# Net Neutrality - Now a thing of the past? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791 "2014-01-14T16:35:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/1 "2014-01-14T16:35:30Z")
This just came down the wire… > **[Federal Appeals Court Nixes FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules](https://variety.com/2014/biz/news/federal-appeals-court-nixes-net-neutrality-rules-1201055383/)** > > The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. District struck down the FCC‘s so-called Net Neutrality rules, siding with Verizon Communications that the commission overstepped its legal authority in a ruling Tuesday. In the 81-page ruling, the court said the... > [@](#): > > **Federal Appeals Court Nixes FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules** > > The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. District struck down the FCC’s so-called Net Neutrality rules, siding with Verizon Communications that the commission overstepped its legal authority in a ruling Tuesday. > > In the 81-page ruling, the court said the FCC did not have the legal authority to adopt the 2011 regulations. The court said that even though the commission has general authority to regulate broadband, “it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates.” Thoughts? Implications? What are the next steps, both for advocates and opponents of NN? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/2 "2014-01-14T17:03:54Z")
I was never a big fan of the Net Neutrality legislation. I think the market will protect neutrality better than the government. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/3 "2014-01-14T18:07:45Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I was never a big fan of the Net Neutrality legislation. I think the market will protect neutrality better than the government. You know, it’s pretty rare that I actually laugh out loud while reading something on the web, but this managed it. The only thing the free market does is make money. If they can make more money by limiting your access to the internet, that’s exactly what they’ll do. Consumers don’t have perfect freedom to choose another provider, so in many cases the providers have a captive market. [Here’s a pretty good article about it.](http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/) ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/4 "2014-01-14T18:48:05Z")
This is, of course, a terrible decision. But it’s not a nationwide problem (yet, hopefully ever). It will be appealed. A voice of sanity from [reddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1v7138/us_appeals_court_kills_net_neutrality/), of all places: > [@](#): > > This ruling was from the The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. > > The court’s jurisdiction - the part of the country it’s ruling applies to - is **ONLY the District of Columbia.** This is **NOT** applicable to California, Texas, Florida, or **ANY** other part of the United States. **Only D.C.** > > I assume this will be appealed. If so, it will be appealed to Fourth District of the United States. There are _eleven_ districts. Even if this stands in the Fourth District, **it will NOT apply to the other ten.** > > Again, it will probably be appealed. This time, it would go to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction everywhere. **So if they uphold it, it will then, AND ONLY THEN be law in the entire United States.** And that’s not going to happen. It’s a good topic for discussion, but it’s not as hysterical as a lot of news outlets are painting it. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/5 "2014-01-14T18:54:11Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > You know, it’s pretty rare that I actually laugh out loud while reading something on the web, but this managed it. > > **The only thing the free market does is make money**. If they can make more money by limiting your access to the internet, that’s exactly what they’ll do. Consumers don’t have perfect freedom to choose another provider, so in many cases the providers have a captive market. > [Here’s a pretty good article about it.](http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/) (my bolding) “ **The only thing the free market does is make money**.” This is wrong. The free market is not about money, it’s about free people exchanging goods or providing services. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/6 "2014-01-14T19:18:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (my bolding) > > “ **The only thing the free market does is make money**.” This is wrong. The free market is not about money, it’s about free people exchanging goods or providing services. The point, however, is that, despite what some free-market fundamentalists and capitalist apologists would like you to believe, it by no means always gives rise to situations that are optimal for most people. As often as not, the invisible hand will grab you by the throat. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/7 "2014-01-14T19:20:01Z")
