WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled in a sweeping decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users.
The decision affirmed the government’s view that broadband is as essential as the phone and power and should be available to all Americans, rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision.
The 2-to-1 decision from a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday came in a case about rules applying to a doctrine known as net neutrality, which prohibit broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers.
Those rules, created by the Federal Communications Commission in early 2015, started a huge legal battle as cable, telecom and wireless internet providers sued to overturn regulations that they said went far beyond the F.C.C.’s authority and would hurt their businesses. On the other side, millions of consumers and giant tech firms rallied in favor of the regulations. President Obama also called for the strictest possible mandates on broadband providers.
The court’s decision upheld the F.C.C. on the declaration of broadband as a utility, which was the most significant aspect of the rules. That has broad-reaching implications for web and telecommunications companies that have battled for nearly a decade over the need for regulation to ensure web users get full and equal access to all content online.
“After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections — both on fixed and mobile networks — that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future,” Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said in a statement.
The two judges who ruled in favor of the F.C.C. emphasized the importance of the internet as an essential communications and information platform for consumers.
Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE
Net Neutrality Again Puts F.C.C. General Counsel at Center Stage FEB. 7, 2016 BITS BLOG In Net Neutrality Hearing, Judge Signals Comfort With F.C.C.’s Defense DEC. 4, 2015 “Over the past two decades, this content has transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, from profound actions like choosing a leader, building a career, and falling in love to more quotidian ones like hailing a cab and watching a movie,” wrote David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan, the judges who wrote the opinion.
But the legal battle over the regulations is most likely far from over. The cable and telecom industries have signaled their intent to challenge any unfavorable decision, possibly taking the case to the Supreme Court.
AT&T immediately said it would continue to fight.
“We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court and we look forward to participating in that appeal,” said David McAtee II, the senior executive vice president and general counsel for AT&T.
For now, the decision limits the ability of broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon to shape the experience of internet users. Without net neutrality rules, the broadband providers could be inclined to deliver certain content on the web at slower speeds, for example, making the streams on Netflix or YouTube buffer or shut down. Such business decisions by broadband providers would have created fast and slow lanes on the internet, subjecting businesses and consumers to extra charges and limited access to content online, the F.C.C. has argued.
“This is an enormous win for consumers,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge. “It ensures the right to an open internet with no gatekeepers.”
How are we screwed? I don't understand how this is a bad thing.
From Breitbart (because I suck at the wording).
quote
Here are the top seven reasons government-enforced net neutrality is an awful idea:
We Already Have Net Neutrality. As a result of competition between internet service providers in the marketplace, ISPs generally do not discriminate against highly-trafficked websites. If they did – holding a figurative gun to the head of those websites by throttling back speed to those websites – consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others. Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate against particular websites.
Some Companies Take Up More Bandwidth Than Others. Netflix consumes a huge amount of peak traffic bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Pornography sites consume a huge amount of bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Were an ISP to push YouPorn to pay fees for its higher bandwidth, consumers of the ISP who did not use YouPorn would be the beneficiaries – they wouldn’t be subsidizing YouPorn. As Alexandra Petri of Washington Post writes, “To use one of those dreaded analogies, if you are constantly driving huge trucks, full of big deliveries of pornography, along a road, why shouldn’t you have to pay more for the road’s upkeep?”
Meanwhile, other ISPs could calculate that they want to absorb the costs of YouPorn in order to carry YouPorn, since YouPorn could refuse to pay the fees to the first ISP. That would be an advantage for the second ISP. In other words, market choices take place, and those can provide options to consumers. Net neutrality would ban such deals.
The Government Still Allows Discrimination In Traffic. ISPs inherently have to prioritize traffic. It’s what they do. The government has decided to exempt “reasonable network management” to allow differentiation of traffic – but then defines it ambiguously, leaving it up to the government to determine when an ISP is in compliance. This is a recipe for regulatory disaster, complete with bureaucratic arbitrariness.
Barriers to Entry Are Created. There is a reason that Google backs net neutrality. As I wrote in April:
Google was in favor of net neutrality; that’s because, as Robert E. Litan and Hal J. Singer wrote in the Harvard Business Review, “Absent net neutrality restrictions, entrepreneurs in their garages would devote significant energies trying to topple Google with the next killer application.”
Of course, Google became an opponent of net neutrality when it came to GoogleFiber, which the government conveniently neglected to make subject to net neutrality.
Technological Stagnation. Comcast and AT&T and the like are using ancient wires to transmit internet. That’s why internet access is so slow in large swaths of the United States. They have no incentive to upgrade their wiring because they have monopolies on that wiring, thanks to the government. According to Andy Kessler of The Weekly Standard, “the United States is 16th in the world in broadband use (behind Liechtenstein!) with East Timor catching up fast. The French may burn Citroëns, but they get 10 megabits for 10 euros–50 times your ‘fast’ Internet access for half the price. That’s just not right.” The solution: open competition and far less local and state regulation, not more federal regulation. Net neutrality does nothing about the real problem with the internet: lack of speed.
