[LINK] Net neutrality threatened (in US)

[Jan Whitaker]

[Makes one wonder if experiments are happening 
right now about throttling content, given the 
http problems described in an earlier post. And 
what gives ISP any identity as a content provider 
in its own right? Doesn't that open them up to 
content liability challenges, something that 
they've been fighting against??? You can't have it both ways, chaps.]

  U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality-court_n_4595859.html
Reuters  |  Posted: 01/14/2014 11:06 am EST  |  Updated: 01/14/2014 3:57 pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on 
Tuesday struck down the government's latest 
effort to require internet providers to treat all 
traffic the same and give consumers equal access 
to lawful content, a policy that supporters call net neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission did not 
have the legal authority to enact the 2011 
regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit 
brought by Verizon Communications Inc, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.

"Even though the commission has general authority 
to regulate in this arena, it may not impose 
requirements that contravene express statutory 
mandates," Judge David Tatel said.

Although the three judge panel were unanimous 
about the outcome, one wrote separately that he 
would have gone even further in restricting the FCC's authority.

The FCC could appeal the ruling to the full 
appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court, or it 
could attempt to rewrite the regulations to satisfy the appeals court.

During the oral argument in September, Verizon's 
lawyer said the regulations violated the 
company's right to free speech and stripped 
control of what its networks transmit and how.

The eventual outcome of the dispute may determine 
whether internet providers can restrict some 
content by, for instance, blocking or slowing 
down access to particular sites or charging 
websites to deliver their content faster.
The FCC had no immediate comment on the ruling. 
Verizon also had no immediate comment.

(Reporting by David Ingram and Alina Selyukh; 
Editing by Will Dunham and Sofina Mirza-Reid)

And this from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/the-terrible-argument-the-court-used-to-strike-down-net-neutrality/

Essentially, the court is saying that the rules 
aren't really necessary because if a provider 
blocks access to Youtube, for example, consumers 
can always just change to a provider that doesn't 
block access to Youtube.  Matt Wood, the policy 
director at media and technology advocacy 
organization Free Press, says such reasoning is 
wrong.  For one, he says, "we don't have enough 
competitive broadband options, period."

While broadband has become more widely availabile 
across the country over the years, some areas 
still don't have access to wireline broadband 
service. According to the FCC, about 15 million 
Americans live in areas still unserved by 
wireline broadband. As of the FCC's 
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-90A1.pdf>Eight 
Broadband Progress Report in 2012, that included 
nearly a quarter of American living in rural 
areas. But even when people do have access to 
wireline broadband, they don't necessarily have 
access to a competitive marketplace.

[includes an interesting set of maps showing 
multiple access versus single provider access]


This on Buzzfeed:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/welcome-to-the-net-neutrality-nightmare-scenario


What if you didn’t have to pay for your data 
plan? What if the biggest data hogs on your phone 
­ your music apps, your streaming video apps ­ 
didn’t count toward your monthly limit?

It’s an intoxicating pitch, and one you’ll hear 
soon. The country’s largest data providers are 
mulling it; their partners are figuring out how 
to make it work; the FCC, which is in charge of 
identifying downsides and regulating such things, 
just 
<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462.html>lost 
much of its ability to do so. Caught at the 
whirling nexus of theory and regulation and 
commerce, the average internet user’s fate is 
uncertain. But today, a new and unexpected 
possibility has made itself clear: We may be 
entering the era of sponsored data ­ the era of 
an internet that we don’t directly pay for, but 
that we also don’t control. It’s the old net 
neutrality nightmare, in other words, disguised as a gift.
[snip]


By “treating broadband like a communications 
service,” Free Press is suggesting categorizing 
internet providers as “common carriers,” like 
phone companies, a possibility that, in 
comparison to preserving 2010’s stricken FCC 
rules, is seen by insiders as a long shot. “From 
a legal perspective, it’s easier,” Harold Feld, a 
senior vice president at Public Knowledge, told 
BuzzFeed. “What makes it difficult is the politics.”

“Pretty much everybody in the industry pushed 
back very hard against it,” he said. “There were 
a lot of people who came around to network 
neutrality ­ a reason why these rules were 
compromised, and had industry buy-in, was that a 
lot of people in the industry preferred these 
rules to reclassification.” This is a potentially 
crippling defeat for net neutrality advocates. 
Trying to reclassify ISPs as utilities, 
essentially, would give anti-regulation opponents 
a much clearer position. Wayne Crews of the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, which opposes 
net neutrality, declared victory in a statement, 
saying the cause is “dead and buried.”

“Onward to Internet 3.0 and beyond,” the statement says.

[I didn't realise they were NOT common carriers 
as they are classified in Australia. Interesting distinction.]

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, 
you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space 
between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
~Margaret Atwood, writer

_ __________________ _