Courts Imperil Net Neutrality
In a ruling that could derail the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to craft net neutrality rules, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the agency lacked authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer traffic.
… Broadband advocates who had urged the FCC to take action against Comcast condemned the appellate ruling, saying that it could prevent the commission from enacting any regulations that could affect how broadband is delivered.
“The consequences of this decision go well beyond net neutrality and well beyond the matter at hand,” says S. Derek Turner, research director at Free Press. The ruling, he says, “has left the agency unable to protect consumers in the marketplace.”
Fed Court Rules FCC Has No Authority In Net-Neutrality Case 04/07/2010.
Filed under: Standards, State of the Web, industry
21 Responses to “Courts Imperil Net Neutrality”
Comments off.
I think this is a hard issue from two perspectives: it’s very beneficial to have the FCC enforce net neutrality from a user’s perspective, but it’s even more beneficial to have the government go through the proper process when enforcing net neutrality. But ultimately if there was just more competition in the marketplace the government wouldn’t have to get involved.
You’ve gotta love how the United States government has switched its focus from protecting individual rights to those of corporations. What’s especially annoying is that in many regions around this country, only one or two providers offer high-speed Internet access, and of those they are almost always major providers like Comcast, Cox Communications, AT&T, and the like. I’m beginning to regret tossing out my dial-up modem, because if things continue this path, I would prefer to find a small dial-up company without restrictions instead of allowing any of these greedy corporations to tell me which sites and software I am or am not allowed to use or to pay more on top of already inflated prices.
I don’t understand some details, but the point to me is that this is an issue. The USA is discussing it, China does whatever it wants, and in Europe are messing around. Don’t know about other world regions. You’ve been more than me networking, so you might understand that I find funny that NOW this is being discussed. And it will be more & more… won’t it?
Cheers,
__________________________
I can’t understand why I can’t send comments from Firefox, I messed around with cookies, it seems…
__________________________
All of this can be corrected if Congress enacts a law that explicitly gives the FCC the power to regulate broadband providers. If.
I think Kramer nails it. The problem here is: non-existing competition.
On the other hand the issue here is the lobbyists in Washington… washing the brains of the legislative and judicial system… targeting legislators like Ted Stevens who have NO idea how the “series of tubes” work.
As usual, everything is for the well being of big corporations, and not for the users, the people.
This is sad news.
For those unfamiliar with what’s going on:
Cable companies want to throttle internet access or charge additional unregulated high fees for people who use “too much” bandwidth, which would be like charging your family more $$$ for using “too much water” when you shower.
The companies make a logical-sounding but technologically specious argument that people who download streaming content “use up” the bandwidth of other customers and should pay more. But this is not how bandwidth works. You have your own bandwidth, you don’t “take away” from your neighbors. Moreover, the cable company has astronomically more bandwidth than it needs. Heavy use costs it nothing. (Which makes it different from overuse of water, say, which is a finite resource.)
Cable ISPs are also cable content providers. They’re upset that some folks are *legally downloading streaming content* via Hulu, iTunes, etc., instead of subscribing to cable TV. By pretending that “overuse” of bandwidth costs them money, they are simply charging you for cable TV whether you want it or not.
The courts have just enabled this corporate screwing of consumers.
And not just folks-at-home consumers. Small businesses will be mightily hurt. But the courts don’t care about that either. It’s all about the big corporations.
Kramer: Agreed. This is abuse of monopoly power with court complicity.
Why do the courts imperil anything? Nothing has changed. Comcast has still backed off of its “traffic-shaping” stance because of consumer pressure, and is now an advocate for net neutrality. The net is still, largely, a paradise of neutrality.
The kinds of net bias that the Chicken Littles worry about are not going to come to pass. The whole idea that Verizon would hold YouTube hostage, degrading their videos unless Google coughs up the dough is ridiculous. What would your response be, as a consumer, if Verizon broke YouTube? You wouldn’t be alone. These evil corporations are driven by a desire for profit. That drive gives you incredible power over them. When you get angry and threaten to cancel your service, they listen. The FCC, however, is run by unelected bureaucrats who don’t give a damn about what you want. They answer to the President. They’re playing politics — nothing else.
Do you really want the types of people who brought you the Fairness Doctrine to be in charge of the Internet? Instead of 140 characters on Twitter, you’d only get 120, because you’d have to provide space for a contrasting view:
“Can’t wait to attend An Event Apart. || Suck it Zeldman. Tables and spacer gifs 4eva!”
I want a neutral, or mostly neutral web. What I don’t want is a bunch of government busybodies ruining the last great frontier of freedom and innovation. They’ll tax it. They’ll censor it. They’ll regulate it. They’ll retard it. They’ll restrict its potential. And they’ll do it all with nice sounding things like “Fairness” and “Child Online Protection” and “Consumer Protection” and “Counter-Terror.”
No thank you. I’d rather endure the occasional misbehaving ISP getting bitchslapped by its customers (hi Comcast!) than have the Internet ruined by an eternity of soul-crushing government control.
I was similarly troubled after finding out about this originally, but this article was somewhat reassuring. Seems like there would likely be support in Congress to grant the FCC authority to enforce net neutrality instead of relying on ancillary jurisdiction.
@Mark, Your argument would hold water if ISPs weren’t granted monopolies already. I live in a major city and have only one option for cable Internet.
Every time legislators or courts turn their back on Telco /Cable giants the public trust (originally given to these businesses) gets further eroded.