Soon the Information Superhighway will be a series of toll roads through gated communities! How can we lose? ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/8 "2014-01-14T19:27:31Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > The point, however, is that, despite what some free-market fundamentalists and capitalist apologists would like you to believe, it by no means always gives rise to situations that are optimal for most people. As often as not, the invisible hand will grab you by the throat. The “free market” doesn’t apply in a discussion about internet service providers. They have monopolies in a lot of places, making them more like utility companies than regular companies. There’s no freedom involved in choosing the single cable internet provider in your area, unless you mean the freedom to choose not to have an internet connection. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/9 "2014-01-14T19:35:12Z")
the invisible hand of the market has you by the short hairs. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/10 "2014-01-14T19:53:03Z")
Basically, if you want to see how this shakes out, take a look at cable TV. The cable company around here increases its rates a steady 5% a year; my ISP has raised it only once in seven years years ($30 to $35). My cable company decides what channels I can see (no BBC America, for instance); I can go to any page on the web. If this continues, the obvious results are: 1. “Sure you can have a high-speed connection to Youtube. Just pay for expanded access! Otherwise you have the dial-up speeds; it was good enough in the 1990s.” 2. “Want Netflix? Sorry, we don’t have a contract with them.” 3. “No, we don’t provide Google Search. But we have [Ask.com](http://Ask.com), which is just as . . . well, almost as . . . not close, but they pay us more.” 4. “Sure you can switch to another ISP. Of course, we’re the only one in your area.” 5. “Sure you can switch to another ISP. They do have Netflix on the base rate. But they don’t have Facebook; we do.” 6. “Sorry, small startup company. We can’t give you a fast Internet access because you’d compete with one of the services we provide.” The current system is like the telephone system: no matter which telecom you use, you can call any number in the US and they’re all treated the same. Without net neutrality, you will only be able to go to websites the ISP decides you can go to, at varying speeds that depend on how it will make them the most money. It’ll make AT&T rich, but its customers poorer. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/11 "2014-01-14T19:57:15Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > You know, it’s pretty rare that I actually laugh out loud while reading something on the web, but this managed it. The NSA is part of the government. Do you really want them to have a hand in regulating the internet? People are worried about large corporations using their money in lobbying efforts; don’t you think that will happen here as well? > [@Lightnin](#): > > The only thing the free market does is make money. If they can make more money by limiting your access to the internet, that’s exactly what they’ll do. Consumers don’t have perfect freedom to choose another provider, so in many cases the providers have a captive market. > > [Here’s a pretty good article about it.](http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/) I agree with your first statement which is why I think we can let the market handle it. For a vast majority of companies on the internet they make the most money with a free (i.e. liberal) internet. Do you think porn companies want the FCC involved? Does Google want the number of users who can search on their page (and see resulting adds) limited in number? The only group of companies that could benefit from limiting their users are the ISP, which is a concern. However, if ISPs limit their users more than a trivial amount they will flock to other ISPs. I believe that ensuring there is viable competition for ISPs will have a better result than government regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/12 "2014-01-14T20:25:47Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Basically, if you want to see how this shakes out, take a look at cable TV. The cable company around here increases its rates a steady 5% a year; my ISP has raised it only once in seven years years ($30 to $35). My cable company decides what channels I can see (no BBC America, for instance); I can go to any page on the web. > > If this continues, the obvious results are: > > 1. “Sure you can have a high-speed connection to Youtube. Just pay for expanded access! Otherwise you have the dial-up speeds; it was good enough in the 1990s.” > 2. “Want Netflix? Sorry, we don’t have a contract with them.” > 3. “No, we don’t provide Google Search. But we have [Ask.com](http://Ask.com), which is just as . . . well, almost as . . . not close, but they pay us more.” > 4. “Sure you can switch to another ISP. Of course, we’re the only one in your area.” > 5. “Sure you can switch to another ISP. They do have Netflix on the base rate. But they don’t have Facebook; we do.” > 6. “Sorry, small startup company. We can’t give you a fast Internet access because you’d compete with one of the services we provide.” > > The current system is like the telephone system: no matter which telecom you use, you can call any number in the US and they’re all treated the same. Without net neutrality, you will only be able to go to websites the ISP decides you can go to, at varying speeds that depend on how it will make them the most money. > > It’ll make AT&T rich, but its customers poorer. I’d say Verizon has already started down this road with regards to YouTube and Netflix. Customers have been complaining since last summer that both have been throttled down (coincidentally, since Verizon bought Redbox last April or so). Verizon stoically denies these complaints, then quietly brings suit to challenge the FCC regulations - freeing them to choke out their competitors. Nice bullshit move there Verizon. ISP providers and program providers need to be separated, not unlike banks and trading companies. