Net Neutrality Provision Struck Down in U.S. Appeals Court

[VectorVictor]

http://www.realclear.com/news/2014/01/14/us_court_strikes_down_net_neutrality_rule_5130.html

 

A US appeals court Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a "Net Neutrality" rule that bars broadband Internet providers from blocking or playing favorites for online services.

 

The court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks authority to impose the rule requiring high-speed Internet firms to treat all traffic equally.

 

The case brought by US telecom giant Verizon has divided some of the biggest players in the tech sector in a key test of what is officially called "Open Internet" rules.

 

 

Well, this isn't good news. Hope folks like paying more for their internet than they already do...well, more than the already inflated rates we already have to deal with.

[Excel]

I'm not well read on this debate but if "net neutrality" laws continue to be axed in rulings like this does it increase the likelihood we'll see more ISPs shift toward a cable TV approach to internet with packages for websites and everything else being restricted? That's what little I've heard anyway. That may be the worst case scenario and I think it would fail in the market but ISPs could still steer and block traffic though I thought they did that a little already.

 

It seems like maintaining net neutrality is important for many reasons especially political and economic. I could see how restricting access to a small list of websites could stifle free speech, government transparency etc...and how it would hurt most businesses on the internet but I'm not sure how you protect it short of a constitutional amendment or perhaps using the interstate commerce and equal protection clauses creatively.

 

This really comes down to the nature of the internet. It's breadth, openness and resistance to regulation is inherent in its structure and it's those qualities that have allowed it to become so prominent in our lives and revolutionize so many things in the last two decades. Seems like ISPs are trying to drag us back into the 1980s.

[strigori]

Case point #1 on why elderly have no business having a say in dealings of modern tech.

 

This is a disaster. Its a ruling, once again, that is damn the public, and only the profit margins of corporations matter.

 

What it means is that a company like Comcast, having what amounts to a monopoly in many markets, decides that if you want to watch Netflix, or Youtube at above a 240 aspect, you pony up more money. Like playing video games online? More money. Want to download a large file? More money. Do anything other than read text off a webpage, you pay more money.

 

The companies could also, and even at the same time, demand that the likes of Netflix and Youtube pay them money to be available to their subscribers at all.

 

And there would be little recourse as many telecom companies still have strangleholds on many communities in this country. And while monopolies are technically illegal, there are often laws on city books protecting a telecom monopoly, and requires a new company to sue in federal court to enter a market. Ironically Verizon's FiOS is a case study on this.

 

The only bright side of the ruling is that the court did say that the FCC does have some regulatory power in the area, but if we cant get Net Neutrality, then the point is severely limited.

 

This needs to be a matter that Congress takes up, and makes Net Neutrality the law of the land. As the ruling simply said that the FCC did not have the authority, but nothing to the constitutionality of the matter.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

Sure, some of the sites are old, but you get the picture.

 

And this is yet another thing we can thank our tea-bagging idiot 'friends' for, especially since they've been so hot to dance for Telecom money that they've continued blocking FCC appointments and have worked to undercut what little authority Ma Bell left them.

[krill]

The unfortunate reality is that

I'm not well read on this debate but if "net neutrality" laws continue to be axed in rulings like this does it increase the likelihood we'll see more ISPs shift toward a cable TV approach to internet with packages for websites and everything else being restricted?

 

That is in theory possible, and what the telecom companies want to do to squeeze more money out of you. They won't outright censor the internet, but it's possible to use traffic shaping so that sites like youtube and netflix will be slowed to a trickle unless they / you pay up. The sad part is if they actually start doing this, it will cost more to implement and enforce the traffic shaping technology that makes this possible than simply upgrading network capacity as needed.

 

Thankfully I see two positive things happening that are happening irregardless of how much money companies like Verizon spend on lobbying and litigation to rob you:

 

1. T-Mobile is starting to set off a price war and break down the post-paid (contracts with subsidized devices) model for mobile networking. It will also be interesting to see what Softbank does with Sprint.

2. More municipalities are starting to deploy, or at least talk about deploying publicly owned and operated fiber networks for homes and businesses. It's amazing how the local cable / telephone company starts singing a different tune when this happens.

