The Death of Net Neutrality

[.invisible ink.]

I can't believe there's not already a thread about this ruling that went down today. Goodbye net neutrality. :-(

What does everyone think of the ruling?

Here's some info for those of you who may not have heard: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-06/comcast-wins-in-case-on-fcc-net-neutrality-powers-update6-.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-comcast7-2010apr07,0,3252678.story

[saysmydoctor]

Hyperbolic title is incredibly hyperbolic.

The ruling is completely accurate, the fix is simple (depending on who you ask). This is hardly the death of net neutrality. Just a inconvenience brought on by pure technicality.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/04/06/fcc-may-not-need-congress-to-reverse-appeals-court-ruling-on-regulating-internet/
^For instance

[.invisible ink.]

i guess you're right (about the title), i dunno, NPR as well as a local radio talk show host both seemed to be making it out like this was the end of all things involving net neutrality when I was listening earlier.

Here's an NPR Q&A about the rippling effects of net neutrality for anyone unsure of what this means: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125627928&ps=rs

[saysmydoctor]

It's definitely a setback, no doubt about it, but not one that is that isn't surmountable.

[Auals]

Could someone give me a quick recap of what this all means? It's an american thing but from what I'm reading it sounds like Comcast isn't allowed to stop giving certain people access to highspeed internet which sounds like a good thing...

So explain because I've clearly missed the point :p

[bridgeofeldin]

this could affect youtube and hulu too. companies like verizon and comcast could stop you from watching television shows that they would otherwise provide for you on their cable networks

[Manicapathy]

I believe we will be seeing some.......protest about this very soon....

http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images2/2008/oh-fuck-the-internet-is-here.jpg

[.invisible ink.]

Could someone give me a quick recap of what this all means? It's an american thing but from what I'm reading it sounds like Comcast isn't allowed to stop giving certain people access to highspeed internet which sounds like a good thing...

So explain because I've clearly missed the point :p

I suck at explaining things so i'm going to take the easy way out and quote and refer you here: http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/what-is-that-net-neutrality-that-i-keep-hearing-about/

“Net neutrality” is the new buzzphrase which means “keep the Internet free”, and costs be damned.
Net neutrality is a concept embodied as part of the “Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″, recently introduced in Congress by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Put simply, “net neutrality” means that telephone and cable companies and other Internet traffic providers would be legally required to turn a blind eye to the fact that Internet content providers and other huge Internet-based businesses, such as Yahoo and Google, consume an enormous amount of costly bandwidth. They would not be allowed to charge them for the Internet bandwidth that they eat. At least, they would not be allowed to charge them differently.
Which means either the cable and traffic providers would be required to allow all of this expensive traffic to continue for free, to, in some cases, their own financial loss, or, well, all users are going to have to end up being charged for the Internet.


I don't fully love this definition but it's easily understood at least.

And this: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/013001.php
The goal of network neutrality is to keep digital networks open for many different kinds of content and for many different types of applications and services that people may devise in the future. Put another way, the goal of network neutrality is to ensure that the Internet, as much as possible, remains a general purpose data transport system through which many different kinds of content, services, and applications can flow. What does the debate about network neutrality have to do with the First Amendment? Under current doctrine, the First Amendment doesn’t really say much about network neutrality one way or the other. And yet whether network providers can discriminate against content, sites and applications touches on important free speech values. Vast numbers of Americans now communicate with each other through broadband access; and we can expect that the percentage of communication through these digital networks will only increase over time. Network providers offer an indispensable service to the general public that makes much public (and private) communication possible. If network providers could discriminate against content and services flowing through their networks, they would be the most powerful censors in America. And since we live in what is effectively a cable-phone duopoly for broadband services, market competition would not necessarily counteract this censorship.
And why it's important:
But the debate over network neutrality is about more than whether network providers can discriminate against certain types of content or services. In most cases large corporations won’t discriminate against communications because of their politics or their moral tone (although there have been a few well publicized exceptions, like Verizon's recent attempt to block short text messaging services from NARAL). Rather, most network discrimination will be for economic reasons—to favor business partners and protect incumbent business models. Thus, the debate over network neutrality is really about the best way to spur competition and promote innovation. Defenders of network neutrality rules argue that digital networks will generate more useful applications in the future—and thus help people generate and distribute more information—if digital networks remain as neutral as possible between different kinds of content and applications.
If you want to promote the growth of new kinds of information services, including services we haven’t even imagined yet, it’s important to keep networks non-discriminatory rather than built to favor the current businesses that network providers are aligned with.

