Court Rules Against F.C.C. in ‘Net Neutrality’ Case

[travelin cat]

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

[nytimes.com...]

[JAB Creations]

That's not good, it means that [Comcast reset this user's internet connection].

[freejung]

Wow, that's terrible news.

I think it's a case of Comcast cutting off everyone's nose to spite their face. In the long term, big picture, I think net neutrality is in everyone's best interest, including carriers, because it encourages innovation and makes the internet the dynamic, interesting place it is. This is a major setback for the internet as a whole, and in the end Comcast will probably be harmed by it along with everyone else involved.

Just another case of short-sightedness, I suppose. Let's make a quick buck, and never mind the long-term, big-picture implications.

[mcavic]

Carriers really should be able to shape their traffic if it's necessary to provide quality service. When I'm paying for a specific speed, it's because I want to be able to send an email attachment while I'm on a VOIP call. I don't expect to be able to share files 24 hours a day at full speed.

Of course, I don't know if the traffic shaping is really necessary. But if I'm the court, and Comcast tells me it's necessary, then I'll give them the right to manage their network.

[wheel]

Carriers really should be able to shape their traffic if it's necessary to provide quality service.

Perhaps. It's really an issue of how you see the net.

On one hand, it's private individuals doing business with private companies, so they can do whatever they like.

On the other hand, the net could be viewed almost as a public service type of thing, like roads, sewers, power, etc - infrastructure stuff normally dabbled in my the government.

I'm all for private enterprise, but I can see how some folks would start to treat the web/internet like something the govt may want to regulate to a certain extent. Education in remote areas, public learning, lots of things going on on the web that are starting to make it a part of society's structure just as phone/power/road/sewer services are.

[freejung]

Carriers really should be able to shape their traffic if it's necessary to provide quality service.

The problem is, who gets to draw the line between "necessary to provide quality service" and "necessary to promote the carrier's business interest," for example "traffic shaping" to favor the carrier's paying partners? Do you want to let the carrier draw that line?

I agree with wheel, the internet is a utility. It is part of the basic infrastructure that our entire society needs in order to do business. Allowing carriers to "shape" traffic opens the door to hydraulic despotism.

[J_RaD]

we don't need the gov poking around issues like this.

the telcos paid money to put the cable in the ground, they pay to maintain them, they pay to give users access, they have the right to manage what they own to keep it running smoothly.

The internet is not public service, and its not a public right.

I think net neutrality is in everyone's best interest, including carriers, because it encourages innovation

What reason would telcos improve speed? So everyone else can make money faster?

[mcavic]

The problem is, who gets to draw the line

I agree, it's a problem, even though I think it's a very thick line. But you have to pick the better of two evils. Allowing a carrier to decide how to run their network, or allowing a handful of customers to use up everyone else's bandwidth?

[Brett_Tabke]

Net neutrality/Net Communisim was an attempt to force private networks to carry public traffic. This is essentially the govt putting it's nose into private business and forcing company A to carry company B's water.

> That's not good, it means that [Comcast reset this user's internet connection].

Then don't use them. I am sure you have many, many options (and growing) for internet access. There is no reason what-so-ever that a company should be mandated to carry other peoples data on their network. If google is chewing 30% of their bandwidth with Youtube and Gmail, then they should be paying that ISP 30% of their bandwidth bill.

This is the single smartest decision I have heard come out of the court in many years. The FCC has no place regulating private wires.

> Carriers really should be able to shape their traffic

Carriers should be able to do whatever they want - including charge big users - for how thier pipes are being used.

> I'm all for private enterprise, but I can see how some folks would start
> to treat the web/internet like something the govt may want to regulate to a certain extent.

No no no no. That is not what this was about. THis was Google attempting to protect it's connection to users without ISP's wanting a cut of the action. This was Google trying to charge ISP's to carry YouTube video content.

Regardless of the outcome, Google won huge in this issue by spinning the issue as "neutrality". This was a major PR spin by Google. If they can move this issue into that realm of public manipulation, what else can they do? What have they already done?

> The problem is, who gets to draw the line

WiMax/4g is going to make the problem go away when people have high numbers of broadband choices.

[martinibuster]

Glenn Beck says the Net Neutrality movement is a Marxist plot to end free speech [foxnews.com]. Apparently, some leftist organization I never heard of is in support of Net Neutrality and Glenn Beck is using that as evidence that the Net Neutrality movement is a communist plot.

...who's complaining about the neutrality on the Internet? I mean, is there some major outcry that I just haven't heard about yet?

Americans have never had more access to more outlets to express themselves than they do right now. Anyone in America with a computer and an Internet connection can sit in their basement in their underpants, eating biscuits, while they bang on their keyboards all night and day..." They can literally say whatever they want any time they want.

