PDA

View Full Version : Net Neutrality



YardleyLabs
04-07-2010, 07:58 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_INTERNET_RULES?SITE=TXMCA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Apr 6, 5:39 PM EDT


FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality'
By JOELLE TESSLER
AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand broadband access in the United States.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

__________________________

This decision could have major implications for us as individuals since it effectively removes all controls over the management of broadband access. This is not (or at least has not been) a partisan issue. The policies overturned were [ut in place by the Bush administration and were a cornerstone of efforts to expand broadband access where the US had fallen behind most of the rest of the world. Any reactions?

Franco
04-07-2010, 09:03 AM
Comcast, which is the biggest cable/internet providor in the world wants to be the gatekeeper with thier system since they are the ones that have made the investment.

I would guess that this case will have to go to the Supreme Court since the internet is still relativley a new form of communications.

However, all the cable companies are under assualt by the Fiber Optics providers. The Parish(county) in which I live is now 100% Fiber Optic and the cable companies are running for cover or joining in the Fiber Optic bandwagon. The City of Lafayette owns the Fiber Optic network, providing televison, internet and phone. The quality and speed of Fiber Optics makes cable and satellite old technology.

There are enough providers/choices to circumvent what Comcast is trying to monopolize.

Cody Covey
04-07-2010, 09:45 AM
Thats really not the case Franco. Nationwide there are many choices but it doesn't work out that way for each city. The infrastructure to put in place a good broadband network is very expensive and only the big companies can afford to do it. FiOs costs to much to implement on a large level in the near term especially in cities that aren't huge.

Net neutrality sounds good and i agree with the basic principle of it actually. But its when government says to these companies, okay you spent billions on your network now I'm going to regulate it. I think what comcast is doing is shady and hopefully someday soon we will have actually choice outside of the big cities but for now that is just not the case and comcast will be able to get away with it.

Uncle Bill
04-07-2010, 09:47 AM
I don't see this as a move by Comcast to "monopolize" cable. They are attempting to protect their azz, like many other entities fighting government take over. They just happened to be the large fish in the pond that said "enuff"! I see this as being good for all cable providers.

In this market, Fiber has been used by the two cable companies for about 5 years now. Both companies provide high speed internet, phone, and TV. The phone business has taken a pretty good hit from the wireless cell systems...primarily Verizon and Alltell in our state.

The company I deal with, Knology, bought out our local IP that owns the power company. The other company is statewide.

The primary competitor to cable in our state, and what flourishes in the farm country is Dish and Direct satellite TV. It's cheaper than cable, and I'd have it, except they need two dishes to provide the local services, so it's cumbersome with the trees in my location.

This was a good decision, and I doubt it will be taken to the SCOTUS...the FCC has better ways to manipulate the spectrum, which I expect them to be into soon.

UB

Franco
04-07-2010, 09:54 AM
Thats really not the case Franco. Nationwide there are many choices but it doesn't work out that way for each city. The infrastructure to put in place a good broadband network is very expensive and only the big companies can afford to do it. FiOs costs to much to implement on a large level in the near term especially in cities that aren't huge.

Net neutrality sounds good and i agree with the basic principle of it actually. But its when government says to these companies, okay you spent billions on your network now I'm going to regulate it. I think what comcast is doing is shady and hopefully someday soon we will have actually choice outside of the big cities but for now that is just not the case and comcast will be able to get away with it.

Our little town of 250,000 is now completely Fiber Optic and owned by the city. Because we are the oil hub for offshore drillling, the city felt it was an investment we had to make to support all the various businesses that will benefit by FOs. However, the everyday consumer is loving the choices because it has the cable companies scrampling to keep thier fees low and providing more and better services.

The FCC will prevail in the end. Eventually, this will be a Landmark case. Don't forget that broadband and all the other technologies are still relativley new and will be brought under the control of the FCC sooner than later.

luvmylabs23139
04-07-2010, 10:07 AM
The FCC and the gov't need to stay away from the net. It was suposed to be unrestricted. The gov't should get the heck out.

YardleyLabs
04-07-2010, 10:41 AM
There are actually no challenges that were raised over the ability of the FCC to regulate cable providers. The ability of the FCC to regulate large aspects of internet services provided was also not challenged. The challenge addressed a relatively narrow issue: whether or not the FCC could require providers to support applications that allowed peer to peer communications between computers over the Internet. In this case, Comcast sought to restrict access to an application allowing users to share large files such as videos on a peer to peer basis. In a private lawsuit addressing the same issue in California, Comcast actually argued successfully that the private lawsuit should be stopped since regulating such activities was under the jurisdiction of the FCC and could not be addressed in the California courts.

The court ruled that the FCC could only regulate such activities if it demonstrated conclusively that such regulation was essential to the performance of its broader regulatory responsibilities and that it had failed to present sufficient proof. What is not clear is how widely the same arguments might be used to provide individual ISP's with the authority to exercise control in a way that might affect all aspects of the development of internet based services that go beyond the simple server-workstation communication model. Bound up in this is the question of how such discretion might be used to impose fees on content providers to ensure that their content will be available to Internet users or to assert preferential treatment of content sponsored or provided by the ISP and to exclude services offered through other vendors.

This is not a constitutional issue, and could be addressed through new legislation. That, however, raises the question of what regulation is appropriate to protect open access to common carrier facilities that often rely on government financed technology, government protected franchise agreements, and government provided easements to make their offerings possible and to provide them with some protection from competition to make it easier to profit from the investments made. Interestingly, if it were not for governmental regulation, there would be NO broadband services and no Internet services. Both are the product of governmental interference.:rolleyes:

Cody Covey
04-07-2010, 11:21 AM
I don't see this as a move by Comcast to "monopolize" cable. They are attempting to protect their azz, like many other entities fighting government take over. They just happened to be the large fish in the pond that said "enuff"! I see this as being good for all cable providers.

In this market, Fiber has been used by the two cable companies for about 5 years now. Both companies provide high speed internet, phone, and TV. The phone business has taken a pretty good hit from the wireless cell systems...primarily Verizon and Alltell in our state.

The company I deal with, Knology, bought out our local IP that owns the power company. The other company is statewide.

The primary competitor to cable in our state, and what flourishes in the farm country is Dish and Direct satellite TV. It's cheaper than cable, and I'd have it, except they need two dishes to provide the local services, so it's cumbersome with the trees in my location.

This was a good decision, and I doubt it will be taken to the SCOTUS...the FCC has better ways to manipulate the spectrum, which I expect them to be into soon.

UB
Comcast was limiting users bandwidth and shutting down websites that they deemed to cause to high of bandwidth issues. I would not pay for an internet service that limited where i would go but like i said MANY places just don't have a choice. You either go with comcast or satellite at about 250 for install cost and 90-100 bucks a month in some cases, for about 1/4 the bandwidth of comcasts cheapest option. Not an option for many places.