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/13 "2014-01-14T20:46:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (my bolding) > > “ **The only thing the free market does is make money**.” This is wrong. The free market is not about money, it’s about free people exchanging goods or providing services. Hardly; the free market is full of exploitation, coercion and deception. _Slavery_ is free market, if it’s profitable; so much for “free people”. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/14 "2014-01-14T20:49:33Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > The current system is like the telephone system: no matter which telecom you use, you can call any number in the US and they’re all treated the same. Without net neutrality, you will only be able to go to websites the ISP decides you can go to, at varying speeds that depend on how it will make them the most money. > > It’ll make AT&T rich, but its customers poorer. **RealityChuck** for the win! A free internet requires the separation of content producers and infrastructure providers. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/15 "2014-01-14T20:52:16Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > However, if ISPs limit their users more than a trivial amount they will flock to other ISPs. Only if there are other ISPs to flock to. In most areas consumers don’t have any choice when it comes to high-speed internet providers. > [@](#): > > I believe that ensuring there is viable competition for ISPs will have a better result than government regulations. Good luck with that one! Telecos will fight that even more then they’ve fought against net neutrality. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/16 "2014-01-14T20:53:26Z")
> [@Rachellelogram](#): > > This is, of course, a terrible decision. But it’s not a nationwide problem (yet, hopefully ever). It will be appealed. A voice of sanity from [reddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1v7138/us_appeals_court_kills_net_neutrality/), of all places: That’s not a voice of sanity, it’s a voice of someone who doesn’t really know what the DC Circuit does. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/17 "2014-01-14T21:01:48Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Basically, if you want to see how this shakes out, take a look at cable TV. The cable company around here increases its rates a steady 5% a year; my ISP has raised it only once in seven years years ($30 to $35). My cable company decides what channels I can see (no BBC America, for instance); I can go to any page on the web. Of course, the cable company is operating under a highly-regulated, explicit government-issued monopoly. Further, when the telephone system was previously more highly regulated, it imposed differential pricing upon calls based upon the length of time and to some extent the distance involved. None of this is to say that net neutrality legislation is bad, but rather just to point out that configuring the argument as government vs. free market is probably not a useful framework in itself. “Regulation” can lead to varying outcomes just like “the market” can. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/18 "2014-01-14T21:20:17Z")
Let’s also be careful before freaking out here. The Court ruled that the FCC overstepped their bounds. Now, maybe this is a laughable proposition, but nothing is stopping Congress from passing a law making ISP’s “common carriers” and thus given FCC the ability to legally make this rule. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/19 "2014-01-14T21:22:52Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Only if there are other ISPs to flock to. In most areas consumers don’t have any choice when it comes to high-speed internet providers. Do you have a cite for this? It seems to be the common perception but I don’t remember seeing any stats one way or another. > [@artemis](#): > > Good luck with that one! Telecos will fight that even more then they’ve fought against net neutrality. A couple of thoughts on this: 1. I don’t think they will; we’ve passed a number of laws that help foster competition, like allowing users to keep their #'s when they switch companies. 2. Even if they do, I don’t care. I believe that competition is the best guarantee for a neutral internet. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791/20 "2014-01-14T21:31:25Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > 1. I don’t think they will; we’ve passed a number of laws that help foster competition, like allowing users to keep their #'s when they switch companies. I seem to recall the cellular providers being really resistant to that, so I’m not sure how that bolsters your contention that the companies will do anything which doesn’t help lock in their market dominance. > [@Deeg](#): > > 1. Even if they do, I don’t care. I believe that competition is the best guarantee for a neutral internet. The best way to keep the internet neutral is to put it into the public’s hands, much like national forests. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-a-thing-of-the-past/678791.md?page=2)