[Auals]

I suck at explaining things so i'm going to take the easy way out and quote and refer you here: http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/what-is-that-net-neutrality-that-i-keep-hearing-about/



I don't fully love this definition but it's easily understood at least.

And this: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/013001.php

Thanks, much easier to understand now. Cheers.

[caveBEAR]

If you want to promote the growth of new kinds of information services, including services we haven’t even imagined yet, it’s important to keep networks non-discriminatory rather than built to favor the current businesses that network providers are aligned with.

I agree with this 100%. The internet is really the only place where the big guys can fall overnight (Myspace?) and I'd like to keep it that way.

[theDrunkPianist]

is this why my roadrunner service has been acting strange lately?

[Stevesayshi]

how the fuck is my level 80 holy/shadow raiding priest going to raid ice crown after this shit goes down?;-)

[bernie16wb]

This isn't really surprising or all too bad. Actually it's probably a good thing. It makes congress have to pass a law regarding Network Neutrality instead of the FCC using their administrative powers which could have led to them reversing course or going crazy down the line.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/court-rejects-fcc-authority-over-internet

"
In a ruling that imposes important limits on the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today overturned (http://www.eff.org/files/Comcast%20v%20FCC%20%28DC%20Cir%202 010%29.pdf) the FCC ruling against Comcast for interfering with the BitTorrent traffic of its subscribers (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking). The court found that the Commission had overstepped the limits of its "ancillary authority" when it disciplined Comcast for its clandestine blocking behavior.
The ruling is not likely to make much difference to Comcast subscribers—Comcast had already agreed to cease its BitTorrent interdiction before the FCC's ruling was issued. Instead, the court's ruling is important because it represents a blow to FCC Chairman Genachowski's proposed net neutrality regulations (http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/FCC-05-151A1.pdf), which are premised on the same theory of "ancillary jurisdiction" that the FCC used against Comcast and that the court rejected today.
Here's the problem: Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. In place of explicit congressional authority, the FCC decided to rely on its "ancillary jurisdiction," a catchall source of authority that amounts to “we can regulate without waiting for Congress so long a the regulations are related to something else that Congress told us to do.” Of course, this line of reasoning could translate into carte blanche authority for unelected bureaucrats to regulate the Internet long after Chairman Genachowski has moved on. As we put it in October (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise):
If “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC "Internet Decency Statement." After all, outgoing FCC Chairman Martin was a crusader against "indecency" on the airwaves and it was the FCC that punished Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” monologue, something you can easily find on the Internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM). And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC "Internet Lawful Use Policy," created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV (http://www.eff.org/issues/broadcast-flag) and radio (http://www.eff.org/issues/digital-radio-restrictions), with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance. After all, it was only thanks to a jurisdictional challenge (http://www.eff.org/cases/ala-v-fcc) ... that we defeated the FCC's "broadcast flag (http://www.eff.org/issues/broadcast-flag)" mandate which would have given Hollywood and federal bureaucrats veto power over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded TV programming.
So while we are big supporters of net neutrality, we are glad that today's ruling has reasserted the important limits on the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet.
The fight now moves back to Congress and the FCC, with numerous net neutrality advocates urging the FCC to "reclassify (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/82759-telcos-urge-fcc-not-to-reclassify-internet-services-in-latest-net-neutrality-skirmish)" Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act—another effort to find FCC authority to regulate ISPs without having to go to Congress. In the meantime, everyone who cares about net neutrality will continue to watch ISPs closely (http://www.eff.org/testyourisp) for more evidence of discriminatory practices."

[Mitch]

Hyperbolic title is incredibly hyperbolic.


Hyperbolic title is getting less hyperbolic (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1&hp).

[perceptrons]

I'm not sure what to think on this whole Verizon/Google thing. With Google's history of net neutrality support, I am weary of these reports.

[Manicapathy]

Hyperbolic title is getting less hyperbolic (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=1&hp).

Fuck that noise.

[samsara]

oh fuck

[Mitch]

Google is denying the reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180192/Google_We_still_back_Net_neutrality #).

[SlappedActor]

Interesting editorial about the FCC's current attempts to begin regulating the internet.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/wave-goodbye-to-internet-freedom/

[RedWineSheets]

I dont know if anyone in this thread knows about the Commerce Clause in US constitution, but I wonder if the FCC could use that as an argument to regulate the internet?

