doesn't mean it should be forcefully restricted. So which side do you pick?
0 Votes
+ -
I would argue that on one very simple point: we need the regulation to
ensure that ALL traffic is treated equally.
0 Votes
+ -
Except...
Dr. John 6th Apr 2010
In most areas, they're regulating a government sanctioned monopoly. Regulation of a monopoly is in the public interest, and therefore falls under the government's powers in the Constitution.
0 Votes
+ -
Where in the Constitution do you find those powers?
SAStarling Updated - 7th Apr 2010
Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:

Exclusive powers,

(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

(2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

(4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

(5) To regulate immigration.[7]

(6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

(7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

(8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

(10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

(11) To provide and regulate postal services.

(12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

(13) To constitute lower national courts.

(14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

(15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

(16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

(17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

(18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

(19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

(20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

(21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

(22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

(23) To admit new states into the Union.

(24) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

(1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

(2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

(3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

(4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

(5) To conduct a census every ten years.

Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

(2) To borrow money.
0 Votes
+ -
constitution?
sabotooth 7th Apr 2010
you know that doesn't apply anymore, right? that's
just an old paper written by some dead weirdos,
you know?

/end sarcasm
0 Votes
+ -
all we have
hopefull2089 7th Apr 2010
Yes the constitution matters it is all we have and many people have died to make sure you can say these things. The "dead weirdos" you so lovingly called them are the greatest men in our history. No other country has survived as long as we have, and no other country has grown as we have. We welcome all to live in our great country.
0 Votes
+ -
Number (4) under Exclusive powers?..
JCitizen 7th Apr 2010
A monopoly most definitely occurs across state lines.
0 Votes
+ -
@crazydanr
You said "I say it's about time for same campaign finance reform."

I agree. And the best campaign finance reform I know, is firing all politicians.
There's an email thing going around that reminds us that serving as a civil servant is a privilege. Its not about pay hikes; plush retirement plans; or even a career. It's about serving the people, and then returning home.
It allows for longer than I appreciate term limits of 12 years. I prefer 6-8 years, then send them packing.
You want campaign reform? Fire the incumbent. The good ones know they've served far too long; the bad ones need to go.
0 Votes
+ -
To bad we can't draft them..
JCitizen 7th Apr 2010
like going into the Army! But then it wouldn't be a vote would it?

I'm definitely for firing all of them, and starting over again.

I voted across party lines last election, and I most definitely will be again next time!
0 Votes
+ -
And that'll work...
GeoffH@... 7th Apr 2010
There's a dream getting the guy's(and Gal's) who proft from the contributions to pass rule limiting what can be "donated" to them.. like you said they need the money to campain to keep their jobs and we all know once elected, I don't care which party they're from, all a politician wants to do is keep that perk laden goverment job...
...they are thinking that, just as Comcast is not required to carry CNN, MSNBC or Fox News if they don't want to, they can control the content of the rest of the services they offer. If Comcast wants to put CNN and Fox News on the same channel for 12 hours a day each then that is between them and the networks, and if you don't like it...don't buy it. If Comcast limits bandwidth and filters IP Ports than buy bandwidth somewhere else...Seems simple to me! Isn't that how the Free Market works?
There's not much of a free market when it comes to broadband. Most of us have little if any choice over our broadband provider. In my area, I have 2 "legitimate" choices, and funny thing is they both are ultimately the same company: Time Warner Cable. I can have RoadRunner via TWC, or choose Earthlink via TWC. Or, if I want to drop down to slower DSL speeds, I can opt for Verizon. So if TWC decides to play games, I don't have many options.

Now, if the courts want to step up and ensure there's competition in broadband providers for all consumers, then that would change things altogether.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair point but...
mikefarinha 6th Apr 2010
You raise probably the only legitimate point.
However just because a company is a monopoly in
a certain area doesn't necessarily mean it is a
bad thing. Provided it is a natural monopoly.
That would mean that the company is providing
their product/service at such a competitive
price that it would be silly for another
company to compete.

