Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules, Sides with Big Telecom

[mips]

http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_faceboo k&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules, Sides with Big Telecom

A U.S. Appeals Court just invalidated the FCC's net neutrality rules that would've made it illegal for telecom companies to favor certain types of traffic over others. The court ruled that the commission lacked the authority to implement and enforce such rules which were embedded in a complicated legal framework.

The court describes its reasoning in the ruling:


Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

In other words, the FCC didn't have the authority to impose its rules because it defined broadband internet as an information service rather than a common carrier service, like telephones.

This is bad news. The ruling basically opens the door for companies like Verizon and Time Warner to cut special deals with websites to serve up their content faster. It also opens up the possibility of paid access to specific sites. Imagine the worst case scenario, where you literally have to pay an extra fee to get access to the websites you like. It's possible! At least the latest federal court ruling on Verizon's appeal to the FCC states that telecom companies have to tell subscribers which sites they're favoring.

Continue reading here... (http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_faceboo k&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)


http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_faceboo k&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[QIII]

Bad. Very bad.

As a reminder to respondants: We have been lenient with regard to the discussion of political events and how they may impact open source. I think we can include potential impact on internet neutrality in that discussion.

HOWEVER: Do not let this become a discussion about the politics. For instance "The US Courts have no business ..." would be a political discussion beyond the scope of current forum policy. That would end up in this thread being closed.

This is an important development and discussion is encouraged. Don't be the one who gets this thread shut down.

[tgalati4]

As most things, it seems bad at first, but we will have to see what happens. It's really not any different than the control that ISP's and telephone/3g/4G carriers already exert over their subscribers. I'm more concerned over Propensity Scoring and how this unregulated practice affects our use of the web and our privacy. For instance, different versions of a web page will be shown to you based on your propensity score. If you are a heavy on-line shopper, expect to see higher prices shown to you for a particular product search.

[QIII]

There might be a potential upside, actually.

Say worst comes to worst (or, as Defoe uses it in "Robinson Crusoe", "worse comes to worst").

If consumers get tired of "rigging" by the big boys causing a lack of neutrality, a market could open for smaller carriers who promise no such roadblocks. Competition might cause a correction of the market back towards neutrality -- and other innovation.

[tgalati4]

That is what I am thinking. A peer-to-peer network that is a little harder to control than the current internet.

A Haiku:

Net Neutrality . . .
Big Boys take over. That's bad.
Time for a new web.

[mastablasta]

then there is also google building it's own network. i know they have a lot to go, and these kind og decisions might speed things up. in the end it could all blow up in the current ISP faces.

[tgalati4]

Google just bought Nest thermostats. So now they know when you are home and when you leave. That might be useful information to sell to door-to-door salesmen or others who have an interest in knowing when you are not home.

[Don_Stahl]

I hope for what QIII describes. I'm of mixed mind about whether it will transpire. For example, everyone I know says that if only cable TV providers would offer a service that let them pick which individual channels their subscription provided, then they'd jump at it. But that hasn't happened.

Maybe physical infrastructure limits competition in cable TV markets. Dunno.

Being a dummy, I don't know whether a client-side software solution might defeat selective redirection or propensity scoring. For an extreme example, if you used TOR and searched on "best hernia truss" would your ISP be able to redirect you to the truss vendor who paid them the most? Or would you get the same search results an anonymous user would get?

[tgalati4]

You bring up some good points. We need some tools to detect propensity scoring. For instance User Agent allows you to change your browser identity and tor allows you to mask your IP, but deeper tools will be needed. Because you searched for a hernia truss, you are now tagged as a medical propensity so expect to see adult diaper advertisements in your mailbox. The upside of propensity scoring is now customers are labeled as "Junk" when they don't have any money--as in bankrupt, upside down in mortgage, flat broke, huge student debt, etc. So your mailbox will be less full.

[QIII]

Hmmmm...

Is that why I get all of those?

I thought it was because I'm a member of AARP.

[Linuxratty]

If consumers get tired of "rigging" by the big boys causing a lack of neutrality, a market could open for smaller carriers who promise no such roadblocks. Competition might cause a correction of the market back towards neutrality -- and other innovation.
Some will be able to,some won't have a choice.
We live in a small town,so i don't think our isp would play down and dirty. I hope not anyway.
Time will tell as to how this plays out.

[neu5eeCh]

There's an article here (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/the-courts-net-neutrality-ruling-isnt-actually-that-bad/283094/), at the Atlantic, which is very good in my opinion. The author argues that Net Neutrality is far from dead, and that the court decision actually grants the FCC quite a bit of leeway.

I think it's all a matter of what the FCC really wants (think politics, contributions and big business and whose strings are being pulled). I'm guessing that if the FCC really wants to preserve net neutrality (and that the court case wasn't an elaborate kabuki dance meant to placate net neutrality advocates) it will be.