Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules

[jimmy olsen]

Why is reclassifying politically tricky? Is it just the lobbyists or is there actual ideological disagreement about this among members of the FCC/administration?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/d-c-circuit-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules/

Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules

    By Brian Fung   
    January 14 at 11:34 am

A federal appeals court has struck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, which prohibited Internet providers from blocking or prioritizing Web traffic.

The decision on Tuesday is the latest in a lengthy legal battle over whether the FCC can regulate the Internet. In an opinion written by Judge David Tatel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the network neutrality rules contradicted a previous FCC decision that put broadband companies beyond its regulatory reach.

"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers," Tatel wrote, "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."

At stake here is an Internet provider's ability to charge Web companies such as Netflix for better service, which public interest advocates say may harm consumers.

Verizon led the charge against the FCC's net neutrality order, suggesting in oral arguments last fall that it would like to pursue different service pricing models.

"I'm authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements," said Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker in September.

In a statement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler indicated he was considering an appeal to the decision.

"We will consider all available options, including those for appeal," Wheeler said, "to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans."

Broadband is currently classified by the FCC as an information service, a category that gives the agency a fairly limited set of regulatory options. If Internet providers were classified instead as common carriers, the FCC's rule would likely stand. In fact, the federal ruling on Tuesday upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules as a matter of principle; the problem is that the agency effectively tried to apply its powers in the wrong context.

Faced with this dilemma, the FCC may either choose to argue that its regulations do not fall under the rubric of common carriage, or attempt to reclassify broadband as a common carrier, according to outside observers. Neither path is likely to be easy, as major industry players are likely to resist any attempt to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.

"The reclassification is politically tricky but legally clear," said John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, which supported the FCC's rule. "The other question involves lawyers arguing for hours about what is and isn't common carriage. That's politically easier, but legally more difficult."

Denying that the FCC's open Internet order reflects common carriage regulation isn't likely to be a winning strategy, said Tim Wu, the Columbia University law professor who first coined the term "net neutrality." That's because the very notion of non-discrimination is central to common carriage, an idea that itself dates back to medieval times.

[11B4V]

  Monstrous.

[garbon]

I'd be okay with this if most places offered multiple high speed internet provides.

[Syt]

Not sure if this article is accurate, but I'm sure our resident Languish experts will point out the problems.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131317-Update-Net-Neutrality-Restrictions-Struck-Down-by-U-S-Appeals-Court

Net Neutrality Restrictions Struck Down by U.S. Appeals Court

The U.S. Appeals Court has ruled that the FCC cannot impose net neutrality rules on broadband internet providers.

In case you haven't heard of net neutrality, it's kind of a big deal. Put in the simplest terms it means that the government and internet service providers must treat all data (i.e. websites) as being equal. For instance, if a provider were to decide that it wanted to charge you a dollar every time you visited Facebook, it would have to charge you a dollar to visit every other website too.

All of this said, net neutrality in the United States took a substantial hit today thanks to a ruling from the U.S. Appeals Court invalidating current neutrality rules previously upheld by the FCC. According to the court, "the [FCC] has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers." In turn because "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such" it lacks the authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers.

What this ruling means is that broadband companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable could potentially start selling special treatment to websites interested in faster loading speeds compared to their competitors. It could also give them the freedom to charge users for entry to specific, popular sites. The court ruling apparently includes a stipulation that broadband providers would need to inform customers which sites are being favored, but it could still be a hit for internet users who may now be left even more at the mercy of corporate whims. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has said he's still "committed" to upholding previous ideals of net neutrality, but only time will tell if the previous rules will be restored.

Update: Verizon, responding to the Appeals Court ruling, has issued a statement affirming that "today's decision will not change consumers' ability to access and use the Internet as they do now." That said, the company says that the decision will "allow more room for innovation" and that "consumers [in the future] will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the Internet." The statement also claimed that "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in light of the court's decision."

Also: Americans Paying More For Worse Internet

[DGuller]

Not sure if this article is accurate, but I'm sure our resident Languish experts will point out the problems.

I see one problem already.  You got ninja'd by Tim.

[sbr]

 

[Syt]

Not sure if this article is accurate, but I'm sure our resident Languish experts will point out the problems.

I see one problem already.  You got ninja'd by Tim.

Yes, but he sources the ill reputed WaPo, whereas I chose the high quality journalistic product The Escapist.

[Grey Fox]

[Neil]

Yeah, they should probably nationalize this sort of thing.  It's like having the roads being private.

[derspiess]

I support the idea of net neutrality, but thought the FCC was overstepping.

I liked the compromise proposed a while back that cemented net neutrality for cable, dsl, etc. but exempted wireless internet connections.

[Neil]

The FCC needs to turn the ISPs back into common carriers.

Still, this will serve as another example as to why Republicans can never be put in charge of anything until they renounce deregulation.

[Maximus]

The FCC needs to turn the ISPs back into common carriers.

Still, this will serve as another example as to why Republicans can never be put in charge of anything until they renounce deregulation.

Were they ever common carriers?

From what I understand this is the essence of the issue. If they were common carriers, it would be problem solved, but they are not. And congress is too far in the pockets of the big telecom companies to make them so.

[KRonn]

I'm not really sure what Net Neutrality even means, therefore I'm against it, unless I'm for it....

[viper37]

I'm not really sure what Net Neutrality even means, therefore I'm against it, unless I'm for it....

Net Neutrality means an ISP can not prioritize or throttle any type of content.

Examples:

   
• Verizon is paid by Google so that Youtube is faster than anything else.  If the net is neutral, this is an illegal business practice.
• A local, smallish ISP, notices that 10% of its clients uses bittorent and other P2P protocols, but these 10% take up 95% of the bandwith, making it so that non torrent users get slow speed when trying to access a website.  Under net neutrality, the ISP can not do anything about it.  As it is now, they can throttle down the BitTorrent protocols.
• Disney, through one of its subsidiaries owns a large ISP in America.  Under net neutrality law, all content must be accessed equal.  If no net neutrality law, they could throttle down the speed for streaming content other than their own.  It's highly unlikely such a scenario would happen, because in a fair market, consumers would drop Disney's ISP in favour of another, open one.

So, there could be good, there could be bad, there could be very bad but it is highly unlikely it would change anything, unless there was a drastic reduction in the number of ISPs in the US.

[viper37]

Here's a piece opposing net neutrality:
I hope net neutrality is really dead this time

Here is one in favor of net neutrality:
Net neutrality gets a kick in the teeth