Now if there are local contracts by the company
with the city/county/state that ensures them
(directly or indirectly) a monopoly then that
is a bad thing.

It is usually government that causes markets to
fail. Instead of accepting responsibility (such
as our current economic recession) they instead
insist that they are the solution.
0 Votes
+ -
Unnatural
tkejlboom 6th Apr 2010
The broadband providers are almost all unnatural
monopolies. Nowhere where the law isn't used to
close the markets do you see any monopolies.
Furthermore, if Comcast insists that they are
responsible for the content on their networks, the
music and movie companies should be suing comcast
instead of the illegal filesharers.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: "Unnatural"
branchman67 7th Apr 2010
Actually, most utilities tend to be monopolies because it actually makes sense. If you had to compete with five cable companies, and every time you wanted to switch, the new company had to run a whole other set of lines to your house, it wouldn't be very practical. Same with phone lines, power, or any other utility where heavy infrastructure is required. Cell companies can have competition because they only have to build towers and call centers, they don't have to run massive amounts of wiring across the country. The reason we have the best landline system in the world is because AT&T held a monopoly over the phone lines for years and forced standarization. I'm not saying monopolies are all good, but there are benefits, especially when it comes to heavy infrastructure.
0 Votes
+ -
You need to do a little research.
vulpine@... 7th Apr 2010
Take a look at the telecommunications regulations; this is exactly what
they're supposed to do--share the lines. However, certain companies
don't want to either share the lines or play fair with their locked-in
customers. I pay a ridiculous cable bill for my internet... more even
than if I had internet and TV.

Why? Because they want me to get TV service through them as well--to
the extent that some of their service technicians have sabotaged my
satellite reception, saying that the satellite is the cause of temperature-
related connection issues that could be empirically proven to have
nothing to do with my satellite service. That issue was resolved, but it
also resulted in that technician being fired as a contractor, and hired as
an employee.

The point is that some companies need to be regulated or they will
simply abuse their customers. An open market is good; as long as it
works. Unfortunately, if any one player gets too big of a bite, they have
the power to drive their competitors out. How that's done needs to be
very closely monitored, and it doesn't matter who that company is.
0 Votes
+ -
@vulpine..
JCitizen 7th Apr 2010
I know what you mean; with me it was CockSu**er Communication(Cox), and they tried to sabatoge our cable and satellite antenna, so we put a camera on it so they couldn't get away with it.

There is ALWAYS competition in any market I've seen. I live in the desert, and we have several competitors all vying for broadband -

AT&T
Cox Communications
Verizon wireless
Pioneer Communications
Wheatland Electric(wireless/wired)
Dishnet
Hughesnet

Crikey that is a lot for a small town!!
0 Votes
+ -
You and so many are so stupid
People 6th Apr 2010
If your monopoly isn't providing what you want, then stop buying from the monopoly. When they start to choke, choice will happen. When you hand over the control to the government, then you get crap like we get with the health care. Unconstitutionally forced to purchase something or face criminal charges.

I'd rather go without broadband completely than hand over my freedom to the FCC. I don't want them censoring swear words.

Besides, this isn't about freedom anyway. The FCC wants to control. The internet has allowed more freedom to more people than the world has ever experienced. I'm glad the FCC lost and hope they continue to lose. As for Comcast, if you don't like them, choke them off an go dial-up if that's what it takes.
0 Votes
+ -
If Comcast can they all can
Altotus 7th Apr 2010
No escape any and all can do what they will with your data and connection.
0 Votes
+ -
People just don't listen, do they?
vulpine@... 9th Apr 2010
How can you go to another ISP when (name your provider) doesn't allow
any competition? If they've negotiated a monopoly where you live to the
extent that they are the ONLY provider, You are quite literally stuck. If
they were being fair (and believe me, they aren't) they would accept
competition and prove their superiority by their service--which is
currently abysmal.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix