USA Today: Appeals Court Rules Against FCC On Net Neutrality

[Springfield]

I figure this is a pertinent topic today. It could probably go in other threads but this is new news as of today. Not good, not good at all.

A federal appeals court has ruled against the Federal Communications Commission on mandates that require broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally.

In an opinion handed down Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals in D.C. ruled that while the FCC has authority to regulate how Web traffic is managed, it cannot impose rules on companies like Verizon based on how they're classified.

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the (1996) Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such," reads an excerpt from the ruling.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/14/fcc-net-neutrality/4473269/

[HBnotBlades]

I found this quote from the court particularly troubling:

 

 

 

“Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options,” the court writes. “They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

 

From here.

 

Considering that a not insignificant percentage of the country is limited in their choice of ISP (I have one option), this reads as the court not fully grasping the issue.

 

Here they clarify:

 

 

 

“To be sure, some difficulty switching broadband providers is certainly a factor that might contribute to a firm’s having market power, but that itself is not market power,” the court asserts. “There are many industries in which switching between competitors is not instantly achieved, but those industries may still be heavily disciplined by competitive forces because consumers will switch unless there are real barriers.”

 

The issue is that the initial investment in infrastructure in these communities with little or no broadband competition was heavily subsidized with the help of the 1996 telecommunications act.  Another broadband provider can't compete because the cost of entering the market would be far greater than it was for the firm who has a defacto monopoly.

[The Evil Genius]

Just wait til Comcast (or some other major player) reverses their policy and starts throttling down Netflix or other sites that it directly competes against.

[PokerPacker]

Well that sucks.

[Larry]

I have several problems with non-net-neutrality. 

 

IMO, the biggest is, the only way you can HAVE non-neutrality is for providers to deliberately downgrade the connections to anybody who doesn't pay up.  Not to offer better service if you pay more, but to offer worse service if you don;t. 

 

And I have a problem with a world where net providers "compete" by intentionally screwing things up, and then offering to stop screwing them up, for a fee. 

 

The other big problem is that, say, telephone customers have the ability to chose which telco handles their phone call.  Even on a call-by-call basis.  But net users cannot specify which carriers their packets will pass through.  They can choose who the first provider is (within whatever choices there are, in their market).  But after that first provider, they're just spinning the roulette wheel. 

[HeyHeyHey]

Republicans lawmakers applauded a federal court’s decision to strike down the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules, claiming victory for the unregulated Internet.

House Commerce Committee Vice-Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the agency’s “egregious” net neutrality rules “socialist regulations.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/195435-republicans-claim-victory-in-net-neutrality-ruling#ixzz2qQ62Fz1L

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

It must always be Opposite Day for this wretch. What did Amercia do to deserve her as the Vice-Chair of the Commerce Committee? Wait, don't answer that.

[Predicto]

I'm not steeped in this area of law, but this looks like a bad decision to me.   Judges often have difficulties when you get into technical area like this.  

House Commerce Committee Vice-Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the agency’s “egregious” net neutrality rules “socialist regulations.”



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/195435-republicans-claim-victory-in-net-neutrality-ruling#ixzz2qQ62Fz1L
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

It must always be Opposite Day for this wretch. What did Amercia do to deserve her as the Vice-Chair of the Commerce Committee? Wait, don't answer that.

 

 

Conservative activists don't understand what net neutrality even means, but it has become a huge ideological issue to them because Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck reframed it as an issue of economic freedom.  

[HeyHeyHey]

Conservative activists don't understand.

Could have stopped right there.

[Larry]

Conservative activists don't understand what net neutrality even means, but it has become a huge ideological issue to them because Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck reframed it as an issue of economic freedom.

Freedom for the biggest corporation to throttle competition.

[HeyHeyHey]

All that's required is to separate ISP from content provider, let the content providers compete on content, and the net providers compete on net access. Unfortunately, ISPs are gobbling up content providers. If this stands, the Internet won't be recognizable in a decade.

