Net Neutraility Dead in the US

[BvBPL]

I'm surprised no one else posted this. I guess their service providers might have blocked the relevant info.

Last week the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided that net neutrality regulations in place at the FCA were unjustified. This opens the door to internet service providers favoring their content or the content of their partners over those of third parties, tiered systems of payment (maybe Verizon gives you a deal on Netflix but charges you more to watch Hulu), or just out and out block content from websites they don't like.

 

[Cutlass]

Crony capitalism wins another round. That's what you get when most of both parties are bought off.

 

[BvBPL]

Sure, but here it was the FCC fighting for net neutrality. If this was Verizon buying off anyone I would have expected it would be the FCC.

 

[bhsup]

It is my understanding that all the FCC has to do is redefine ISPs as telecommunications companies instead of content providers, or something like that, yes, and then they can force net neutrality back on the ISPs?

 

[KMRblue1027]

I've known about the ruling but I've never been able to find a good article on a breakdown of the consequences so I wasn't sure if it would be enough for a thread to stick.

 

[Cutlass]

ISPs should be defined as common carriers. Cable companies as well. Block them from owning or profitiing from content.

 

[Quintillus]

ISPs should be defined as common carriers. Cable companies as well. Block them from owning or profitiing from content.

Indeed; it seems like ISPs owning/profiting from content is akin to airlines owning/profiting from hotels near airports, which I'm pretty sure was forbidden back in the '80s, although I don't remember the details anymore.

 

[warpus]

It is my understanding that all the FCC has to do is redefine ISPs as telecommunications companies instead of content providers, or something like that, yes, and then they can force net neutrality back on the ISPs?

Yeah, as I understand it essentially it's "something like that" and why the court ruled the way it did and "killed" net neutrality

And I'm no lawyer, but some people are expecting further legal moves and implications. I think appeal is the word I am looking for.

 

[Zelig]

It is my understanding that all the FCC has to do is redefine ISPs as telecommunications companies instead of content providers, or something like that, yes, and then they can force net neutrality back on the ISPs?

Carriers won't let them do that.

 

[Zelig]

Indeed; it seems like ISPs owning/profiting from content is akin to airlines owning/profiting from hotels near airports, which I'm pretty sure was forbidden back in the '80s, although I don't remember the details anymore.

Rogers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Rogers_Communications

Bell:

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Does the US government have an incentive to push other countries to adopt similar policies?

 

[Cutlass]

Does the US government have an incentive to push other countries to adopt similar policies?

The US government gives opporunities for their corporate cronies to do so.

 

[bhsup]

Carriers won't let them do that.

Last I checked, carriers were not the government.

 

[Zelig]

Last I checked, carriers were not the government.

That's what they want you to think.

 

[JollyRoger]

Last I checked, carriers were not the government.

Last time the carriers checked on you, they did it on behalf of the government.

 

[Kyriakos]

^

Bad news, indeed.

All in all the 'free' Internet has helped, despite allowing people to actually see how horrible other people can become due to myriads of reasons including tyranny of various kinds.
I do hope it can survive in a sort of 'free' state, although the content has been unbelievably centralised in the last decade or so (regardless of the actual volume of content being surely vastly larger now).

 

[Antilogic]

I saw the story but didn't have the time to make a thread about it.

Legally, it's not fully settled yet, but this is a serious blow.

 

[illram]

Guys, guys, Time Warner, AT&T and Comcast all promised not to do anything bad. That's good enough for me!

 

[Ayatollah So]

Fortune mag sayeth:

FORTUNE -- When challenged, monopolists, particularly in the communications industry, often tend to work harder to protect their monopolies than they do to improve their services or cut prices (or simply limit price increases). An excellent example of this can be found in an article today by the Washington Post's Andrea Peterson.

Comcast (CMCSA) has donated thousands of dollars to political action committees that back Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, who is challenging Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn in next week's election. The mayor has worked to bring better, faster, cheaper broadband Internet service to his city. Comcast says the donations have nothing to do with the city's plans, but as Peterson meticulously reports, much of the money Comcast had donated has come through PACs, such as the Broadband Communications Association of Washington, that are specifically devoted to influencing broadband policy.

Clearly Good Guy behavior, yes indeedy.

 

[illram]

But Comcast said their donations had nothing to do with the proposed broadband plan! Nothing!