This is big. It allows ISPs to control how, for how much and potentially if, you can get the content you want from the Interwebitubes. For example, if viewing a movie online on Netflix starts costing more for a customer than having the disk sent because movies use more bandwidth and get charged at a higher rate by your ISP, fewer people will use it. It might not be cost effective for Netflix to offer the service anymore. Many more examples have been floated.
It will be interesting to see how Google’s proposed gigabit Internet fits into this. If they’re successful, the net neutrality issue of tiered pricing may become moot. Of course, then Google will control your bits.
A U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped when it cited cable-giant Comcast Corp. for slowing some Internet traffic on its network, dealing a blow to big Web commerce companies and other proponents of “net neutrality.”
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for deliberately preventing some subscribers from using peer-to-peer file-sharing services to download large files.
At stake is how far the FCC can go to dictate the way Internet providers like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. manage traffic on their multibillion-dollar networks. For the past decade or so, the FCC has maintained a mostly hands-off approach to Internet regulation. But that could soon change, likely setting off a prolonged, expensive lobbying battle pitting Web-content providers against Internet-service providers.
All your individual choices are belong to us!
Hah! Bow to the corporations. In the space of two months, the BushCo Sup Ct has brought us the finest government that the corps can pay for and now the finest internet.
Its a wonder. Tell me again why guns aren’t protecting us from this rape???
Unless you are making a private allusion, I believe the word is “moot.” I offer that not for yourself, but for our gentle readers who look to our eds as the font of knowledge they are.
[Fixed. Wrote that too late at night. -- UD]
Keep the good stuff coming, if the corps so desire.
Mute is too much to ask of the political/big communications controversy – I believe you mean, moot.
As far as I can tell, the ruling states the the FCC has no jurisdiction on regulating internet traffic. I tend to agree with this. What needs to happen is to view internet connectivity as a utility, much the same as electric, water, or even phone service. Hence, it needs to be regulated by the PUC as a utility, not the FCC. And, as a result, the more bits you use, the more you pay. I think the telecoms could live with that.
We’re fighting the wrong fight.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is composed primarily or Reagan and Bush appointees (with two Clinton appointees to boot). No surprise here that they are corporatist NWO shills.
Here is the opinion (pdf).
Here are the judges.
This ruling should appeal to the Republisheep as it allows corporations to “self regulate” what is good for the people.
If electricity could be throttled, it would…. “Dear customer, powering that iron lung machine just went up by 10% because we felt it was pretty important to you”
I’m betting the FCC re-categorizes Broadband Interwebitubes as “Common Carriers,” and then they can dictate neutrality.
And in regards to the electricity comment.. One word. ENRON.
Since when was the net neutral? Throttling and packet prioritisation have been practised by ISPs and and content providers for a long time. Of course its easier to do stuff like sophisticated layer 7 inspection at speed nowadays, but the net never has been and never will be truly neutral.
No doubt it will get worse once government and their corporate sponsors start to chop the net up into premium and budget tiered networks.
All FCC has to do is change back classification of ISPs from “information service” to “communications service” and it will have the power back
Yawn, when ISPs start throttling something like Netflix, let me know. This is all about P2P and illegal torrents, and even being a user myself at times, I don’t begrudge a company from throttling illegal traffic. Sure, there are legit uses of P2P, but if you don’t think that 99.9% of that traffic is pirated media, you’re delusional. The same arguments were made with the original Napster, in the end it was a program that fostered widespread illegal activity. All p2p has done is decentralize it now without the need of a Napster.
#8: But then wouldn’t they be subject to content laws (indecency, etc) like TV and radio stations?
I like how the sheep here blame Bush for this. Are you saying the new king has no control over his kingdom?
I would prefer that government keeps it’s hands off the internet. But as we see with everything else these days the man behind the Outer Limits is in fact the chosen one.
#11: The ‘king’, as you call him, has no control over the Supreme Court who made the ruling other than to nominate new members. So, if it is those nominated and seated during Bush’s reign that are on the corporations’ side rather than the users, then one could validly assert that it is not the current WH resident who is to blame since his man in the FCC is the one who is pushing for net neutrality.
I’m not sure it’s a bad decision. They really didn’t decide against net neutrality. It was a decision against the FCC. Do we want the FCC to regulate the net? I’m not sure it’s a good idea.
Net neutrality itself is undecided.
Uncle Dave…..read your f-ing article. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this ruling!
Geeez!
So, that’s the reason why Privacy, Anti-competitiveness, and other REALLY TRIVIAL stuff are not safeguarded by the US government. The accused can go to court and basically make policy…
FCC is powerless. That’s why. The European Commission fortunately is going to fix that. Hopefully.
#14: Oops. You’re right. I shouldn’t type before my morning Diet Pepsi can rot my brain.
It should be attacked on Anti Trust grounds.
America was more vibrant and inspired when there were smaller businesses fighting for your dollar and attention.
It gets worse. Comcast and their like can also prevent a competitor like Google, or the city, from offering a better alternative. There was a recent case, I can’t remember where exactly, where a city tried to install its own ISP service because the commercial one was so bad. The commercial ISP sued and won arguing that it was illegal for the city for compete with a commercial outfit.
If a city sold Comcast a monopoly to provide Internet, then Comcast could block Google from coming in and offering free, or cheap service.
The solution to all of this is simple metered internet. You pay for X amount at Y speed. If you want to torrent films, then fine, buy enough bandwidth.
There is a possible “solution”. VPN connections to an open gateway provided by an Open Service Provider. Basically, an unfiltered Internet within the Internet.
Lets say the worse case scenario happens and the US’s internet is worst than China’s. Then I hope another company, non-profit or perhaps Google, will offer an open gateway, and a VPN connection to get to it. This company would offer unfiltered access to the open internet.
On your computer, after connecting to your ISP, you open a VPN connection to the open gateway. Then all your traffic goes through the tunnel. All your ISP would know is that you are talking to the Open Service Provider. They would not know what you are doing.
Yes, the ISP could throttle or terminate your connection to the Open Service Provider. But if everyone started using the Open Service via VPNs, then the ISP would have a hard time justifying their actions.
We haven’t discussed this yet, but I assume that ISP could also start filtering traffic on the server side. If that becomes a problem, then the hosts would also have to use direct connections to the Open Service, or use a VPN to connect.
#8: But then wouldn’t they be subject to content laws (indecency, etc) like TV and radio stations?
Absolutely. I didn’t say that would be a good thing if they did change classification, but they can if they want to, and my guess is they will.
Best thing would be for congress to pass a Net Neutrality law, but this is only a dream for now.