They will raise rates, cherry pick, collude, and take advantage of subscribers. Our broadband rates are high, speed is slow, and coverage is lacking. One out of three Americans has no access or can’t afford access.
If we are to become competitive in the new world economy, we need universal high speed broadband at reasonable cost. 13million kids are without broadband access, how can this be? Not a good sign for the future.
These monopolistic providers are neither customer centric or fair. Just another abuse in the corpocracy.
@Zak — sounds like an argument against government-imposed monopolies! Don’t see how more regulation will solve the issue of government-imposed local cable monopolies. Monopolies are a result of over-regulation. They only get worse with more regulation. It’s called a regulatory barrier to entry. For healthy competition you want low regulation and low barriers to entry.
You likely have a DSL and a fiber and an RF and a satellite option, if you’re in a major city. These technologies are quickly making local cable monopolies less of an issue. There has been a huge “speed race” in urban markets. Companies are advertising their mbps speeds on billboards, for crying out loud. They’re giving voluntary speed bumps to existing customers. (“Hi, this is your cable company, we just made your Internet connection faster because those Verizon jerks forced our hand!”) This is all being driven by consumer demand for faster connections. This is a good direction for things to be headed. Getting the FCC involved is only going to slow things down.
@Mark is exactly correct.
Score one for the rule of law (as opposed to regulatory scope creep).
@Zak Perhaps DSL is a competitor for cable service? Or satellite? Perhaps a neighborhood wifi cooperative? Any of a hundred creative solutions?
The free market works best. I just hope we can get the government out of it.
There does seem to be some valid concern with monopolization here. Comcast owning NBC opens up all types of concerns with them possibly throttling access to other TV networks online and instant online video services like Netflix & Blockbuster.
Aren’t we paying enough already for cable and internet services?
Personally, I feel lucky to live in the DC area and have several options for broadband and digital TV actively competing with each other. I’m well aware that isn’t the case everywhere else in the US and that’s where people really end up with the short end of the stick.
We should start a petition!! Imagine how fast it will grow with the power of social media
“Cable companies want to throttle internet access or charge additional unregulated high fees for people who use “too much” bandwidth….”
I don’t even think this is a question of “too much”. Rather we might be heading towards a future where a certain amount of bandwidth from Source A is okay while the same amount from Source B is “too much”.
I don’t know what kind of deals other people have but there’s already a break on the bandwidth I have through AT&T based on how many bits/sec. I get. In fact I pay a little bit more to get a slightly higher amount.
So what I’m saying, is that this isn’t necessarily about “too much” or “two little” but — and this is the scary part — “from whom”.
@Mark Jaquith
You are young and naive to believe that a communication company would not screw with You Tube. What are people going to do? Rhetorical question
because you will not be able to do anything. Why? Because you are basing your argument that capitalism will police itself. How has that been working for us lately?
The Fairness Doctrine was the past 1949 to be exact. There is no comparison or foundation for even mentioning it. Since you mentioned it I had to take a shot of Crown Royal. House rules you know.
What happens when Tier 1 networks start charging your isp more for bandwidth? I mean by your argument they should be able to do this right? You do understand that even at the base the internet is a peer network. So where do propose this ends?
Alternatives are limited.
DSL is a joke and can not be considered broadband. (why do you think they call it high speed?) Do you know AT&T will quash posts to applications like WordPress?
I know this because I live in the country and have had to write code to hard wire headers into blog apps I have written just so AT&T will not quash or truncate upstream traffic. Of course, you knew about that didn’t you?
The web is a fragile thing and should be guarded pampered and looked after. I would think by now with the trouble we have had of late this should be apparent.
You think you’ve got problems in the USA? Look at the crap that is passing into law in the UK right now:
Digital economy bill
What Digital Economy Bill
Blaming the courts by calling them complicit or enablers isn’t a fair characterization of their powers. Even if they wanted to, if the courts interpreted the relevant statutes didn’t support the FCC’s requested powers then they couldn’t rule in their favor, without risking it be overturned.
The bottom line here is that this ruling isn’t a blow to the idea of net neutrality, but merely another step in the process. Congress could give the FCC the powers the court ruled that they do not currently have next week if they wanted to.
All of our time would be better served by writing our Congressional representatives that bashing the court or reading what Mark Jaquith has to say on this subject.
The Fairness Doctrine was in effect until 1987. The FCC supported something that Orwellian for nearly 40 years. How is that history not relevant? When have bureaucrats been satisfied with “just a little oversight” of anything? Power corrupts, and power begets more power. I agree with your statement that the web is fragile. But more fragile than the quality of our (ever improving) connections is the quality of the Internet’s freedom. The Internet might be the closest thing to the realization of the American dream. You can do anything, be anybody, create and share instantly, limited only by your imagination. Its relative liberalness isn’t a quirk or a byproduct. It is its headlining feature. I’m extremely wary of anyone who suggests that it should be controlled by government bureaucrats. If you view the Internet through our government’s eyes as evidenced by the last 9 years or so, it is: (a) a way to strike fear in our hearts with overblown national security worries (cyber-crime this, cyber-warfare that), and (b) a way to spy on Americans with little-to-no accountability. Not exactly encouraging.
I’ll continue to advocate for reasonable net neutrality policies at ISPs, and speak out against ISPs with anti-consumer policies. But I do not want the FCC or any other government agency to be given the power to regulate the Internet. The world is full of examples of where that leads. China, Australia, Germany, the UK, and many more examples of hostility to freedom on the there government-regulated Internet.
@mark: Thanks for breaking down the situation from a free market standpoint. You saved me a lot of typing.