[Internet Policy] - Restricting the series of tubes
Lanz
...Za?Registered User regular
...Za?Registered User regular
http://gizmodo.com/federal-court-invalidates-net-neutrality-rules-sides-w-1501028467
So a Federal Appeals Court just struck down the FCC's Open Internet Order on the basis that they didn't have the grounds to regulate the ISPs as they were considered an information service, not Common Carrier Services like telecoms, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
So what does this mean? Well, the basic purpose of the Open Internet Order was, in the FCC's view, meant to provide for transparency in the process of how ISPs operated their networks and prevent discriminatory access too and outright blocking of legal content on the Internet:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
What the Court has just done is say that the FCC, due to the classification of ISPs as Information Services instead of Common Carriers, did not have the authority to do so. Which means that said regulations against them to prevent discrimination and blocking are not enforceable.
This is a rather bad thing, coupled with a market that is heavily monopolized and sees ISPs competing with other services on the web, particularly when it comes to online video: Many providers offer video on demand services, if not being Cable Television providers already; thus, having to allow access to services such as Netflix, Hulu, etc. tend to be a bit of a blow to the ISPs own offerings.
This is not so much of a problem when you can either charge your competition to be allowed decent access speeds if not any access period on your network. Which, without these regulations would be perfectly legal for ISPs to do. In other words, we've allowed service providers to be the gatekeepers for their own competition.
Chairman Tom Wheeler has made comments recently towards further promoting an open Internet, though I remain cynical as to whether or not we'll see much push for it given his background as an industry lobbyist.
You can read the full ruling here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/199616222/DC-Net-Neutrality-ruling
With that in mind, the question that comes to mind is: What can the FCC do to prevent an already monopolistic industry from further exercising anti-competitive power against both services and users? Congress is already mired in deadlock, with the House majority held by a party whose belief on regulations is that less is better and any problems will be solved by letting the market handle itself, an ideology seemingly refuted by looking at the workings of the already ISP-favorable regulatory environment that exists regarding the Internet and where many communities have at best two providers to choose from, where infrastructure improvements are shelved before communities even have a chance at them.
What can we do to promote working policy for an open Internet and improve Internet infrastructure and access in the country?
So a Federal Appeals Court just struck down the FCC's Open Internet Order on the basis that they didn't have the grounds to regulate the ISPs as they were considered an information service, not Common Carrier Services like telecoms, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
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.
So what does this mean? Well, the basic purpose of the Open Internet Order was, in the FCC's view, meant to provide for transparency in the process of how ISPs operated their networks and prevent discriminatory access too and outright blocking of legal content on the Internet:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
What the Court has just done is say that the FCC, due to the classification of ISPs as Information Services instead of Common Carriers, did not have the authority to do so. Which means that said regulations against them to prevent discrimination and blocking are not enforceable.
This is a rather bad thing, coupled with a market that is heavily monopolized and sees ISPs competing with other services on the web, particularly when it comes to online video: Many providers offer video on demand services, if not being Cable Television providers already; thus, having to allow access to services such as Netflix, Hulu, etc. tend to be a bit of a blow to the ISPs own offerings.
This is not so much of a problem when you can either charge your competition to be allowed decent access speeds if not any access period on your network. Which, without these regulations would be perfectly legal for ISPs to do. In other words, we've allowed service providers to be the gatekeepers for their own competition.
Chairman Tom Wheeler has made comments recently towards further promoting an open Internet, though I remain cynical as to whether or not we'll see much push for it given his background as an industry lobbyist.
You can read the full ruling here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/199616222/DC-Net-Neutrality-ruling
With that in mind, the question that comes to mind is: What can the FCC do to prevent an already monopolistic industry from further exercising anti-competitive power against both services and users? Congress is already mired in deadlock, with the House majority held by a party whose belief on regulations is that less is better and any problems will be solved by letting the market handle itself, an ideology seemingly refuted by looking at the workings of the already ISP-favorable regulatory environment that exists regarding the Internet and where many communities have at best two providers to choose from, where infrastructure improvements are shelved before communities even have a chance at them.