[Larry]

IMO, the Internet ought to be like the PSTN. (That's techno talk for Public Switched Telephone Network.)

It's the technology that connects you, to the phone number you dialed.

What the guy at the other end of the phone does, is up to him The phone simply carries the signal.

[spjunkies]

Let the ISP's try some shady **** (they will) and watch Google come out with their own service that will make those CEO's cry themselves to sleep every night.

[PokerPacker]

Let the ISP's try some shady **** (they will) and watch Google come out with their own service that will make those CEO's cry themselves to sleep every night.

It's called Google Fiber. Hopefully it spreads beyond it's initial markets.

[gbear]

As I understand it, the ruling basically says the FCC can't treat high speed internet like a utility...unless it reverses its own rules which it can do.  If the FCC declares high speed internet to be akin to a utility, needed for every day life, then it can impose net neutrality.  For now, the standing ruling for the FCC is that high speed internet is not a utility like phone lines or water or...  As I heard the ruling explained, the FCC is currently a victim of their own decade plus old ruling.  I would argue the internet is far more ingrained in our everyday life now than it ever has been before, and it is growing ever more so. 

 

I would not be surprised to see the FCC change the category in which it classifies high speed internet, and this ruling may force its hand.

[JMS]

Just wait til Comcast (or some other major player) reverses their policy and starts throttling down Netflix or other sites that it directly competes against.

 

 

Exactly correct,  If this judgement is left standing it's a big loss to the consumer.   Consumer choice and many multi platform media offerings will be a distant memory...   As will Google,  AOL,  Netflix,  Youtube,  and many other internet content providers...

Rather than consumer choice...  service providers will decide who wins ever contest for internet solutions in our country.   Disaster.

[PokerPacker]

As I understand it, the ruling basically says the FCC can't treat high speed internet like a utility...unless it reverses its own rules which it can do.  If the FCC declares high speed internet to be akin to a utility, needed for every day life, then it can impose net neutrality.  For now, the standing ruling for the FCC is that high speed internet is not a utility like phone lines or water or...  As I heard the ruling explained, the FCC is currently a victim of their own decade plus old ruling.  I would argue the internet is far more ingrained in our everyday life now than it ever has been before, and it is growing ever more so. 

 

I would not be surprised to see the FCC change the category in which it classifies high speed internet, and this ruling may force its hand.

Now that actually makes sense.

[NoCalMike]

The internet is becoming (if not already) such an integral part of life, I really hope one day it will no longer be considered a commodity and more along the lines of over the air broadcast channels that you get.  That there is a base broadband service offered for free, and then for those of us who choose to want a higher speed you can seek that option out.

 

That is probably a pipe dream at this point because everything is going in the opposite direction.

 

A lot of folks are suggesting that these ISPs are pushing for this so hard now more as a preeminent measure because they know in the next 10-20 years more and more folks will be going all digital, cutting the cord etc etc so they basically want to have the infrastructure in place so you'll end up paying just as much to get everything from an internet connection as you do from traditional media mediums. 

 

I mean if you think about it, companies like Comcast, Direct TV, Dish etc etc....they know all the profit they will losing if they cancel their subscriptions and just going for the ala carte plans outside of an actual provider (going directly through networks instead). They are probably already long term planning the next business models to find a way to keep people who pay $100 for service, paying just that, even if they go digital.

[PokerPacker]

The internet is becoming (if not already) such an integral part of life, I really hope one day it will no longer be considered a commodity and more along the lines of over the air broadcast channels that you get.  That there is a base broadband service offered for free, and then for those of us who choose to want a higher speed you can seek that option out.

 

That is probably a pipe dream at this point because everything is going in the opposite direction.

 

A lot of folks are suggesting that these ISPs are pushing for this so hard now more as a preeminent measure because they know in the next 10-20 years more and more folks will be going all digital, cutting the cord etc etc so they basically want to have the infrastructure in place so you'll end up paying just as much to get everything from an internet connection as you do from traditional media mediums. 