 

I guess you could also count google fiber in here, but there's no reason to believe that google won't engage in monopolistic practices either.

 

To anyone who thinks net neutrality is bad, or the government shouldn't regulate telecom is this way, imagine this scenario. All the local roads are owned by a monopoly, or duopoly that doesn't compete. It would probably be fair to charge tractor trailers more to use your roads, since they cause more wear on the roads, and that's what telecom does by charging for more bandwidth. But now, all of sudden, they want to start charging Toyota owners $20 more, Chevy owners $15 more, and Volvo owners $50 more, but Ford owners get a $10 discount because the company has a stake in Ford. That's not fair by any reasonable standard; it's anti-competitive and terrible for consumers.

[VectorVictor]

Krill, you're making sense and using excellent points to support your argument. Unfortunately, these are things that are anathema to the Tea Party and their ilk--the very people that are helping to kill Net Neutrality at the Government level.

 

Also, to your point about municipalities...the only problem with that is that the LECs sue the hell out of municipalities if they're successful in winning elections, or use scare/gestapo tactics and outspend the local governments on advertising and propaganda at an obscene rate to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

Unfortunately, I fear this is a problem that will require a heavy-handed Federal solution, and with the stupidity that the Tea Party is providing to Washington, it won't happen anytime soon.

[Conga3]

I'm not well read on this debate but if "net neutrality" laws continue to be axed in rulings like this does it increase the likelihood we'll see more ISPs shift toward a cable TV approach to internet with packages for websites and everything else being restricted? That's what little I've heard anyway. That may be the worst case scenario and I think it would fail in the market but ISPs could still steer and block traffic though I thought they did that a little already.

 

It seems like maintaining net neutrality is important for many reasons especially political and economic. I could see how restricting access to a small list of websites could stifle free speech, government transparency etc...and how it would hurt most businesses on the internet but I'm not sure how you protect it short of a constitutional amendment or perhaps using the interstate commerce and equal protection clauses creatively.

 

This really comes down to the nature of the internet. It's breadth, openness and resistance to regulation is inherent in its structure and it's those qualities that have allowed it to become so prominent in our lives and revolutionize so many things in the last two decades. Seems like ISPs are trying to drag us back into the 1980s.

 

 

This is a complex debate that can be distilled into two camps:

 

1.) Those who believe a government regulated/public Internet is preferable.

2.) Those who believe a market regulated/private Internet is preferable.

 

The pro-government types don't trust the market to regulate the behaviors of the businesses involved and that abuses of power will negatively affect consumers.

 

The pro-market types don't trust the government - at all - and fear regulation, while addressing one problem - causes others.

 

Each one claims the other's solution will lead to dire outcomes because of "slippery-slope".

 

----

 

Some of the arguments being made are absolutely hysterical.

 

The most likely outcome of a non-net-neutral Internet, is that your Netflix subscription goes from $8.95/mo to $9.95/mo as your ISP begins charging network performance fees directly to NETFLIX, and they in turn pass along the costs to the consumer.

 

Your ISP doesn't want to charge you to use web sites. That wouldn't be the most economical way for them to market their services.

 

They are not as likely to come up with some sort of "cable TV" tier packages service. Although they technically could, the markets (you the consumer) would prevent that from happening.

 

...also the cable tv packages is a RESULT of government regulation, not a lack of it.

 

----

 

Much of the unbalance that exists in the usage of the Internet - and where the ISPs want to target additional fees - are video streaming and torrents.

 

I don't like government regulation, but I would settle for an 80/20 rule.

 

So, the ISP has to maintain net-neutrality for all traffic until it surpasses that 20% threshold.

 

Netflix for sure and possibly Google/YouTube are really the only ones this would apply too - but it would makes sense for whatever new services come along in the future.

 

Let the ISPs figure out a way to charge more for that traffic. If they want to charge the consumer directly (doubtful), so be it. More than likely they charge Netflix a fee and the consumer sees their Netflix subscription go up $1.

