Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
adam22

Net Neutrality

Recommended Posts

Net neutrality faces serious setbacks

Wed Apr 7, 5:17 pm ET

 

First, a primer for the uninitiated on "net neutrality."

 

Net (as in network) neutrality is the idea that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally and — more to the point — should come at the same price. Right now, for instance, you don't have to pay more to watch a YouTube video than you do to check your email, even though the YouTube video eats up more bandwidth and, in theory, costs your ISP more for you to watch.

 

Websites and most consumers love the idea of net neutrality.

 

ISPs, on the other hand, are not fans. In fact, the net neutrality movement arose as a response to major ISPs' plans to attempt to charge websites and service providers more for "better" service on their networks. Fail to pay up and that YouTube video might take twice as long to download ... or it may not download at all.

 

ISPs call this the cost of doing business and a necessary reality in an era where bandwidth isn't growing but the amount of data being pushed through the available pipes is.

 

Net neutrality proponents call this extortion.

 

No matter who is right, things were looking up for net neutrality fans after the FCC and the Obama administration came out with specific and strongly worded recommendations and plans that they would push for net neutrality as the Obama broadband program (100Mbps to everyone!) moved forward.

 

But the showdown had already begun prior to the Obama era, way back in 2007, when Comcast, the country's largest cable company, began throttling BitTorrent downloads, effectively putting a speed limit on how fast they could go. The FCC put the kibosh on the practice, and ISPs, led by the mammoth Comcast, sued. Then the FCC announced even more sweeping rules that it planned to enact in the future.

 

This week, a major legal ruling was handed down in the Comcast case, and the tide has now turned in favor of the ISPs. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals said that the FCC had overstepped its authority in mandating net neutrality and that ISPs should be free to manage traffic however they see fit, noting that under current law, the FCC does not have "untrammeled freedom" to regulate broadband services. (In other words, Congress would have to specifically grant such powers.) The ruling was unanimous among the three judges on the panel.

 

Now net neutrality fans find themselves facing a serious uphill climb. Not only does the ruling open up the way — for now — for ISPs to ask websites and service providers for money; it might also allow them to restrict certain services from running on their networks entirely. Comcast, for example, may not want you to watch Hulu on its service, since then you'd have less of a reason to pay $60 a month for cable TV. It may also be able to ban VOIP services like Skype, so you'll pony up another $20 for wired telephone service. The dominoes are already lining up.

 

What happens now? The FCC has more tricks up its sleeve. As the MSNBC story above notes, broadband service could be reclassified to fall under the other heavily regulated telecommunications services that the FCC oversees, but that would likely result in additional legal wrangling and longer delays for the broadband plan to go into effect, a so-called nuclear option that would turn the world of broadband into a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

If it doesn't take this route, the FCC will instead have to ask Congress for the power to implement net neutrality rules as it sees fit, but that's a political game in a time when Washington seems awfully low on political capital. Don't rule out an appeal to the Supreme Court, either.

 

Stay tuned — for as long as your Internet service holds out, anyway.

 

— Christopher Null is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/2010040...uy_tc1510/print

 

Related Video:

 

Seriously though...what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brandon,

 

Lobbyists do not and can not lobby Federal Judges sitting on the Appeals Courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTL=For The Loss or sucks, no go, no bueno, do not pass go, do not collect $200 :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brandon,

 

Lobbyists do not and can not lobby Federal Judges sitting on the Appeals Courts.

 

They aren't the only ones involved in Net Neutrality. The entire conflict is over ISPs wanting to take us for a ride, so the can further enjoy their local monopolies, so they fire off lawsuits at the FCC, pay people off I'm sure, and do whatever else they can to ensure that they can bend us over further.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read the article Brandon?

 

The FCC tried implementing it.

 

Three judges on an appeals court said the FCC can't.

 

That means congress would have give the FCC the explicit power to do so.

 

Because the president supports it, that means that ummmmm certain members of congress would oppose it no matter what, so the judges ruling will stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read the article, but I've read many other things about the net neutrality debate, and I know it's not in the FCC's power. But, my overwhelming paranoia leads me to believe that ISPs had something to do with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Tx will post his reasons for opposing net neutrality, but his position comes as no surprise. Republicans generally support corporate interests over consumer interests.

 

Republicans supported the insurance companies on the health care issue.

They are supporting Wall Street and the banks on the securities and banking reform issue.

And, they will support the ISP's on the net neutrality issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent article adam22. Thanks.

 

Net neutrality :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Tx will post his reasons for opposing net neutrality, but his position comes as no surprise. Republicans generally support corporate interests over consumer interests.

 

Republicans supported the insurance companies on the health care issue.

They are supporting Wall Street and the banks on the securities and banking reform issue.

And, they will support the ISP's on the net neutrality issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent article adam22. Thanks.

 

Net neutrality :tup:

 

 

I'm getting sick of peeps always making some kind of political statement around here. Can't we keep out political views in the proper place? yes, I know you are within your right to voice your opinion, but for crying out loud, give it a break!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoeC, whether you like it or not, it IS a political issue and there is nothing wrong with that. Politics is the means by which people in a democratic republic determine the laws by which they will live, and dicussions about those laws IS the proper place for politics.

 

It is important for those who favor net neutrality to realize that it is a political issue. It is important that they make their voices heard, and that they express their desires to their representatives. Failure to do so will bring defeat. The ISP's know that it is a political issue, they are well funded, and they put their money where their mouth is.

 

But, if you don't have the stomach for it and it makes you sick, nobody will force you to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Whether you support net neutrality or not does not make one a republican or a democrat, there is no real need to post about someones political views over this. Tx hasn't even replied about his views on this, and I personally think he might have mistaken what his view really is anyway, Please stop making everything republican/democrat. This net neutrality was going on before BO was in office. We have a separate forum just for your personal views over the dems/repubs so that should be the appropriate place for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, how did you get to be Chief Censor? Did someone die and leave you the post? :blink:

 

 

Sentence 1

Just what is it that you disagree with, Joe? Are you contending that net neutrality is NOT a political issue?

 

Sentence 2

There is never a need to post. I post because I want to. How about you?

 

Sentence 3

Whether he replies or not, I think you should at least give him credit for knowing his own opinion.

 

Sentence 4

Yes, and it was a political issue then, too.

 

Sentence 5

I'm not responsible for the thread being in this forum--I didn't put it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...