Internet Taxes Could Happen. Harold Furchtgott-Roth of Forbes writes that by making the internet subject to the strictures of the interstate telecommunications industry, the FCC could impose fees on internet service:
By classifying broadband access services as “interstate telecommunications services,” those services would suddenly become required to pay FCC fees. At the current 16.1% fee structure, it would be perhaps the largest, one-time tax increase on the Internet.
Content Restrictions From The Government. The government promises that it will use the power of net neutrality for good, not evil. But just like the government’s once-infamous Fairness Doctrine, the notion of the government determining what equal access to the internet looks like is deeply problematic. Kessler writes:
You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks–like requiring emergency 911 service–to try to kill off free Internet telephone services such as Skype.
The government is never the solution, especially when there’s no real market failure. As usual, government’s cure is worse than the disease.
I see, pass it as a great win for the little guy, when relly it just leaves a few really big fish?
Pretty much. All the big guys were pushing it through, and all of them had exemptions for one reason or another. Now if someone were to want to start their ISP (for example) they will have to go through the Government....yay...
Brad, I've been telling my friends over and over about the Net Neutrality act... how making it a utility allows it to be regulated. Everyone said I was a nut...
I wish people had listened... they absolutely used naming to make it seem like it was a good thing. They all based it off of that Verizon incident when Verizon was slowing down traffic that wasn't going to a preferred site... and "THAT" stuck as the primary public goal of Net Neutrality, when in reality... it was an attempt for the Government to regain control of the internet.
Brad, I've been telling my friends over and over about the Net Neutrality act... how making it a utility allows it to be regulated. Everyone said I was a nut...
I wish people had listened... they absolutely used naming to make it seem like it was a good thing. They all based it off of that Verizon incident when Verizon was slowing down traffic that wasn't going to a preferred site... and "THAT" stuck as the primary public goal of Net Neutrality, when in reality... it was an attempt for the Government to regain control of the internet.
Brad, I've been telling my friends over and over about the Net Neutrality act... how making it a utility allows it to be regulated. Everyone said I was a nut...
Sad... very sad.
Most people accept the likelihood certainty that the Government is monitoring every piece of data transmitted. Just wait until they confirm it by popping up unannounced on your screen to assert their will through intimidation encourage better choices....
Brad, I've been telling my friends over and over about the Net Neutrality act... how making it a utility allows it to be regulated. Everyone said I was a nut...
I wish people had listened... they absolutely used naming to make it seem like it was a good thing. They all based it off of that Verizon incident when Verizon was slowing down traffic that wasn't going to a preferred site... and "THAT" stuck as the primary public goal of Net Neutrality, when in reality... it was an attempt for the Government to regain control of the internet.
Sad... very sad.
I think you are somewhat confused.. The government has always controlled the "use of" and the internet. They just had to be careful of how they did it, and keep what they did and were up to on the down low
now they don't have to be so careful about whom knows what they are up to..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 06-17-2016).]
We Already Have Net Neutrality. As a result of competition between internet service providers in the marketplace, [emphasis added] ...
Technological Stagnation. Comcast and AT&T and the like are using ancient wires to transmit internet. That’s why internet access is so slow in large swaths of the United States. They have no incentive to upgrade their wiring because they have monopolies on that wiring, thanks to the government. [emphasis added]
We Already Have Net Neutrality. As a result of competition between internet service providers in the marketplace, [emphasis added] ...
Technological Stagnation. Comcast and AT&T and the like are using ancient wires to transmit internet. That’s why internet access is so slow in large swaths of the United States. They have no incentive to upgrade their wiring because they have monopolies on that wiring, thanks to the government. [emphasis added]
[/QUOTE]
how would they be able to update the wiring?? as most area's the government caps what they can charge... running the newer, wire isn't the problem cost wise,, it's the government red tape.. the permits, the required police details, and the outrageous rate of pay they get, and the number the local town/state will require each shift.. has nothing to do with monopolies and everything to do with those in the government, local/state/fed.. We don't have Fios here,, you want to know why?? the town will not give them a permit, so, Verizon DSL, dish, Comcast are your choices..
but it's the big bad corporations, that are the reasons for the slow internet in area's.. ya right..
As far as having monopolies on the wiring,, If I spent the cash to put the wiring network up, and have to maintain it,, I sould be able to be the only one using it, and be the only one to decide if I'll lease out the use of it.. I know,, we should just let any Johnie come lately, come in, and after that big bad monopoly built the system, use it, and undercut the one that ate the cost to build it, and is eating the cost to maintain it..
Originally posted by E.Furgal: I think you are somewhat confused.. The government has always controlled the "use of" and the internet. They just had to be careful of how they did it, and keep what they did and were up to on the down low
now they don't have to be so careful about whom knows what they are up to..
Hah... what classification is "CLASSIFIED?"
Classified as what? Or is that innoculous manila folder just telling me that inside there is something classified at some non-descript classification?
