Court Says F.C.C. Cannot Require ‘Net Neutrality’

This is bad, peoples (although it may end up with the federal gov't finding a new way to set standards for internet service providers):

April 6, 2010
Court Says F.C.C. Cannot Require ‘Net Neutrality’
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 didn’t 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 for 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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

on the one hand, this suck

on the other hand, stop pirating shit you idiots

1) uh oh

2) give me access to the iPlayer, and I won't have to. I'll pay a license fee.

on the one hand, this suck

on the other hand, stop pirating shit you idiots

I had the same reaction, too

yeah this emms like kinda the opposite of bad company stuff

yeah this could have big bad implications down the line... but i am in favor or sticking it to all the freeloading download hogs

lame lame lame

Long live freeloading download hogs!

wtf

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority

WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.

capitalism blows :(

WAIT CAN WE LIKE TALK ABOUT THIS GUYZ

i am finding myself terrified. for real.

i would never ever fight in a war for the united states, but i would strap the fuck up for net neutrality

dunno if this was mentioned on election thread -- 0-for-95.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/technology/net_neutrality_election/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html

the fuck?

i'm really confused by this.

is this like a mega bait-and-switch

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-web-host-is-forcing-the-fccs-internet-to-run-at-dial-up-speeds

...In a stand against the agency’s proposed “internet fast lane,” web host Neocities has started throttling all web traffic from the FCC’s offices down to 28.8 kb/s—dial-up modem speeds—as a preview of what might happen if the group allows internet service providers to charge extra for increased web speeds.

Neocities creator Kyle Drake says that the FCC, if it wants, can remove the throttle by paying $1,000 a year—a nod to the tiered plans (similar to paying for certain cable channels) that activists have warned will become the norm if net neutrality is struck down by the agency. Admittedly, it's a stunt, but it's one that could quickly get the attention of larger websites and hosts who could potentially do the same thing.

HACK THE PLANET

"At this point, I’m like, 'fuck the FCC, block their internet, pee on their doorstep, fuck them," he said. "You can't do this to the internet."

http://gizmodo.com/how-to-yell-at-the-fcc-about-how-much-you-hate-its-net-1576943170

formal consideration of new rules starts now, time for public comments

Ok, I need someone's help on this issue, I am confused. Can someone explain to me why I should care whether a company like Netflix might have to pay more for faster/broader access over internet lines (other than it might raise my internet rates)? Are there any actual implications to political speech from the new FCC regime? I was under the impression that this is all only about bandwidth/speed and content neutral, am I wrong?

Netflix is another giant behemoth just like the rest of them, but if they lose, basically that means all ISPs can extort more money - as they're already doing to Netflix now - for any site that "excessively" uses bandwidth in their eyes. Of course this makes no sense since Netflix is already paying for their bandwidth like everybody else.

This is just some skin off Netflix's back, but in principle it will hurt any site or person that can't afford these highwayman fees to AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/etc. in the future. And what if one of these owners has a grudge against someone? Or if the FCC/FBI/CIA etc. wants to do something? There's already plenty of collusion between the government and these internet providers.

Realistically this is probably just going to affect internet start-ups, unless by some miracle there's a wikileaks-style site that explodes in popularity and bandwidth use in the US.

It just doesn't sound to me like it would affect you unless you're doing something requiring a massive amount of bandwidth. I guess that would mainly be startups. But otherwise I just feel like I'm taking the side of one entertainment company vs another.

i recently got a 'what we're doing about the speed of video on the internet' popup from youtube, tldr, but it did seem to imply that the availability of groovy pro-free-speech platforms like theirs was entangled with their larger competition for bandwidth costs w/ all the various actors. not in a direct way, but obviously if they can't make the money they want the free shit will be the first to go whenever they don't think they can exploit it to 'add value', build user attachment, extract free content from them etc.

what i'm saying i guess is net neutrality -> largesse by the institutional providers, net non-neutrality -> social infrastructure of teh web gonna be squeezed w/ ultimate effects on the resourceless peons at the bottom i.e. us

not directly on point but i thought this was informative

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-youtube-buffers-the-secret-deals-that-make-and-break-online-video/

Post-Hobby Lobby, ISPs can probably claim it violates their religious beliefs to carry Site X and block them from their bandwidth.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2WDD1IIAAEdzjR.jpg

time warner cable = john galt

making it hard to be a Mavericks fan, Cubes

wow, what a dipshit.

just like success of railroads depended on the government eminent domaining lots of land, success of internet depended on lots of early government funded research and infrastructure, good point Mark Cuban

srly, what is the downside of Obama's statement earlier in the week? (ie, what could still line the pockets of telecoms/cable giants if we get his version of 'net neutrality'?)

i think it's key that he took a principled stand on an issue where he doesn't get to make the decision. i'm hoping the FCC follows his lead, but there's certainly no guarantee.

strong and warm and wild and free

so i'm going to have to look up what happened, huh

your laws do not apply to me!