[krill]

Conga, it's quite interesting that you attack the manner in which OTA / cable / satellite TV has been regulated, and then suggest an equally arbitrary manner of regulation for IP traffic that may happen to carry video streams. I agree that regulation of traditional broadcast TV has probably led to unintended consequences and not kept up with market forces or consumer preferences, but that doesn't account for the channel bundling many of us loath. That's something the media conglomerates that create content force on broadcasters so they can increase their leverage with carriage fees for popular channels like ESPN that are in every bundle, and apparently create value with a bunch of crap content most people don't want.

 

Bottom line is for you free market or death people is that the Internet is the ultimate free market. Bad ideas and money losing models are swept away with ruthless efficiency by consumers. The only way this works is by not allowing intermediaries to tamper with traffic to foist their own garbage on you and distort the market. I don't know if you quite understand how the underlying network protocols of the Internet work, but it's not say, a Verizon network from end to end if Verizon suddenly wants to change an extra $1 for Netflix traffic to their subs. Traffic from Netflix may originate from from six different datacenters and pass through four different networks before even reaching the Verizon network a sub has access to. For Google, it's even more of a mind boggling web. You are basically inviting a system of ad-hoc toll roads where highwaymen can rob consumers at every point instead of a uniform superhighway where everything moves freely.

[strigori]

I'm not well read on this debate but if "net neutrality" laws continue to be axed in rulings like this does it increase the likelihood we'll see more ISPs shift toward a cable TV approach to internet with packages for websites and everything else being restricted? That's what little I've heard anyway. That may be the worst case scenario and I think it would fail in the market but ISPs could still steer and block traffic though I thought they did that a little already.

 

It seems like maintaining net neutrality is important for many reasons especially political and economic. I could see how restricting access to a small list of websites could stifle free speech, government transparency etc...and how it would hurt most businesses on the internet but I'm not sure how you protect it short of a constitutional amendment or perhaps using the interstate commerce and equal protection clauses creatively.

 

This really comes down to the nature of the internet. It's breadth, openness and resistance to regulation is inherent in its structure and it's those qualities that have allowed it to become so prominent in our lives and revolutionize so many things in the last two decades. Seems like ISPs are trying to drag us back into the 1980s.

 

 

This is a complex debate that can be distilled into two camps:

 

1.) Those who believe a government regulated/public Internet is preferable.

2.) Those who believe a market regulated/private Internet is preferable.

 

The pro-government types don't trust the market to regulate the behaviors of the businesses involved and that abuses of power will negatively affect consumers.

 

The pro-market types don't trust the government - at all - and fear regulation, while addressing one problem - causes others.

 

Each one claims the other's solution will lead to dire outcomes because of "slippery-slope".

 

----

 

Some of the arguments being made are absolutely hysterical.

 

The most likely outcome of a non-net-neutral Internet, is that your Netflix subscription goes from $8.95/mo to $9.95/mo as your ISP begins charging network performance fees directly to NETFLIX, and they in turn pass along the costs to the consumer.

 

Your ISP doesn't want to charge you to use web sites. That wouldn't be the most economical way for them to market their services.

 

They are not as likely to come up with some sort of "cable TV" tier packages service. Although they technically could, the markets (you the consumer) would prevent that from happening.

 

...also the cable tv packages is a RESULT of government regulation, not a lack of it.

 

----

 

Much of the unbalance that exists in the usage of the Internet - and where the ISPs want to target additional fees - are video streaming and torrents.

 

I don't like government regulation, but I would settle for an 80/20 rule.

 

So, the ISP has to maintain net-neutrality for all traffic until it surpasses that 20% threshold.

 

Netflix for sure and possibly Google/YouTube are really the only ones this would apply too - but it would makes sense for whatever new services come along in the future.

 

Let the ISPs figure out a way to charge more for that traffic. If they want to charge the consumer directly (doubtful), so be it. More than likely they charge Netflix a fee and the consumer sees their Netflix subscription go up $1.

