In a decision that may "serve as a sorry memorial to the corporate abrogation of free speech," a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday
struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s rules on "net neutrality."
Image: Free Press Net
neutrality means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all
content the same. Internet freedom group Free Press explains that with
net neutrality, ISPs "may not discriminate between different kinds of
online content and apps. It guarantees a level playing field for all
websites and Internet technologies."
Reuters reports that during oral argument in the lawsuit brought by Verizon Communications Inc,
Verizon's lawyer said the regulations violated the company's right to
free speech and stripped control of what its networks transmit and how.
Ahead of the ruling Josh Levy of Free Press
warned that "If Verizon gets its way, the FCC’s rules protecting Internet users from corporate abuse will disappear."
Tuesday's ruling siding with Verizon "is a game-changer," business and technology site
Gigaom reports,
because it upsets the FCC’s current practice of requiring broadband
internet providers to act akin to “common carriers.” In plain English,
this means that they have had to behave in a similar way to phone
companies and not give special preference to one type of call (or
traffic) over another, even though the FCC’s authority to regulate the
broadband providers was not clear cut.
Net neutrality advocates are calling Tuesday's ruling
"disappointing," and are warning that big telecommunications companies
will be able to turn what was a move towards an open Internet into
"something that looks like cable TV."
The ruling "is poised to end the free, open, and uncensored Internet
that we have come to rely on," former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps,
special adviser to advocacy group
Common Cause’s Media and Democracy Initiative, said in a statement.
Craig Aaron, President and CEO of Free Press, issued a statement
saying that “ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the
biggest phone and cable companies—and in the absence of any oversight,
these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’
communications at will."
“The compromised Open Internet Order struck down today left much to
be desired, but it was a step toward maintaining Internet users’ freedom
to go where they wanted, when they wanted, and communicate freely
online. Now, just as Verizon promised it would in court, the biggest
broadband providers will race to turn the open and vibrant Web into
something that looks like cable TV. They’ll establish fast lanes for the
few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve
the slow lanes for everyone else," Aaron added.
"Without prompt corrective action by the Commission to reclassify
broadband, this awful ruling will serve as a sorry memorial to the
corporate abrogation of free speech," Copps added.
The FCC
may appeal the ruling.
______________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
.....
WASHINGTON — A decision this week by a U.S.
federal appeals court to strike down so-called net neutrality may not
only have major ramifications for Internet users in the United States.
It could also have ripple effects overseas.
Experts say the ruling could be a boon to other countries if innovation is hampered in the U.S.
But it could be bad news, too, for Internet users outside the U.S.
because other governments could adopt similar rules and regulations.
The ruling
by the United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia
struck down a Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) order from 2010,
which imposed net neutrality on broadband Internet service providers
(ISPs).
Net neutrality means that ISPs are to provide equal access to all types of Internet content.
The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable” in the U.S.
According to the 2010 FCC order, ISPs “shall not block lawful content,
applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable
network management.” It also said ISPs “shall not unreasonably
discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s broadband
Internet access service.”
The Washington courts ruling said net neutrality was not needed because
users “can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach
particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge
providers have been degraded.”
.....