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/why-the-ex-cable-lobbyist-running-the-fcc-turned-against-his-old-clients/

Even though Wheeler isn't proposing the strongest possible Title II rules, Internet providers are furious and promise lawsuits. While the FCC will vote on Wheeler's net neutrality plan on February 26, the fight he is picking against his former clients is far from over.

yeah whats good with this for real

http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah169/enematicemesis/obamacontrolinternet_zps8d875777.jpg

there is a BLACK MAN holding a REPORT!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai

so... did this work?

It appears so.

DEPOSIT 25 CENTS TO CONTINUE READING ILX

http://www.instantrapairhorn.com/

well this is not bad news.

definitely feels like a positive development, we'll see what kind of ham handed tactics the Republican congress can conjure up to stop this.

I'm so accustomed to petitions and campaigns and movements to end up not changing anything that I'm still coming around to the fact that one of them actually worked.

tbf, this one had Google, eBay, Amazon, etc. etc. in their corner to grease the wheels against Evil Big Telecom

WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled, a decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users.

The decision from a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday comes in a case about rules applying to a doctrine known as net neutrality, which prohibit broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html

fuck yeah

Oh nice, thanks DC circuit

That's awesome. And my guess is an 8-justice Supreme Court either doesn't take cert or upholds the ruling (latter would actually arguably be better).

Holy shit xp

@van horn street gawker was a harbinger

granny does your dog bite no child no

Mark my words
IF THE GOVERNMENT STARTS FOOLING WITH THE INTERNET THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO MESS IT UP

— Charlie Daniels (@CharlieDaniels) November 22, 2017

i love the aclu but ugh "remember when pearl jam was censored for saying 'george bush leave this world alone' this why net neutrality is important" is not particularly convincing

sleepingbag searching for rick and morty memes on bing cuz he can't afford the google package "THIS IS FINE I'M FINE"

well i'm just glad that internet migration of the workforce will slow a little. we need more commuters and pollution and electricity in office buildings etc., not less. #MRGA

ok so let's assume some smart people work at the ISPs and telcos currently, and maybe there are even some smart people on the boards - they look at the polls and figure, this is a presidential appointee making a rule, not a law like the Telecom Act of 96, so we should consider that this could change. We could try and make a shitload of money while pissing everybody off for the next couple of years, or we could avoid being disruptive and try to stall the cord-cutting thing that this latest generation keeps going on about.

That said, I'm sure (for example) that the main Verizon and Verizon Wireless have different views on the issue. If the backlash to throttling and charging access tolls to edge networks / content providers actually leads to more cord cutting (or worse, rich outfits like Alphabet just straight making a foray into the ISP business), then Verizon really doesn't have a lot of incentive to disrupt things - again, especially not in light of the fact that this ruling is fungible if the administration turns over, if Congress takes action, or if States' Attorneys go ham as above.

Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, has a real opportunity to charge access tolls and potentially get away with it - but only if other cell providers do the same. Cord cutters still need phones and LTE connectivity, but if one provider gets out in front of the rest, they'll probably lose customers instantly. The first mover has to provide some kind of appealing offset or benefit to their service; maybe even something that costs the customer a lot less for decent access to only a few things? And even then, they could still get undercut and lose customers to their competition. And even even then, as above, the lifespan of this rule is very much in question, but it's almost certainly short.