[GeeBee]

Interesting editorial about the FCC's current attempts to begin regulating the internet.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/wave-goodbye-to-internet-freedom/

The Washington Times is like Fox News in print, so I'm reluctant to take any of their editorials too seriously.

[SlappedActor]

The Washington Times is like Fox News in print, so I'm reluctant to take any of their editorials too seriously.

No argument there, but the fact that the FCC is lobbying hard for internet regulation is no secret. It's an issue I wish more people were vocal about.

[GeeBee]

No argument there, but the fact that the FCC is lobbying hard for internet regulation is no secret. It's an issue I wish more people were vocal about.
Definitely. Comcast vs. Level3 is some serious shit that people don't realize has massive implications.

[sweetieoz22au]

Whenever governments step in to regulate and control it always ends up going way too far. If they try to control and regulate internet content it opens up a can of worms for special interest groups who lobby the government to get certain parts blocked just because they disagree with it. Theyre trying to put a massive internet filter into the country where i live, to do just that. Its bullshit.

[J.C.]

FCC voted today 3-2 in favor of some enforceable net neutrality regulations.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/f-c-c-approves-net-rules-and-braces-for-fight/

[saysmydoctor]

Whenever governments step in to regulate and control it always ends up going way too far. If they try to control and regulate internet content it opens up a can of worms for special interest groups who lobby the government to get certain parts blocked just because they disagree with it. Theyre trying to put a massive internet filter into the country where i live, to do just that. Its bullshit.
The postal service and Food Drug Administration are out of control.

[jawstheme]

The postal service and Food Drug Administration are out of control.

Do you feel that the government should regulate the internet? It is an entirely different monster than food and mail.

[Simulcast]

The postal service and Food Drug Administration are out of control.

Yeah, the postal service is facing only a quarter of a trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years. Peanuts really.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, the postal service is facing only a quarter of a trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years. Peanuts really.
What are you even talking about? I didn't say anything about their budget issues. And before you even go there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause

[saysmydoctor]

Do you feel that the government should regulate the internet? It is an entirely different monster than food and mail.
That's not what I am saying either--I was just commenting on that idiotic remark.

[Simulcast]

What are you even talking about? I didn't say anything about their budget issues. And before you even go there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause

I'm just highlighting my general lack of faith in the government getting anything done in an efficient, effective manner.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm just highlighting my general lack of faith in the government getting anything done in an efficient, effective manner.
I know and I was highlighting a few instances where the government does do the public's work in an efficient, effective manner and that you were employing the same old obnoxious hyperbole you always employ--as if you think repeating it makes more true. It's boring.

Sure you can cite the postal service's budget woes, but at the end of the day--it's seen its funding cut, coupled with the rise of electronic messaging and increased competition from other companies--even still, for 50 cents you can send a letter that they put on the plane and can get across the country in at least three to four days. Yeah, what a shitty system.

I think the biggest problem with the Postal Service is that the federal government for years has seen as a source of revenue and now that it's not, it's bad and should be abolished.

[<*)))><]

On topic with the postal service I find it inefficient that two mailmen have to deliver to one box for 9 people.

[The Personist]

Subscribing, hopefully thread will become interesting.

[Machu505]

Most Americans oppose (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html) Net Neutrality regulations.

Yet another example of why what the people want is not always what's best for them.

[caveBEAR]

Most Americans oppose (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html) Net Neutrality regulations.

Yet another example of why what the people want is not always what's best for them.

Holy shit, look at this;
The numbers become starker when split down political lines. While Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly believe that free market competition is better than regulation in protecting Internet users, 46 percent of Democrats support regulation.

In addition, most Republicans and unaffiliated voters think that the FCC would use their authority to promote a political agenda, while a plurality of Democrats believe they would be unbiased.

The Republicans are on the right side of the issue due to their knee-jerk fear of federal government.
:lol:

[myplanforescape]

I'm a supporter of Net Neutrality and while the recent regulations weren't the greatest, it was a step. Thats why it sucks (but is not surprising) a Tennessee Rep. is doing this.

Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn introduces bill to "to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet." (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/net-neutrality-fight-gop-wields-garlic-against-fcc-vampires.ars)

[drpepper09]

If they block too much they'll lose subscribers to their internet services. If it pisses off customers they'll switch to someone else who doesnt block the material. Simple enough. Economics won't let blocks happen unless its a massive block across the board.

[caveBEAR]

:lolatpost:

[BopRock]

The internet is the great frontier of its day
And like the old west, there are outlaws and apache, and they plan on civilising us wether we like it or not