 

I mean if you think about it, companies like Comcast, Direct TV, Dish etc etc....they know all the profit they will losing if they cancel their subscriptions and just going for the ala carte plans outside of an actual provider (going directly through networks instead). They are probably already long term planning the next business models to find a way to keep people who pay $100 for service, paying just that, even if they go digital.

Where Google Fiber is offered, they had a free broadband option. They guarantee that if you take the free option, it'll remain so a minimum of 7 years. Hopefully it tests for them and the decide to continue that policy and expand to cover the nation.

[Springfield]

As I understand it, we don't even have speeds close to what other first world nations have.

This would seem to limit the progress toward faster speeds and make it harder for lower income customers to afford faster Internet speeds. It will also make ISP's more powerful while able to offer weaker service at a higher cost.

If they don't watch out, wireless providers will push them right out of the market. Verizon doesn't need to worry because they have a stake in both technologies but companies like ATT and T-Mobile could potentially uproot the broadband providers (assuming that ATT and T-Mobile don't have to use Verizon's infrastructure). 4G LTE offers speeds faster than most people's home broadband and if they could do it for a lower cost than people could really "cut the cord".

Either way, from what I've read Verizon is the bad guy in this case (surprise!). I've also read that Comcast has an agreement to remain net-neutral for the next 5 years or so.

[Bliz]

As I understand it, we don't even have speeds close to what other first world nations have.

 

 

and we pay much more than they do for our lower speeds.

[PokerPacker]

As I understand it, we don't even have speeds close to what other first world nations have.

Pretty much. I believe South Korea and Japan dominate us in speed. Although, I'm curious how we compare when we exclude the rural regions that dilute us.

[MattFancy]

Just wait til Comcast (or some other major player) reverses their policy and starts throttling down Netflix or other sites that it directly competes against.

 

This IMO is the biggest concern. Netflix will either have to 1) Pay up big time to the ISPs so that they're site doesn't run slower or 2) Will suffer because it will be too slow to stream and people will go elsewhere for their TV/Movies. How is this good for the customer?

 

PokerPacker brought up Google Fiber. I cannot wait until that starts getting more traction nationwide. I believe right now, it's only in some crazy Kansas town that won the chance to have it installed there.

 

I think it's crazy that the internet has basically been popular since the late 90s, so about 15 years or so, and there are still places in this country that cannot get access to high-speed internet. With everything the internet is used for, I would think it would be a top priority to get as many people the internet as possible. My brother-in-law lives in BFE Louisiana and doesn't have internet. I can't imagine that.

[JMS]

Pretty much. I believe South Korea and Japan dominate us in speed. Although, I'm curious how we compare when we exclude the rural regions that dilute us.

 

That's because the governments of Japan and S. Korea paid to wire their countries with fiber.  We are relying on private companies to fund all that.   Which means some folks have world class connectivity.. ( verizon FIOS)  and many folks who aren't cost effective to connect with FIOS are stuck on old copper lines (cable) or telephone lines with modems.

[China]

Democrats Introduce Net Neutrality Bill

 

House and Senate Democrats introduced Net neutrality legislation designed to preserve FCC anti-discrimination rules that were struck down by a D.C. appellate court last month.

 

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Open Internet Preservation Act and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate. The authors said that the legislation would restore the FCC's rules until it has a chance to take new action to establish Net neutrality provisions that will pass legal muster.

 

"Our bill very simply ensures that consumers can continue to access the content and applications of their choosing online," Waxman said in a statement. "The FCC can and must quickly exercise the authorities the D.C. Circuit recognized to reinstate the Open Internet rules."

 

The legislation has 12 co-sponsors. But it faces an uncertain future in the House, where the Republican leaders have been critical of the FCC's rules, arguing that they are unnecessary and stifle innovation.

 

Click on the link for the full article