We could try and make a shitload of money while pissing everybody off for the next couple of years

This way of thinking always wins, because money in the pocket now is tangible, but the future benefits of self-restraint are uncertain, especially if your competitors have been raking in the money you forewent and thus can outspend you while jockeying for the next advantage.

yeah but at the same time you're not making enemies out of google and facebook and apple

As they say in Sicily, you have to let google and facebook "dip their beaks". You make your main money off the smaller fry.

xp
^this is why I'm almost curious to see what happens. Do the ISPs really want to dare those three plus Amazon to get into the infrastructure business? That said, what I'd expect to see first (and is already legal iirc) is an increase in zero rating rather than charging for content categories or something

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/28/fcc-peddling-net-neutrality-spin-as-fact/

kendzior \m/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/gutting-net-neutrality-is-a-death-knell-for-the-resistance/article37088279/

it's the day

https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-buy-this-crap-1821277398

not to be a buzzkill on democracy and all of that, but is there any evidence that all of the organizing and public outcry about this has ANY effect on the decision of ajit pai or the rest of the FCC?

I haven't seen any.

the commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. so that already happened. donald trump doesn't give a shit about net neutrality, unless it prevents him from watching his tv shows. (which it won't, because even if he watched tv via the internet, he watches the kind of TV that the ISPs and telecoms are happy to give priority to.)

the whole structure of it is fucked. there must always be a split 3/2 split. the 3 republicans right now are ajit fucking pai, and the other two are mike o'reilly, who wrote an op-ed with ted fucking cruz in support of ending net neutrality, and brendan carr, who has already publicly spooged himself the prospect of ending net neutrality several times.

so who shall the voters punish for this decision, which is only supported by telecoms and the people who invest in them? we can punish trump, cool. but trump's support of net neutrality is fairly low on the list of reasons to run him out of office. voters can try to punish the senators who confirmed the republican FCC stooges.

the vote to confirm Ajit Pai was 52 to 41. here are the D's who voted for him:

mccaskill (MO)
manchin (WV)
peters (MI)
tester (MT)

alright, so let's primary mccaskill, manchin, peters, and tester to punish them for their role in confirming FCC stooges, of which there is a literally endless pile of candidates! and to make things even better, there MUST be a 3-2 party split in the commission, because we all know that when it comes to the telecommunications, the first question when solving any problem is figuring out what political party you belong to.

sorry, i'm grumpy. there is no hope, sometimes.

a more positive way to spin this question: what is the most effective way to oppose things like this, in the future? is there any person or group that has sway with the FCC and didn't make their mind up about this several years ago?

https://www.avclub.com/the-fccs-ajit-pai-now-openly-mocking-net-neutrality-pro-1821278546

cool

insane that they're (most likely) going to go through with this in spite of it's massive unpopularity. hate to look for a silver lining here but this is kind of a massive gift to the Democrats since this is likely the one issue that even the idiots at the_donald won't be able to spin

You mean because they won't be able to afford the internet anymore?

Is there a possibility of fixing NN in legislation and taking it out of the hands of the exec. branch assuming Dems get control of congress someday?

by "fix" I mean fasten securely in place, not repair

this + Disney news feels pretty momentous, like this week will shape the landscape for decades to come. not just the media served but the consumers and the attendant metadata produced (purchases, location, ideology, demographics, etc).

tbh i am not that concerned with the changes as it seems like the standard for any other utility company. the internet will now be like your gas or power company, vampirically coming up with new way to charge its customers. mystery fees, processing fees, etc. all that shit is crooked and abusive and needs to be reformed.

if i have to pay for access to a blog or website, well i already do that, i have been paying for gated internet access for years. if i can't read a blog or the Huffpo or someone's random Twitter rant without paying extra, maybe that will be a good thing. not saying i am not extremely wary of the new legislation, just as likely to be yet a new a trap door into our wallets.

at any rate there needs to be a public internet infrastructure (one that isn't just spying on everyone and storing it in a mirrored cube in the desert). there needs to be free and open public access. it has become a modern necessity, people need it to look for and apply for work, they need it to email headhunters and write resumes. imo every major city should have free wifi. this is another area where the US falls behind many other countries and it looks like we aren't getting our act together any time soon.

this is kind of a massive gift to the Democrats since this is likely the one issue that even the idiots at the_donald won't be able to spin

i disagree. i would agree if things would change overnight and the difference was obvious to everyone. but i would guess that the telecoms will lie low for a few months before making changes. it's in their interest to do so. i'd guess the ramifications of rolling back net neutrality will probably play out over several years. hell, by the time they finally take the step of openly providing faster broadband for selected corporate winners like netflix and time warner or whatever company they are now, there might be a democrat in the white house!

welp, they did it.

