Who Killed Net Neutrality? Since 1970 or so, carriers like A.T. & T. and Verizon have been barred from blocking or degrading whatever is transported over their lines. Although, at the time, the rule primarily concerned long-distance voice calls, that principle, applied to the Internet, has become known more recently as net neutrality. It offers a basic guarantee: that content providers on a network—whether it be YouTube, Wikipedia, or bloggers—can reach their users without worrying about being blocked, harassed, or forced to pay a toll by the carrier. Policing that rule in its various guises has been a core mission of the Federal Communications Commission for the past four decades—and keeping carriers away from Internet content has been among the F.C.C.’s most successful policy initiatives since its creation, in 1934.
It is the Magna Carta of the Web; today, there’s not a tech firm or a blog that doesn’t owe something to the open, unblocked Internet. That’s not all. So who lost net neutrality?
In the EU. Google / Verizon. How we got here. Court strikes down FCC’s net neutrality rules, agency may appeal. An appeals court in Washington on Tuesday ruled that the FCC’s “net neutrality” rules, which prevent companies like Verizon from favoring some types of internet traffic over others, are invalid. The 81-page ruling, which was decided by a 2-1 vote with one judge dissenting in part, has big implications for content providers, consumers and the future of the internet.
(Here is year-by-year timeline of the legal battles). That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. 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.
The court’s ruling is a game-changer because it upsets the FCC’s current practice of requiring broadband internet providers to act akin to “common carriers.” DC Net Neutrality ruling. FCC passes first net neutrality rules. Posted at 1:07 PM ET, 12/21/2010 By Cecilia Kang update: 3:23 p.m. with statement of support from President Obama, plans for Congressional hearings from House Republicans. The Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to approve its first ever Internet access regulation, which ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users. The FCC's three Democratic members made up a majority of votes in favor of the so-called net neutrality regulation, which was introduced more than a year ago by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The rules have sparked intense debate and lobbying over whether such legislation is needed, and are likely to face a legal challenge.
The agency's two Republican members voted against the rules, showing support for Internet service providers who say the regulations will impede their ability to create new business plans to expand their broadband networks and boost speed. Reps. "We are going to be exploring every option to reverse this order. Why everyone hates new net neutrality rules. It's no surprise that those who have always opposed net neutrality weren't pleased with today's FCC order instituting it—one expects no less—but the sheer vehemence of the objections was still surprising. Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell unleashed a biblical jeremiad against the order, accusing the FCC of becoming a "vigilante" which was taking this action only to help President Obama meet "a misguided campaign promise. " Today was one of the "darkest days in recent FCC history," he said, adding that he had received a final draft only at 11:42 pm the night before the vote.
As for ISPs, "Nothing is broken in the Internet access market. " He ended darkly by noting that the FCC's "regulatory hubris" was a disease that could, thankfully, be cured by the courts. His GOP colleague, Commissioner Meredith Baker, had no less than seven major objections, including one that "we have turned prioritization into a dirty word.
" We don't like it, either Solomonic or moronic? Huzzah? Was It Google And Verizon Or The FCC That Just Screwed Us On Mobile Net Neutrality? We’ve already covered the FCC Net Neutrality vote earlier today, but something new has come to light. Something that’s very odd. Something that’s quite frankly a little terrifying. Engadget dug up the FCC’s release [PDF] and found the following nugget buried in the all-important section “Measured Steps for Mobile Broadband”: Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband Except wait.
As Patel writes: I am slightly more paranoid. Paranoid Android: the worst way to complain about net neutrality. After this week's passage of an open Internet rule at the Federal Communication Commission, some of the Web's pundits had a tough time deciding whether the agency is more stupid than it is corrupt, or more corrupt than it is stupid. Sadly, all the episode really shows is that bloggers often get a bad rap for good reasons. The accusations started after Engadget read the FCC press release issued yesterday after the net neutrality vote. The complete text of the new rules is not yet available, the FCC tells Ars, because the new Order was opposed by two commissioners and thus has to address their objections before being released. Instead, the press office yesterday sent out snippets from the most crucial bits of the Order.
One of these gave the FCC's reasons for not applying the same "unreasonable discrimination" standard to wireless that it applied to wired networks. Slightly more paranoid Engadget was incredulous. I am slightly more paranoid. What's actually being claimed. What the FCC ruling means. Dan Gillmor’s not impressed by the FCC’s pusillanimity. Neither am I. The neutering of the Internet is now the unofficial policy of the Federal Communications Commission. Contrary to the happy talk from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a rule-making announcement today in Washington, the move is well underway to turn the Internet into a regulated playground for corporate giants.
Dan writes that:Tuesday’s FCC vote on rules purportedly designed to ensure open and free networks was a 3-2 partisan charade, with Genachowski and the other two Democratic commissioners in favor and the two Republicans against. It did nothing of the sort. The short-term result will be confusion and jockeying for position. As I understand it (from the Wired report), the Commission has approved ‘compromise’ net neutrality rules that would forbid the nation’s largest cable and DSL internet service providers from blocking or slowing online services, while leaving wireless companies with much more latitude.
Spot on. FCC Ruling On Net Neutrality Promises More Lobbying. Reddit Political Action Committee. The FCC passed net neutrality regulation Tuesday. To many Internet users, this law's implication is vague. How will this improve our user experience and why should we care one way or another about what the government has to say about the net? To one group of users, this law, its implication and why they needed to speak out was clear. Reddit PAC was the brain child of Eddie Geller, a Los Angeles comedian who was upset about the possible defeat of net neutrality. He went to Reddit to express his dismay in a call to arms.
"I got sick of being told what we can't have, because the political climate is about to be ‘inopportune.’ I spoke with Geller about the impact of the net neutrality vote and his group's actions to understand more about neutrality from a grassroots perspective. What does your membership look like? For legal reasons, I should start off by saying we are now the Open Source Democracy Foundation. Why do you care about net neutrality and why should the average user?
1. 2. 3. Content Providers Must Pay, Says France Telecom. AFP/Getty Images Louette: time had come to revisit two of the principles of the internet France Telecom wants to charge heavy content producers for carrying their traffic on its network and is exploring the idea of “data termination rates”, similar to the call termination rates that operators charge each other for carrying calls on their networks, according to a senior executive.
Pierre Louette, Senior Executive Vice President, Group General Secretary of France Telecom, speaking to Tech Europe, said the time had come to revisit two of the principles of the internet. “There are two principles on which the Internet developed: zero-price rule, and non-discrimination rule. Europe’s biggest Internet provider, trading internationally as Orange, was considering its commercial peering arrangements. “Last year at Barcelona, Eric Schmidt, who was then CEO of Google, made a speech. Europe receives 10x the traffic it sends Mr.
We're About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It | Wired Opinion. Image: moodboard/Getty Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it. Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online.
The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive. Game of Loopholes and Rules How did we get here? In Developing Countries, Google and Facebook Already Defy Net Neutrality. Net neutrality—the idea that all Internet traffic should generally be treated equally—suffered a setback last week when a federal court struck down the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s latest regulatory effort (see “Net Neutrality Quashed: New Pricing Schemes, Throttling, and Business Models to Follow”). Pro-neutrality types have worried that a few giant companies will end up controlling, or at least mediating, the Internet experience for much of the population because of special deals they’ve struck with Internet providers for prioritized or subsidized data delivery. But in the emerging economies of the world, that’s pretty much how things already work, thanks to a growing number of deals Google and Facebook have struck with mobile phone carriers from the Philippines to Kenya.
In essence, these deals give people free access to text-only version of things like Facebook news feeds, Gmail, and the first page of search results under plans like Facebook Zero or Google Free Zone.