Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Court says FCC cannot enforce Net Neutrality

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - Court says FCC cannot enforce Net Neutrality (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/153992-court-says-fcc-cannot-enforce-net-neutrality.html)

Court says FCC cannot enforce Net Neutrality

Quote:

F.C.C. Rules for Broadband Fairness Set Aside by Court

By EDWARD WYATT

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt a sharp blow to the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to set the rules of the road for the Internet, ruling that the agency lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, specifically concerned the efforts of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, to slow down customers’ access to a service called BitTorrent, which is used to exchange large video files, most often pirated copies of movies.
After Comcast’s blocking was exposed, the F.C.C. told Comcast to stop discriminating against BitTorrent traffic and in 2008 issued broader rules for the industry regarding “net neutrality,” the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers. Comcast challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to issue such rules and argued that its throttling of BitTorrent was necessary to ensure that a few customers did not unfairly hog the capacity of the network, slowing down Internet access for all of its customers.
But Tuesday’s court ruling has far larger implications than just the Comcast case.
The ruling would allow Comcast and other Internet service providers to restrict consumers’ ability to access certain kinds of Internet content, such as video sites like Hulu.com or Google’s YouTube service, or charge certain heavy users of their networks more money for access.
Google, Microsoft and other big producers of Web content have argued that such controls or pricing policies would thwart innovation and customer choice.
Consumer advocates said the ruling, one of several that have challenged the F.C.C.’s regulatory reach, could also undermine all of the F.C.C.’s efforts to regulate Internet service providers and establish its authority over the Internet, including its recently released national broadband plan.
“This decision destroys the F.C.C.’s authority to build broadband policy on the legal theory established by the Bush administration,” said Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit organization that advocates broad media ownership and access.
The decision could reinvigorate dormant efforts in Congress to pass a federal law specifically governing net neutrality, a principle generally supported by the Obama administration.
While the decision is a victory for Comcast, it also has the potential to affect the company’s pending acquisition of a majority stake in NBC Universal.
Members of Congress have expressed concern that the acquisition could give Comcast the power to favor the content of its own cable and broadcast channels over those of competitors, something that Comcast has said it does not intend to do. Now, members of Congress could also fret that Comcast will also block or slow down customers’ access to the Web sites of competing television and telecommunications companies.
In a statement, the F.C.C. said it remained “firmly committed to promoting an open Internet.” While the court decision invalidated its current approach to that goal, the agency said, “the court in no way disagreed with the importance of providing a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”

It looks like the FCC needs some updating as to it's responsibilities.

I was very disappointed to read this today, but I understand the reasoning and process.

I have never understood the big bruhaha over this. What's wrong with charging someone more money if they use more bandwidth and/or server space? I see it no differently than charging different rates for local and long-distance phonecalls, or charging more for data transfer than voice transmission on cellphones.

Seriously, will someone please explain why charging someone more when they use more of your product is so horrible? If they charge -too- much, customers will switch providers, just like they do now. In areas with only one ISP, such a situation opens up a substantial opportunity for entrepreneurship and competition, which would keep (or drive) prices lower.

This doesn't seem any different than different cellphone companies charging different rates for voice, data, etc....and then turning those prices into points of competition. Some companies compete on price, some on services, some on price -for- certain services, etc. Why would ISPs be any different?

I don't know where you live but many I know don't have the ability to switch ISPs when it comes to cable, they have 1 cable company to pick from. I'm lucky, I have 3 to pick from in my building, Time Warner, RCN, and Verizon. Many do not have such a luxury and are stuck with their cable provider.

Show me one example where someone can become an MSO as a brand new entrepenuer....

Here's a wired.com snippet that shows more nefarious reasons to worry.

Quote:

A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

Read More Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband | Epicenter | Wired.com

So, if Comcast decided it no longer wanted to stream ANY CBS.com video it could easily do so as part of their ability to decide how to throttle or limit bandwidth. They could say to you,"Watch it on your TV instead of on your PC."

There's a difference between charging someone for using more bandwidth (OK) and charging someone for using bandwidth in a particular manner (not OK). What Comcast was doing was the equivalent of a phone company charging you more to call homes than to call stores.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70 (Post 2775327)

And the real fear is more along the lines of a phone company over-charging or completely refusing to let you call someone who uses a different phone company.

If Comcast can regulate the type of traffic on their system, why couldn't they refuse to allow video from sites not affiliated with Comcast or NBC? Or force you to your local Comcast SportsNet channel's website for sports news instead of ESPN?

These types of decisions have the chance to radically affect how the Internet looks both in the short-term and in the long-term in regards to things like the ability to share information freely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2775322)

I have never understood the big bruhaha over this. . . . I see it no differently than charging different rates for local and long-distance phonecalls . . . .

I still haven't understood that one - and unlike many younger people, I grew up with the status quo being different rates for local, intrastate, and long distance rates. Why should it cost more just because the signal crosses a state line or travels further? It's all the same wires.