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fight-moves-to-courts-congress/

also, yes, let's primary the heck out of McCaskill and Manchin

Health care, taxes ... yeah yeah, sure, I get it. But the second they start slowing down sports and porn there will be a true voter revolt.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

you know what guys, TV was *free* when I was a kid.

xp to be clear, should add that the chart is hypothetical whenever posting

Xp

That tv still is free

In hd now too

as of august, 98.5% of the submitted comments supported net neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/isp-funded-study-finds-huge-support-for-keeping-current-net-neutrality-rules/

I'm sure ISPs will band together to respect the wishes of their customers and not take advantage of the new regulatory landscape.

it's only fair

They will likely issue statements assuring their customers that they will not change service costs and will be dedicated to continuing to provide the best service at the same low prices blah blah blah and will quietly wait until all of the protests and headlines fade away before they start slowly implementing new pricing structures under the pretense that they're giving consumers more options. You know... water is wet etc.

ACLU take

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/trumps-fcc-nukes-network-neutrality-what-happens-now

http://uproxx.com/technology/what-would-internet-without-net-neutrality-look-like/2/

It’s very easy to imagine a world without net neutrality: Just look at your phone. For much of the time smartphones have existed, there’s been zero regulation requiring net neutrality. Indeed, as we’ve said before, your “unlimited” plan is actually quite limited. Considering half of all web traffic comes from mobile devices, the apocalypse has been here for a while.

In fact, much of what people are worried about has already happened: Cable providers were completely free to cap how much data you use and exempt its services, to strongarm services like Netflix into paying for a “fast lane”, and other egregious abuses. All the FCC is doing, in the end, is telling these companies that they can keep doing this.

The question isn’t what internet service providers, or ISPs, will do. It’s how internet companies, states, and cities will react: The reality is, Google, Netflix, Amazon, all the services that we use now, either can pay the fees ISPs are demanding of them or simply have so much leverage and can afford enough lawyers that ISPs don’t dare anger them. The question for them is, is it cheaper to just pay the fees and leave everybody else to their fate? Or do they try to build their own internet and get around it?

Building your own internet isn’t as hard as you might think: This is already being done, most notably in Detroit with a mesh network, which is the most logical and feasible technology at the moment. But there’s plenty of others, if you’re an internet-dependent company with deep pockets. Microsoft is hard at work using TV spectrum to blanket rural areas in high-speed internet, called white-space broadband. While Google has “paused” its program installing gigabit fiber to America, it could easily fire that up again. Amazon is owned by a man who has his own rocket company and could start putting satellite networks in the air. And, of course, cities and towns can, and will likely be forced to, build their own networks.

this has been another bullshit facebook flare up from people whose emotions are way too easily manipulated,
but thanks for so stridently pretending to care in between posting about 'this amazing restaurant in the village serves cheese on a fucking penguin' and 'bitcoins: wish i had some'

I'd post an image of a middle finger you can sit and spin on but I don't want to max out my data plan looking for one.

This is the hot take of 4chan / the_donald right now, if anyone can be bothered to read it (I got as far as the second comment) - http://i.magaimg.net/img/23vv.png

just to calm myself down a bit, what's the difference between what they'll be able to do now and what they were able to do pre-2015? I hadn't realized this was just enacted two years ago.

Well, they got busted for throttling and shit before, iirc, they'll do it again.

Do we get mad when our cellular companies throttle us?

the other thing I hear is that you really never know if they are throttling you or not. So maybe your phone or computer or whatever connected to the internet is behaving really slowly, and you're thinking about upgrading, but completely unknown to you the Slowdown is intentional and they're just trying to game you into paying more.

Given the small number of mega-corporations who provide internet services to the masses, their opportunities for manipulating the market and for increasing their profits without increasing services in return will expand greatly if net neutrality is abandoned. But that is precisely why it will be abandoned.

if this is good-bye everyone it was nice knowing you all

fighting for the peepul

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-progressive-policy-institute_us_5a70f13ee4b0be822ba143f4

shocking

https://gizmodo.com/it-sure-looks-like-wireless-carriers-got-busted-throttl-1828823399

Millions Of Comments About The FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Were Fake. Now The Feds Are Investigating.

Hell yeah!
In blow to telecoms, California’s net neutrality law upheld

In blow to telecoms' greedy plan to jack up their profits, California’s net neutrality law upheld

fixed