What can we do to promote working policy for an open Internet and improve Internet infrastructure and access in the country?
So It Goes on
0
Posts
And then I realize that could very well become the Internet very soon. Don't want to pay the ISP? Your website may not even be accessible for anyone using that ISP.
Then the government should be regulating ISPs as common carriers.
Yeah, that's the obvious end-game to keep the internet like it is now.
This relies on the government understanding what the Internet even is in the first place. I remind you that historically the government has been receptive to measures that would restrict and lock down the Internet and everything on it. They only back down after their constituents out them, which results in a flood of angry letters/phone calls.
So, what is "the Internet"? This is an argument that I hate with a passion - the idea that the Internet is somehow a separate realm divorced from the physical world.
I'm not sure how Madican is making that argument?
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Probably because it was treated as an extension of cell phone service, which is an extension of phone service, which has always been a common carrier scenario since the Bell breakup.
"Hey, this is some nice traffic youze got here. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."
What
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
Some good info here
Now, there's an argument that if the FCC tries, Big Cable will push Congress to act, but I don't think that's as likely as people think. Big Tech isn't going to go down without a fight, and they have both the clout and war chest to fight successfully.
We'll just have one ISP in a few years and the argument of consumer choice will get even more laughable
And the survival imperative to do so.
All those cloud servers, streaming, and digital delivery plans are going to up in smoke once the ISPs pull the rug out from underneath them.
That should give you some indication of where their intentions lie vis a vis their consumers.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Seems legit.
No, what the court said is "No shortcuts. You want to regulate ISPs as common carriers, do it properly."
The only thing worse than bad law is inconsistent law.
Best answer I can find is "probably not". This was asked in the AMA I posted above. If the internet is a sidewalk (the physical infrastructure) you walk down, ISPs only control the front steps of the stores (websites). The ISP can affect how you interact with a site while using their systems, but not someone else's.
The "probably" comes in when you realize that many large ISPs also control large physical aspects of the internet. However limiting access to sites hosted through their infrastructure hurts them, so they're unlikely to do that.... maybe.
Again, I'm wholly expecting mafia style tactics here, and sometimes that means they're going to put the squeeze on their own customers when they get more traffic.
Are we going to have to buy tiered internet service subscriptions where we can access select websites like Facebook, Pinterest, Wikipedia, Disney, etc, and pay a huge premium to access a "firehose" tier that lets you access whatever you want?
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
This is basically true of all high-level regulation jobs, by the way. Wall Street people at the SEC, etc.
... Then again, I find it hard to maintain optimism when they openly declare things like this.
It just opens up so many incredibly awful abilities for corporations. Consider how many start-ups these days live or die based on their ability to use the internet to get their ideas out. What happens if one happens to be competing with a pet-project of your ISP? I'm not convinced that we wouldn't see shakedowns, if not outright sabotage. And this is even worse when you remember that there's hardly universal choice of ISPs for many areas of the country.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
I... I think I need to sit in the corner and rock back and forth a little bit
Actually, the bigger issue is that while people want a "free and open internet", they seem to not want to do it the proper way, which would build that free and open system on centuries of established case law. While people rightfully point out that major ISPs were opposed to Title II classification for obvious reasons, what gets ignored is that the tech community was at best ambivalent about the classification as well, mainly on ideological "regulation bad" grounds. That's how we wound up with the clearly legally flawed rules that were just struck down, which were an attempt to get all the "good" bits of common carrier without all the other bits.
Could we not just start fresh, Say "This thing is new and we shall start new rules for it"
List a set of principles and decide case law by adherence to those principles.
1. Information traffic should not be restricted
2. Other than laws on secrecy and pornography the right to diseminate material over the internet shall not be restricted
3. AWP campers suck
And so on and so forth
Must we jam every damn rectangular peg into a square whole
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You don't have to, in the same sense that you don't have to build on bedrock.
And this isn't something new, and the insistence that it is continues to be something that continues to screw us over when it comes to the law online.