I don't think you quite grasp what the battle is about, or what net neutrality is. It is not 'government regulated' its more like government forced non-regulation, if that makes sense. What Net Neutrality does is very simple, it requires all web traffic to be treated equally. Oh the back breaking government regulation. And what telecoms could do is much more nefarious than your in pocket statements. An ISP could outright block all access to a website. And put any stipulation they like, on either the site owner, or the consumer. And with limited, at best, options for internet in wide areas of the country there isnt necessarily a way to shop around. And I think you dramatically underestimate what greedy, unethical operations businesses are. Hell, just watch the battles the carriers have for carrying different networks, now imagine that happening with even less visibility. But by all means, lets screw over everyone not a telecom company so they can make even more billions. Without rules, you simply can never trust modern businesses.

[Conga3]

@krill & strigori, you've mistaken my position on "Net-Neutrality", and that's my fault for not being more clear.

 

There are 3 tenets to "Net-Neutrality" :

1. Transparency
   
2. No Blocking
   
3. No Discrimination
   

I fully agree with #1 and #2.

• Transparency is important so consumers can know what the ISP is doing and make informed decisions.
  
• No Blocking is important to preserve competition.
  

---

 

I'm not 100% sold on the "No Discrimination" clause... maybe 80%

 

This is the rule that would prevent an ISP from throttling traffic from a content provider to the consumer unless they (either or both) pay additional fees.

 

In general, I don't "fear" the big Internet businesses hashing out a new fee structures that incorporates content specific throttling because market forces will prevent them from going overboard and other anti-trust laws would prevent them from taking the most extreme measures.

 

I'd favor a "Some Discrimination is OK" version of the clause - as I outlined above where I feel discrimination is OK when usage passes a certain threshold.

 

--

 

Government regulations that promote transparency and competition are most welcome.

Government regulations that restrict free market decisions between two willing parties is certainly not needed.

[strigori]

Anti-trust laws in the telecoms is a joke. Ask guys who live in Lincoln how much they like Time Warner, and what their options are. And really, the anti-trust laws are pretty toothless as it is. Very rarely does the FTC deny a purchase or takeover in any industry that reduces competition, and it does nothing for areas that currently have no competition.

[krill]

In general, I don't "fear" the big Internet businesses hashing out a new fee structures that incorporates content specific throttling because market forces will prevent them from going overboard and other anti-trust laws would prevent them from taking the most extreme measures.

 

Like strigori said, there effectively is no competition in many markets besides bad option #1 (usually a cable company) and bad option #2 (usually a telco) if you're lucky. If Time Warner wants to say, limit Netflix traffic to 100 kbps so you can only stream the lowest quality unless you fork over another $5 / month, most people are not going to run to Windstream because they are even worse and way oversold in many areas of Lincoln. If you really don't believe this will happen, one need only look at how wireless providers have constrained smart devices, owning multiple devices, and actually using those devices to stream media in every possible manner to squeeze every possible cent from consumers. It has been a hugely negative influence on the natural progression of technology and changing consumer preferences.

 

Most troubling in my mind though is if individual ISPs start implementing new fee structures for specific end user content, what effect that will have on the fee structure, or lack their of in peered tier 1 networks. If this becomes the wild west of the really big networks fighting over new fee structures and de-peering, the Internet as we know it will simply not function. With neutrality rules in place there is a strong incentive for the tier 1 networks to provide maximum interconnectivity and reliability as their competitive advantage, without it, the only incentive is finding new ways to create new revenue streams the same way networks down the food chain want to. This is potentially a huge problem that could servery impede our ability to compete globally, while draining more money out of the pockets of consumers for services that don't add real value, don't create new market opportunities, and don't create jobs.

[Conga3]

Anti-trust laws in the telecoms is a joke. Ask guys who live in Lincoln how much they like Time Warner, and what their options are. And really, the anti-trust laws are pretty toothless as it is. Very rarely does the FTC deny a purchase or takeover in any industry that reduces competition, and it does nothing for areas that currently have no competition.

 

You don't need the Federal government to "fix" the issue of limited offerings in a small market. That is a job for city/county or state governments.

 

If Time Warner is the only broadband ISP in Lincoln (I really doubt that) that is the fault of the Lincoln or NE government...not the FTC.

