This is the right decision. The FCC was clearly going beyond its mandate, as it has no mandate to regulate the internet in this manner. In fact, what amazed us throughout this whole discussion was that it was the same groups that insisted the FCC had no mandate over the broadcast flag, that suddenly insisted it did have a mandate over net neutrality. You can’t have it both ways (nor should you want to). Even if you believe net neutrality is important, allowing the FCC to overstep its defined boundaries is not the best way to deal with it.
Well, somebody needs to enforce this. The internet infrastructure is paid for by our taxes. Comcast in particular should not be able to favor, for example, their VOIP phone service over, say, Vonage or Skype. In any given market, as the article notes, they have almost no competition.
Personally — as usual — I think the whole issue would be resolved by opening up those infrastructures to yet more competition.
Had our own state legislature allowed some competition in the electric industry we would not have the ridiculous issues we now have with Duke Power.
Right now, we have ever-expanding state-granted monopolies, and with them, all the draconian bureaucracy that comes along for the ride.
The government does not own the internet, and taxes do not pay for it. It is owned by the service providers ( like Comcast) who build the links and lease time to users.
[url=http://montesanoenterprises.com/all_about_the_internet.htm]Who owns the internet?[/url]
Discriminating against competitive services (Vonage, Skype) will stir market corrections, unless the government steps in to tilt the playing field. Comcast is throttling high bandwidth users who download movies, games, pornography, and other very large files using applications like bittorrent and Kazaa, as just a few users were bringing their network to it’s knees, reducing services to all of their customers. Giving the FCC the power to regulate internet content would be a disaster comparable to the [url=http://mises.org/daily/2317]mutilation of the railway industry[/url] in the 19th century ( only one major railway company avoided bankruptcy, and they never took government subsidy) . This was an excellent ruling.
Without competition, discrimination against competitor service won’t spark market corrections. Bandwidth restrictions also limit legal traffic. It is not in Comcast’s interests to let me watch Hulu or download video subscriptions from iTunes because I might decide I don’t need their cable bundle If I don’t have need for their cable bundle, they aren’t in as strong a bargaining position with their channel providers.
By using Skype, I don’t need their phone service.
Maybe the FCC doesn’t have the mandate, but net neutrality has to be essential for the growth of the internet and equal access to all content.
I’m currently in South Africa where the bandwidth is severely restricted (mostly due to lack of infrastructure), and no one talks about youtube, iTunes, or video skype (though audio skype is popular) because they are bandwidth hogs.
I’m very thankful that in NJ I have the choice between Verizon FIOS and Comcast. Not everyone who has to deal with Comcast is so lucky.