Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts) Mon May 12, 2014, 11:46 AM May 2014

OK, DUers, say you were in charge of the FCC [View all]

The Appellate Court (thank you, rurallib: not SCOTUS) just ruled that network neutrality is illegal (those of you complaining did know that just happened, right?)

What do you do?

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK, DUers, say you were in charge of the FCC [View all] Recursion May 2014 OP

Supreme Court? The appellate court ruled last January rurallib May 2014 #1

Was it the appellate court? Recursion May 2014 #3

Thank you. DC Appellate court (nt) Recursion May 2014 #4

The ruling was that the way the FCC defined the internet rurallib May 2014 #6

(Last of 3 replies) they ruled the FCC had already deemed ISPs "communications providers" Recursion May 2014 #5

and reclassifying the internet is really the only way to maintain neutrality rurallib May 2014 #7

Reclassification would not be that huge a row to hoe. merrily May 2014 #10

No, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC can regulate "common carriers" more heavily merrily May 2014 #14

The only people who are saying it's a "huge row to hoe" tkmorris May 2014 #16

Link? mindwalker_i May 2014 #2

You'll get a link to a case that over 80 pages. merrily May 2014 #12

Thanks, I had read that post initially mindwalker_i May 2014 #17

The SCOTUS claim has been made more than once, by defenders of the administration, merrily May 2014 #18

If I were in charge of the FCC, Time Warner wouldn't be cutting channels while raising the fees. liberal N proud May 2014 #8

That is not what the D.C. Circuit ruled. Please see merrily May 2014 #9

"Wheeler" is attempting to impose the views of the person who appointed him. You are complaining msongs May 2014 #11

The OP is not complaining about anyone in govt. merrily May 2014 #13

Hey, I blame Wheeler too, especially with the half-measure he apparently floated today Recursion May 2014 #20

Doubling down on losing cases? Why? merrily May 2014 #21

Clearly not Recursion May 2014 #22

What? merrily May 2014 #24

Government infrastructure yields private profits all the time Recursion May 2014 #25

Grass is infrastructure now? Which private body is profiting from grazing on govt lands and why? merrily May 2014 #27

Err... Monsanto, Conagra, ADM... Recursion May 2014 #29

Again, grass is not infrastructure. merrily May 2014 #34

Sigh. Recursion May 2014 #35

Sorry, still does not explain how Monsanto profits from merrily May 2014 #38

Starts with a false premise tkmorris May 2014 #15

Why the FCC did not reclassify years ago is a mystery. merrily May 2014 #19

Because ruling ISPs common carrier brings on a world of unintended consequences Recursion May 2014 #23

You are mixing apples and oranges. merrily May 2014 #26

OK, we seem to agree. "Net neutrality" is a slogan, not a policy. Recursion May 2014 #28

If we agree as far as you can tell, then you must not be able to tell much. merrily May 2014 #32

Right. "Net neutrality" is not a status. It's a marketing slogan. Recursion May 2014 #33

Not what you were saying at all. merrily May 2014 #37

PS whatworld of unintended consequences are you talking about. Please be specific. merrily May 2014 #30

Steve Earle always comes to mind when I see the letters F C C zappaman May 2014 #31

What the lobbyist with the deepest pockets wants Fumesucker May 2014 #36