Net Neutrality Suffers Major Setback 790
RingDev writes "The US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Comcast today, stating that the FCC lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks."
Well... (Score:0, Interesting)
That sucks. Though couldn't there be some argument about whether or not the companies are selling Internet access if they're only allowing you access to parts, slowing others down, etc.?
Meme (Score:3, Interesting)
Step 1. Send a letter to your ISP asking them to filter your access by a defined criteria.
Step 2. Wait to get content that you requested filtered.
Step 3. ??????
Step 4. Profit.
If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status, and are now responsible for all content passed over their networks. If you get a spam message that you did not want, you can sue, at least in a perfect world. I am sure they will get out of it somehow.
Re:Oh goody (Score:2, Interesting)
Nah - ISPs may try to shape traffic, but so long as the government stays out of it, two things will happen:
1) Techniques will be developed to circumvent traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing
-or-
2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.
There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.
since the FCC likes to use telephone comparisons (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't this P2P blocking bit, a little like allowing AT&T arbitrarily and capriciously to prevent you from calling anyone in Chicago (not that it would be a bad thing)?
Tariffs are a comin'.... (Score:4, Interesting)
ISP's operate in that magical land of no tariffs. I bet not for long. If the FCC has any backbone (I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hey, sometimes you can hope) they'll turn this into a regulated service. Just like all of those other wonderful tariffs we've had, for basic POTS lines, T1's, ISDN, etc, etc, look for that to happen with all sorts of Internet connections. So, in return for keeping net neutrality we'll lose ISP's... and the vicious dog eat dog cycle begins.
Re:Oh goody (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh goody (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, we can figure out valid proxies and cobble together specialised software to route around damage, but the other 95% of humanity will basically have their internet hobbled permanently, with no recourse or no clue.
Don't give up so easily (Score:5, Interesting)
The State government would have the power to regulate any monopolies inside its borders, including electrical providers, natural gas providers, phone companies, and yes Internet providers. - The local government/town that granted the exclusive license to Comcast also has the right to regulate, per the terms of the monopoly.
Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.
Pyrrhic Victory? (Score:3, Interesting)
Without net-neutrality, Comcast's purchase of NBC (and Hulu) could start raising some major questions about whether it is forming a monopoly, especially when the government is already looking at the broadband situation in the US (and possibly unhappy about it).
Additionally, the FCC has made it pretty clear that they want some authority over the net, so far assuming implicitly that they have such authority. With this ruling, we may yet see them given such authority explicitly.
I almost wonder if this may be a pyrrhic victory for Comcast. Imagine them having the NBC/Hulu sale blocked, and then later the FCC gets it's authority specifically created, enforcing Net Neutrality (perhaps with some fangs), and having a bit of a grudge against Comcast.
Re:Oh goody (Score:3, Interesting)
When did "regulate" become "micromanage"?
Re:Meme (Score:3, Interesting)
In which case, it is time to have a public utility internet access, run by the local/state/federal government. Like Finland, we need to get a law passed that says people have the right to 1/10/100 mb access to the net. In the past, the US government had to step in to get companies to provide phone and power to rural locations in the US. The same needs to be done for high speed internet access, but not just limited to rural locations. Everyone in the US should be able to access the net at a high speed. As we move more and more functions of the government and business to the net, people need equal access.
Like the roads, power, phone, water, garbage collection, natural gas, and others, the Internet has to become a public utility, and companies that want to provide access need to be regulated as such.
Restore Common Carrier (Score:2, Interesting)
Excluding data carriers from common carrier requirements was one of the dumbest things we have ever done.
Simple principle: If you want to make decisions about which traffic to carry at what speed, you are legally liable for all traffic you carry. If you want safe harbor from liability, you cannot decide which packets get special treatment.
Throttling is fine if it is unbiased. Picking winners and losers is not the ISP's prerogative.
The decision is somewhat moot (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC knew Comcast was going to win quite a while back. Comcast's basic argument rests on the fact that the FCC didn't follow it's own rules in how it created the net neutrality rule. Since the rules weren't followed for creating a new rule, Comcast argued the net neutrality rule was unenforceable.
The FCC recognized Comcast had a point and restarted the rule making process to enable them to legally enforce net neutrality.
Personally, I'd like to see the FCC say that if you own a cable or phone company, you can't provide internet service. We've just been through the consequences of companies that were too big to fail failing and are quite a bit poorer because of it. Letting monopolies form is just taking us down that path again.
Both At&t and the cables are scared shitless that the Internet will make their business models obsolete. Of course, they're right.
telecom (Score:3, Interesting)
One place we know they do have authority is telephony. And the largest immediate threats posed by the decision I think are to 1) VOIP and 2) Netflix. For brevity, I'm going to ignore bittorrent because at present while a big bandwidth hog, it's not a commercialized bandwidth hog like the other two.
it will be easy for comcast to squeeze out all VOIP and streaming video providers with simple QOS tweaks. Already Netflix is barely tolerable and it would not take much for me to give it up. Likewise Comcast is now in the VOIP market so why not prefer their own packets over others?
