FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality'

Can someone enlighten me on what the heck they are talking about? I have never had any issue trying to run any program or view any webpage I wanted to over the net.

And ISP's don't "serve the public", they serve subscribers.

 

Services like Skype and Vonage being blocked by phone companies. Also Comcast capping data in certain markets in order to eliminate competition from Hulu, Netflix, and Fancast. That's what tthey are talking about.

I'm not sure if it covers the 5 gig cap placed on Mobile Broadband computer users, while handheld devices like the iPhone and iPad are not subject to data limits and can use just as much data. This is clearly case of discrimination, in my opinion. I don't see how AT&T can justify saying they don't want PC users streaming youtube, then partnering up then partnering up with Slingbox to make an app for the iPhone and Ipad. The argument that phones use less data made sense with the phones that had a 2 inch display, but this new iPad has a laptop size hi-def screen, and will suck as much data as a pc will.

 

"Among other things, the FCC proposes to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities"

Why is there a federal fund for this when the telephone companies who claim to provide service make billions? Sorry, know a bit off topic, but isn't that wasting taxpayer dollars when the corporation should be footing that bill?

 

This "Internet Neutrality" sounds an awful lot like another Government power grad to me.

 

I heard some analysis today...

Comcast had been blocking websites that provide on-demand video and video downloads, principally using "bittorrent" protocol to deliver the goods, as I understand. It's a high-speed file delivery protocol for very large files... like DVDs say. The sites being blocked just happened to compete with Comcast's cable service - gee! How about that? Comcast went to court saying that the transfer of large files was just killing their network bandwidth. Or maybe people are just tired of cable bills and crappy content???

So the appeals court sided with Comcast, and didn't just do it in a little way. The analogy I heard was like someone appealed a parking ticket, and the court threw out all the driving laws except for you need a license plate. Basically they said that the FCC has no business regulating digital communications at all.

I'd imagine that the government (the FCC) will take it to the Supreme Court... meanwhile the big internet providers can pretty much do anything they want. Like charge content providers who compete with them out the wazoo for network bandwidth.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/20100407/tc_ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc1510



Net neutrality faces serious setbacks
First, a primer for the uninitiated on "net neutrality."
Net (as in network) neutrality is the idea that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally and ' more to the point ' should come at the same price. Right now, for instance, you don't have to pay more to watch a YouTube video than you do to check your email, even though the YouTube video eats up more bandwidth and, in theory, costs your ISP more for you to watch.

Websites and most consumers love the idea of net neutrality.

ISPs, on the other hand, are not fans. In fact, the net neutrality movement arose as a response to major ISPs' plans to attempt to charge websites and service providers more for "better" service on their networks. Fail to pay up and that YouTube video might take twice as long to download ... or it may not download at all.

ISPs call this the cost of doing business and a necessary reality in an era where bandwidth isn't growing but the amount of data being pushed through the available pipes is.

Net neutrality proponents call this extortion.
No matter who is right, things were looking up for net neutrality fans after the FCC and the Obama administration came out with specific and strongly worded recommendations and plans that they would push for net neutrality as the Obama broadband program (100Mbps to everyone!) moved forward.

But the showdown had already begun prior to the Obama era, way back in 2007, when Comcast, the country's largest cable company, began throttling BitTorrent downloads, effectively putting a speed limit on how fast they could go. The FCC put the kibosh on the practice, and ISPs, led by the mammoth Comcast, sued. Then the FCC announced even more sweeping rules that it planned to enact in the future.

This week, a major legal ruling was handed down in the Comcast case, and the tide has now turned in favor of the ISPs. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals said that the FCC had overstepped its authority in mandating net neutrality and that ISPs should be free to manage traffic however they see fit, noting that under current law, the FCC does not have "untrammeled freedom" to regulate broadband services. (In other words, Congress would have to specifically grant such powers.) The ruling was unanimous among the three judges on the panel.

Now net neutrality fans find themselves facing a serious uphill climb. Not only does the ruling open up the way ' for now ' for ISPs to ask websites and service providers for money; it might also allow them to restrict certain services from running on their networks entirely. Comcast, for example, may not want you to watch Hulu on its service, since then you'd have less of a reason to pay $60 a month for cable TV. It may also be able to ban VOIP services like Skype, so you'll pony up another $20 for wired telephone service. The dominoes are already lining up.

What happens now? The FCC has more tricks up its sleeve. As the MSNBC story above notes, broadband service could be reclassified to fall under the other heavily regulated telecommunications services that the FCC oversees, but that would likely result in additional legal wrangling and longer delays for the broadband plan to go into effect, a so-called nuclear option that would turn the world of broadband into a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare.

If it doesn't take this route, the FCC will instead have to ask Congress for the power to implement net neutrality rules as it sees fit, but that's a political game in a time when Washington seems awfully low on political capital. Don't rule out an appeal to the Supreme Court, either.

Stay tuned ' for as long as your Internet service holds out, anyway.
' Christopher Null is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.

 

I think I'll side with the government on this issue.

ISPs want us viewing nothing but static, 1994 era web pages.