Back on topic, though, this doesn't surprise me. Big Business runs this country. Don't expect fairness; learn to expect whatever result puts more money into the pockets of our larger corporations. I mean, the Supreme Court has officially given corporations the right to sponsor political ads. And we all know Americans do what the TV tells 'em to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70 (Post 2775327)

This is it in a nutshell. Net neutrality is essentially the belief that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, byte by byte.

This brings up a good point. I always feel a bit put out by the fact that I can't use Google.com. I can only use Google Canada.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2775380)

This brings up a good point. I always feel a bit put out by the fact that I can't use Google.com. I can only use Google Canada.

So you can't access Google Thailand, Google Denmark, or even Google Argentina?

You must lead a sad, lonlely existence, encased in your Google Canadian bubble. I feel it (empathetically).

The one thing I despise is that the fact that FCC took control of free speech before it could even be deemed that way in the media scope of developing enterprises and technologies available to the American audience at large.

The government got in bed with a dictorial adminstration at the behest of only a small minority of advocates for "common decency". I'm glad the FCC has no "firm" hand in what is comprised of on the net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetée (Post 2775387)

So you can't access Google Thailand, Google Denmark, or even Google Argentina?

No, I can access those just fine. I just can't use www.google.com.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2775389)

No, I can access those just fine. I just can't use Google.

Well, that brings about the argument about you preferring to use Google Canadia as a stand-in to the accepted universal standard of Google. The use of "only" in your previous sentence brought about reminders of net monitoring and abidance similar to that found in The People's Republic of China, or in Myanmar.

It's not that you can "only" use the Canadian home and service made available by Google, it is just that you feel you deserve you should also be able to access the established original of Google freely; as you found you cannot, you merely "accept" to use the proffered regional Google.

Well, the use of "only" more or less meant "if I want to use a version of Google that isn't geared towards another language and/or geography."

I used to be able to use Google.

but that's not about net neutrality but more about distributed computer and resources.

jetee can you please elaborate a bit more on your stance. I don't understand.

My stance is that the FCC is a horrible, corrupted and longstanding barrier to fair media distrubution, free radio, and a goverment-institutionalized "hovering hand" to content labeling, which has progressed so far from being just an "advisory board" to something altogether "necessary" for the goodwill of the nation; it is to dictate what exactly is suitable for whom, and for those that do not adhere, you can be fined exorbitantly, jailed unconscionably, or punished outrageously by means of something else altogether, enforced by which they should hold no legal power to accomplish.

simply: from which you stated in your OP about the Federal Communications Commission needing to update its responsibilites, its only responsiblity from when it was founded by means of the Communications Act of the mid-1930s (forgot as to which year, '33, 34 or 35, exactly) to the day it still stands, is to solely distribute "content advisory" and to regulate the nation's telecommunications (media) through fair and unbiased methods, which should not be based upon race and/or background, nor region of inhabitance.

BG... on Google.ca, look down at the bottom of the page. There should be a link that let's you use Google.com.

Well, fuck me. So there is!

Now back to our regularly scheduled program!

Coincidently, last week Comcast sent me an email about their "High-Speed Internet Data Usage" meter that can be viewed when I log on to my account options.

Quote:

Your Comcast High-Speed Internet service has a monthly data usage allowance of 250 gigabytes (GB). If you are wondering whether you are at risk of exceeding this 250GB threshold, you should know that the vast majority - around 99% - of Comcast customers use significantly less than 250GB per month.

Quote:

It's no secret we've been evaluating a specific monthly data usage or bandwidth threshold for our Comcast High-Speed Internet residential customers for some time. Rumors circulated online last year and they popped up again in May.

In January, we added new frequently asked questions about what we consider acceptable use of our service to our online Help site customer.comcast.com and Security Channel page Comcast.net Security.

We've listened to feedback from our customers who asked that we provide a specific threshold for data usage and this would help them understand the amount of usage that would qualify as excessive. On October 1, 2008, we amended our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) available at Comcast.net Terms Of Service - Acceptable Use Policy to establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB/month per account for all residential customers. Read more.

I'm so far under the limit that it doesn't bother me. I don't have a problem with it and wouldn't even if I were getting close.

But I would have an issue if they began to provide preferential routing or something similar.

I'm 3x over the limit this month, but that's not normal :p

I work for a telecommunications company in AK. We have unlimited internet as of now. We are going away from that. I think we are putting a cap of 200gig/mo or so. We dont really know yet.

their stance is that there are 5% of our customers use alot more than expected. They will deal with them on a case by case basis. I wonder how that will go down.

I like though that they will try to stay on the "customer service" standpoint and not a "hey, you use to much, bye." mentality. We will try to do our best to meet the customers needs, but again, this is a business not a charity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktour (Post 2775939)

. . . but again, this is a business not a charity.

Actually, it is kind of a charity - for the cable companies. How convenient that internet access became available through the same cables they already had in place; and were already charging people to get their TV signals. . . . which back when they started promised us wouldn't have commercials any more, because charging advertisers AND customers would be double-dipping. Now they're triple-dipping.