Dissent

The court was ruled at a "6 to 3 ruling" (15). Why? Because some felt that the powers and authority of the federal communications Commissions was to reside with the Courts. Another reason they felt this way it is so vague around the line, or distinction, between telecommunication services and information services.

(15)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZS.html

Your Own Argument

It is something very different standing four years in the future of this decision, and to know exactly what happened as a result of the ruling, than to be there in the time of the ruling, and only imagine what could happen. To suffice it to say that, there is a difference to disagree with the decision of the court at the time of the ruling, and to disagree with the actions, or the fallout affects that happen as a result of the decisions. Same folds true with agreeing with the court. So just to say that you agree with the court, is this particular instance is like trying to add your vote were it is not need.

To the big question, do I agree with the courts decision. I think that the court was wrong and right in a lot of areas. The courts decision brought a big blow to a lot of companies. Among them Earthlink which at that time had a total of “1.5 million broadband subscribers, mainly through phone companies”(14). That was one company! This ruling caused radical changes online. "The stakes are high - the internet is becoming a necessity of life and how it is regulated affects everyone"(13)

What I do absolutely do agree with is some of the minor decisions the court did not just deicide them right there but turned those decisions back over to the Federal Communications Commission to deicide. In this the court setup and gave power to the Federal Communications Commission to kind of govern or watch over with the necessary power that it was lacking.

Yet than I have to question does the Federal Communications Commission have a too strong of a hold on the Internet now? This ruling put the government even deeper into the world wide web. The way we connect to the Internet is affected by the rules and mandatory regulations set out by the Federal Communications Commission. Yes it is world wide but here in America we are starting to put rules and regulations on everything related to it.
　
The really good thing that came from this was speed. The Internet was raised to a much more high speed of operation. Great for users, great for completing companies. This made it be so that there was not just one company that serviced the majority of the consumers, almost to the point of monopolizing.　

(14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/technology/28broadband.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

(13)
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail584.html

Rule of Law

In this case they used the amended Telecommunications Act of 1996 (5). Before it was amended it was Communications Act of 1934. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a very significant Act because it was the, “first bill signed into cyberspace and the first bill signed at the Library of Congress”(12).
　
(12)
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9603/telecom.html

(5)sorry it is out of order
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat.

Reasoning of The Court

The main reasons for why the court came to this decision it among the following.
Chief among them was whether the Federal Communications Commission was in the right to decide that “for purposes of regulation under the Communications Act, cable operators offering so-called ‘cable modem service’ (high-speed Internet access over cable television systems) provide only an “information service and not a ‘telecommunications service’”(11). Did they, Federal Communications Commission, use power that they did not have to regulate and mandate orders in to affect?

The second question was whether or not the previous courts of appeals had erred in, “holding holding that the Federal Communications Commission had impermissibly concluded that cable modem service is an ‘information service,’ without a separately regulated telecommunications service component, under the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U .S.C. 151 et seq.(9)”(10).
　
　
(11)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/04-00277qp.pdf

(10)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/04-00277qp.pdf

(9)
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U .S.C. 151 et seq

Decision of The Court

“The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with the Federal Communications Commission that cable Internet service is an ‘information service’ rather than a ‘telecommunication service’” (8). This means that cable companies who make their infrastructure open for Internet Service Providers no longer need to do so.

The decision of the court brought a great victory for the Federal Communications Commission and major telecommunications companies, among then Time Warner, SBC Communications, and Charter Communications. On the reverse side, the ruling of the court was the small Internet Service Providers, including among them Earthlink, consumer rights groups, and a host of local governments.
　
　
(8)
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/06/27/1510219.shtml?tid=123&tid=95&tid=219