 

Allowing Time Warner to charge it's customers to use Netflix (or charge Netflix behind the scenes who in turn raise prices) wouldn't all of the sudden destroy the Lincoln ISP market. It actually could bring in more service providers.

 

---

 

We also may just have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes enough "competition" to allow proper market regulation.

[Conga3]

Like strigori said, there effectively is no competition in many markets besides bad option #1 (usually a cable company) and bad option #2 (usually a telco) if you're lucky. If Time Warner wants to say, limit Netflix traffic to 100 kbps so you can only stream the lowest quality unless you fork over another $5 / month, most people are not going to run to Windstream because they are even worse and way oversold in many areas of Lincoln. If you really don't believe this will happen, one need only look at how wireless providers have constrained smart devices, owning multiple devices, and actually using those devices to stream media in every possible manner to squeeze every possible cent from consumers. It has been a hugely negative influence on the natural progression of technology and changing consumer preferences.

 

Most troubling in my mind though is if individual ISPs start implementing new fee structures for specific end user content, what effect that will have on the fee structure, or lack their of in peered tier 1 networks. If this becomes the wild west of the really big networks fighting over new fee structures and de-peering, the Internet as we know it will simply not function. With neutrality rules in place there is a strong incentive for the tier 1 networks to provide maximum interconnectivity and reliability as their competitive advantage, without it, the only incentive is finding new ways to create new revenue streams the same way networks down the food chain want to. This is potentially a huge problem that could servery impede our ability to compete globally, while draining more money out of the pockets of consumers for services that don't add real value, don't create new market opportunities, and don't create jobs.

 

There is really not a single statement in this I agree with.

• Little competition is not "no competition"
  
• You don't know what Windstream (or any other competitor to Time Warner would do in reaction to a 100 kbps throttle by TW, let alone how the customers would react - except for assuming they will make the best economical choice for themselves)
  
• Wireless service has been one of the most competitive big markets going. The phone # portability act thing was a brilliant piece of government regulation and has since kept the ball in the consumers court. If you are upset because you (not you krill) want the latest IPHONE and don't want ATT service, and you think that's something the Federal government should fix for you, well....that's sad.
  
• Providing services isn't free. Of course companies are going to try to charge for everything they can. The pursuit of profit is not immoral or detrimental to the progress of technology - actually precisely the opposite.
  
• Yes, I understand you feel the multiple levels of the Internet will implode once they are able to charge fees for traffic. You have very little faith in smart people making good business decisions without the government telling them what to do. Whatever.
  

I know you are troubled by the unknown and just assume the worst from those seeking profit. Consider for a moment, that Netflix and YouTube together take up almost HALF the internet traffic...and that percentage will likely rise.

 

You must realize, that at some level EVERYONE who buys Internet service is subsidizing Netflix and Google. Because of the massive explosion of video streaming, the Internet backbone must be upgraded to keep up. That's not free, everyone is paying for it...and Netflix/Google users are not paying a proportionate amount.

 

With the "No Discrimination" rule in effect, we don't allow those businesses who are building and maintaining the Internet to find a more fair method to collect the usage fee to offset the costs. They are simply forced to spread out the growth costs to everyone.

 

Consider this :

 

If you pay $50/mo for broadband now, would you rather pay $45/month for throttled service that allows 480i streaming of YouTube/Netflix? You might not if you use those services regularly and want 1080p streams for your big screen TV, you'll pay the increased $55/mo - as a rough example. But there are a lot of consumers who would find that option more economical. Those are the consumers that are hurt by not allowing ISPs to discriminate and come up with new fee structures.

 

If an ISP miscalculates a fee structure, they could see massive losses as their competition takes advantage. They will have lots of incentive to tread lightly. There is a good amount of history regarding this as ISPs have tried for a long time to charge for "usage" but have mostly failed at every attempt due to consumer backlash and settled on the more innocuous speed tiers.

[tschu]

I certainly agree with krill/strigori.

 

And internet in the US is a joke already. We're already being massively throttled due to lack of competition. Internet in many other developed countries is way faster and cheaper.