You can't even call it Anti-trust since they are not leveraging one market to enter another. Indeed Comcast has been in the movie providing market longer than netflix. You might make the anti-trust argument for voip however.
Which brings me back to the FCC. the FCC might not have the authority to regulate all of the internet but surely they can regulate VOIP since that is telephony.
I sure hope they do, because once all the VOIP and netflix competition is squeezed out to either comcast itself or to people that partner with comcast it's going to be hard to decentralize it again.
I'll make one other prediction. the fate of bit torrent. right now bit torrent is nothing but cost to COmcast. if it went away people would not stop paying for their internet connection so there's no downside to squeezing it out. I suspect the future of Bittorrent is how it becomes monetized. If comcast could profit from bit torrent then they will be happy for it because, when done correctly, bit torrent more efficiently broadcasts across the edges of the network rather than the backbone. I suspect the way it will be monetized is that someone will start selling movies using some set top internet box (roku, apple-tv, etc...) that uses bit torrent rather than limewire to deliver the content. you park the top 200 movies in slices out on people's set top boxes-- these are not movies they ordered, you are just parking them there for delivery. then you distribute this from these boxes. You could even compensate the box owners for using some of their bandwidth. THe key is you do this in a locked down DRM way where one company is selling the service. now it makes money and costs less infrastructure wise than direct streaming. Comcast will get a cut.
I suspect that's the future of peer to peer.
Re:Did you hear that? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's cute, but the FCC is subject to the Supreme Law of the land, just like every other part of the central U.S. government. And the Supreme Law says:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So you see the FCC has the power to regulate "communications" AMONG the states, not inside the states, and many ISPs operate within state lines, therefore the court reached the decision that Comcast is outside the central government's jurisdiction.
Re:Oh goody (Score:2, Interesting)
>>>>>Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.
>>
>>In this case the government created the monopoly. Ever heard of franchise agreements?
(1) Rude insulting question because it assumes I'm stupid/ignorant. (2) How does my answer "yes" change what I said before? It doesn't. I still think the State government should regulate electrical, natural gas, phone, and internet monopolies. That is what State governments are for - to regulate within their own borders.
Re:Meme (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree with you about how this only strengthens the argument for public internet.
There's three ways of approaching this if this ruling stands:
1. To basically say "you are stifling competition by engaging in this sort of behavior" and sue ISPs under antitrust law.
2. To say "there is insufficient competition" and introduce public utility internet.
3. To say "fine--you can regulate your traffic as you like, but if you can do that, you're responsible for all content appearing as such."
The grandparent post is a little accurate and a little inaccurate in how it portrays this. If the ISPs are essentially saying they are responsible for regulating their own content, it opens up a crapload of liability issues. I only hope they get sued into oblivion in that case.
Re:Oh goody (Score:5, Interesting)
The second we take away the roads, power, water, garbage collection, phone, net access, schools, other fundamental services of a first world nation, we become a third world nation. You can say "free market" all you want, but history shows that companies will not deliver these fundamental services if they don't forced to do so. If you lived in small town America, away from high density populations, you did not get power for years after the rest of the country. The same goes for phones.
I want to live in a first world nation, where I have cheep, reliable access to these services.
Ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Free Market, love it? (Score:1, Interesting)
of course, that would be assuming that "free market libertarian types" are against government-mandated net neutrality and sanctions against corporations that are causing these problems.
it's funny that you association the "locking down of the internet" with anti-government rhetoric... considering that government intervention is exactly what is providing the ISPs with the power to filter traffic.
but that doesn't fit in nicely with your "anti-slashdot-libertarian" party line.
Slashdot seems to have a fairly large amount of "government solves all" people. Maybe strangling the internet (by corporations that have government-granted monopolies) is the thing that will make some of them realize that certain things do deserve an anti-government-intervention approach.
Division of power, 5th ammendment. (Score:3, Interesting)
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, congress had passed no law prohibiting what Comcast had done, nor had they delegated power to the FCC to regulate the internet in the manner that they did. Government officials can't make up their own laws, nor can they punish people for breaking nonexistent laws.
I agree that net neutrality regulation, if created, would absolutely fall within both the letter and spirit of the interstate commerce clause (unlike many other laws that are justified by it).
Ahem (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this a set back? That statement assumes they aren't already throttling the piss out of traffic.
I can download at 258kbps from Microsoft no problem.
I can got to Hulu and clear 259kbps.
I try and update World of Warcraft (which uses p2p) and I suddenly get 49kbps.
I download Ubuntu Linux at 49kbps.
In fact ANY torrent is exactly capped at 49kbps.(unless I turn on Protocol Encryption Only then magically that 49kbps cap vanishes...)
