[Makes one wonder if experiments are happening right now about throttling content, given the http problems described in an earlier post. And what gives ISP any identity as a content provider in its own right? Doesn't that open them up to content liability challenges, something that they've been fighting against??? You can't have it both ways, chaps.]
U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court_n_4595859.html Reuters | Posted: 01/14/2014 11:06 am EST | Updated: 01/14/2014 3:57 pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down the government's latest effort to require internet providers to treat all traffic the same and give consumers equal access to lawful content, a policy that supporters call net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission did not have the legal authority to enact the 2011 regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit brought by Verizon Communications Inc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling. "Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates," Judge David Tatel said. Although the three judge panel were unanimous about the outcome, one wrote separately that he would have gone even further in restricting the FCC's authority. The FCC could appeal the ruling to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court, or it could attempt to rewrite the regulations to satisfy the appeals court. During the oral argument in September, Verizon's lawyer said the regulations violated the company's right to free speech and stripped control of what its networks transmit and how. The eventual outcome of the dispute may determine whether internet providers can restrict some content by, for instance, blocking or slowing down access to particular sites or charging websites to deliver their content faster. The FCC had no immediate comment on the ruling. Verizon also had no immediate comment. (Reporting by David Ingram and Alina Selyukh; Editing by Will Dunham and Sofina Mirza-Reid) And this from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/the-terrible-argument-the-court-used-to-strike-down-net-neutrality/ Essentially, the court is saying that the rules aren't really necessary because if a provider blocks access to Youtube, for example, consumers can always just change to a provider that doesn't block access to Youtube. Matt Wood, the policy director at media and technology advocacy organization Free Press, says such reasoning is wrong. For one, he says, "we don't have enough competitive broadband options, period." While broadband has become more widely availabile across the country over the years, some areas still don't have access to wireline broadband service. According to the FCC, about 15 million Americans live in areas still unserved by wireline broadband. As of the FCC's <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-90A1.pdf>Eight Broadband Progress Report in 2012, that included nearly a quarter of American living in rural areas. But even when people do have access to wireline broadband, they don't necessarily have access to a competitive marketplace. [includes an interesting set of maps showing multiple access versus single provider access] This on Buzzfeed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/welcome-to-the-net-neutrality-nightmare-scenario What if you didnt have to pay for your data plan? What if the biggest data hogs on your phone your music apps, your streaming video apps didnt count toward your monthly limit? Its an intoxicating pitch, and one youll hear soon. The countrys largest data providers are mulling it; their partners are figuring out how to make it work; the FCC, which is in charge of identifying downsides and regulating such things, just <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462.html>lost much of its ability to do so. Caught at the whirling nexus of theory and regulation and commerce, the average internet users fate is uncertain. But today, a new and unexpected possibility has made itself clear: We may be entering the era of sponsored data the era of an internet that we dont directly pay for, but that we also dont control. Its the old net neutrality nightmare, in other words, disguised as a gift. [snip] By treating broadband like a communications service, Free Press is suggesting categorizing internet providers as common carriers, like phone companies, a possibility that, in comparison to preserving 2010s stricken FCC rules, is seen by insiders as a long shot. From a legal perspective, its easier, Harold Feld, a senior vice president at Public Knowledge, told BuzzFeed. What makes it difficult is the politics. Pretty much everybody in the industry pushed back very hard against it, he said. There were a lot of people who came around to network neutrality a reason why these rules were compromised, and had industry buy-in, was that a lot of people in the industry preferred these rules to reclassification. This is a potentially crippling defeat for net neutrality advocates. Trying to reclassify ISPs as utilities, essentially, would give anti-regulation opponents a much clearer position. Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which opposes net neutrality, declared victory in a statement, saying the cause is dead and buried. Onward to Internet 3.0 and beyond, the statement says. [I didn't realise they were NOT common carriers as they are classified in Australia. Interesting distinction.] Melbourne, Victoria, Australia jw...@janwhitaker.com Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. ~Margaret Atwood, writer _ __________________ _ _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link