I can download from any non-major website and get 128kbps... capped. (Simtropolis for example, sourceforge, etc.)
A SET BACK implies they are not throttling already.
And the kicker... If I start a torrent my bandwidth appears to be capped at 49kbps for about 3 hours afterwards.
a.k.a
Boot Computer
Download by Excel files from work at about 109kbps.
Start a torrent and let it run for about 30 minutes while I take a shower. Torrent appears capped at 49kbps.
Stop the torrent and close Utorrent.
Download the same excel files from work... at 49kbps....
Wait 1 hour... try again... 49kbps
Wait 1 hour... try again... 49kbps
Wait 1 hour... suddenly back to about 109kbps...
Next Day:
Boot computer
Download excel files from work 109kbps.
Open Forced Protocol Encryption torrent
256-290kbps for torrent.
Close torrent.
Download excel files from work 109kbps.
Open WoW to update and suddenly total bandwidth drops to 49kbps....
Sorry it isn't a set back, it's "Court Affirms Right for ISPs to CONTINUE to throttle traffic."
As long as this stands non-megacorporations don't stand a chance when say Facebook will be allowed to buy a high service level then a competitor. There is nothing preventing Comcast in offering 21 Tier 1 SLA blocks
200 Tier 2 SLA blocks
1000 Tier 3 SLA Blocks
and bucketing all non-sla buyers in a T4 bucket. Then they can auction the top 21 blocks and charge substantial fees for the 2 and 3 blocks.
The capitalization of preferred service levels isn't new and the anti-competitive abuse that comes with it will be par for the course.
Re:Oh goody (Score:3, Interesting)
The means to communicate via the internet is one of the most powerful tools we have for the ability to freely operate in our political system. I believe it is a direct analogue to the freedom of the press we have enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
When a government-supported entity (the telcos) take actions that suppress the ability of people to exercise their freedom of the press, then effectively the government is suppressing freedom of the press.
Re:free market bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
and you americans GOT to stop living in extremes, and tout every form of regulation, law, rule as 'communism'.
it is stupid.
there has to be controls over private owned companies PERIOD. else they may start embedding chips in employee's wrists, saying 'its for security'. and since you are a free market zealot, you probably unaware that this actually happened in california two years ago. numerous factories suddenly started implanting rfid chips in employees, and who didnt got along were 'let go'. it continued until california state senate banned the practice.
it isnt any different in ANY respect of life. when they were let be, they polluted, contaminated, even poisoned people for profit. until someone, and this has been always the government, told them to stop.
its precisely this naivete that you people have, the brain that, somehow, believes those with financial power, private corporations will not abuse them. and if they do abuses, everything will be sorted out 'by the market'. ironically, the very market which those corporations control, is expected to sort these corporations out.
if you are STILL insisting otherwise, explain me why we shouldnt abolish courts of law, abolish justice, abolish police, the legal system, and privatize all of these, including the military.
for, because, private sector will do all of these better, right ? and, the 'market' will sort out any issues if they arise, right ?
Write your Congressman and Senators (Score:3, Interesting)
Let them know what you think on this issue. If they know there is some interest or even a large body of interested parties that have an real informed opinion on the matter, maybe there will be legislation to treat the information highway as a public resource like the rest of our highways, a public resource not a private corporate money pit.
We do something similar with the air we breath.
Remember control of information is a first step to control of the people.
The ultimate authority ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... lies with every state, city, town, or wide spot in the road from whom Comcast (and others) must obtain a franchise for the use of their rights of way. Lets go back to that system, with each little jurisdiction imposing its own rules. Then watch the ISPs come back, begging to have the FCC take over regulations.
Re:$BIGGOV (Score:3, Interesting)
Guarantee that there are at least three or four ISPs in every town in America and we'll talk. As long as cable companies and ILECs have a natural monopoly due to the exorbitant cost of rolling out the infrastructure, we need government regulation to keep them in check. Voting with your dollar only works if you actually have more than one candidate to vote for, and given that it's rapidly becoming impossible to get and hold a job without having Internet access, voting for "none of the above" simply isn't a viable option.
By contrast, at least with government, you have the right to vote and the right to run for office.
That's a joke, right? I can count the number of times in my entire life that I've seen a corporation back down from abuse (without being sued) on one hand. I can count the number of times I've seen a corporation be abusive in the last week on one hand, too, but just barely. The only thing that ever really changes a corporation is being bankrupted or nearly bankrupted by a competitor that completely decimates them by doing a much, much better job. Unfortunately, when it comes to Internet service, the cost of bringing Internet service to an area is so high that this almost never happens.
There is one way to improve things---let the government build out the infrastructure and lease it to corporations that provide the service. This takes the high startup cost out of the equation, allowing significant competition, all the while keeping the actual traffic and service decisions in the hands of those now-competing corporations instead of the government (which is just leasing a piece of glass fiber in the ground).