It's about eliminating traditional, constitutional points of view from the public arena. But that's not the way it's being built. It is about stopping debate. But nobody will tell you that. It's about ending free speech. It is about Marxism.

This has nothing to do with Communism. It's Glenn Beck using loopy logic that makes no sense to connect Net Neutrality with Communism. For Beck to point to a particular supporter and say that they are a communist so this must be a communist plot is absurd. It's more than absurd, it's evil because it's willfully misleading.

Is this about forcing private networks to carry public traffic? Of course not. That's their business model, lol. Consumers are paying ISPs to deliver public traffic.

[edited by: martinibuster at 8:14 pm (utc) on Apr 6, 2010]

[alchemyst]

Then don't use them. I am sure you have many, many options (and growing) for internet access.

I hear this said many times and it is just not true for MOST people. Maybe, if you live in certain large metro areas, you have multiple sources of Internet access. Most of the US lives in suburban/rural areas and have one or two choices.

As for net neutrality ............

What happens when carrier A decides that only it's traffic goes through and carrier B's traffic is not allowed. Then B retaliates cutting off A's traffic. Suddenly you can't email Aunt May because one provider will not pass content from another carrier. The Internet crumbles!

It may get to the point where you have to pay extra to email or have access to content that is on a different network.

Don't say it can't happen. If there is a way to make a profit, companies will find a way.

[Brett_Tabke]

> glenn beck

Who? Sorry, I don't listen talk radio.

That does not change the issues that this case was about forcing one company to carry another company's data. THis had zero to do with "neutrality" and everything to do with forcing private networks (Comcast in this case) to carry Google (and everyone elses) traffic.

> communist

What is evil and misleading, is calling this "Neutrality". This was Google attempting to force Comcast to carry YouTube videos for free. Comcast want's to charge YouTube to carry it's video's because they account for 5% of Comcasts traffic. That is reasonable.

[buckworks]

Why is it reasonable? Users are already paying a fee for their internet access.

[martinibuster]

Yeah, I'd like clarification on how it's reasonable for me, as a webmaster, to pay my hosting provider for bandwidth, and ALSO pay Comcast for the bandwidth that their subscribers have already paid for.

[mcavic]

Comcast want's to charge YouTube to carry it's video's because they account for 5% of Comcasts traffic. That is reasonable.

No, it's not. Comcast customers pay for the privilege of accessing all of the content on the Net. Since when does an ISP get to bill a Web site to carry the site's traffic?

[albo]

@Brett_Tabke, "Neutrality" also has to do with ISPs (e.g., Comcast) regulating or favoring the service delivered to high-paying customers over that delivered to lesser-paying customers.

Thus, in an extreme case (as hinted by @alchemyst): Say Aunt May lives in the small town of Gateway, CO. It is a mining town. Her choice of an ISP is one not many; it is available by virtue of the fact that the mining company is there. She has NO WAY to afford competitive payments. Her service is consistently throttled.

Small businesses, startups, retirees, nonprofits, all such are "forced" to be throttled (slower speeds, inferior service) by virtue of the fact that they can't compete with the higher usage rates paid by the large companies.

[Brett_Tabke]

> Users are already paying a fee for their Internet access.

That isn't the issue here. That is the issue Google would like you to believe this was about, but we aren't on that end of the pipe. This isn't about the consumer. It affects the consumer (you), but this is about the OTHER end of the pipe. Where that pipe exits Google and enters Comcasts private network. It is very reasonable to me to see Google pay Comcast to carry it's data.

> Since when does an ISP get to bill a Web site to carry the site's traffic?

The same happens in the cable industry. HBO pays (or gives a percentage) cable companies to carry it's signal. Google is charging millions of dollars to enterprise customers for special content and services rolling over Comcasts wires. It is very reasonable that comcast get a cut of that action the same way Time Warner gets a cut of HBO.

This story is about corporate power and money. This has nothing to do with "neutrality". Again, Google was genius for framing it as a freedom or "neutrality" argument.

[rbarker]

Albo... If I understand it correctly, Aunt May chose to live in that remote mining town knowing goods and services would be limited and more expensive. I don't think I should have to subsidize her connection. Kind of reminds me of our postal system.

[incrediBILL]

Here's a better analogy, Google, like the broadcast TV stations, should CHARGE the ISP!

Yes, that's right, the broadcast TV networks that used to be "FREE" now charge for cable companies to rebroadcast their signal.

So technically, using this model which Comcast, Time Warner and all the rest are already familiar with, YouTube should be charging the cable operators for all that bandwidth to carry YouTube's content to their customer.

Enjoy that thought.

There is precedence.

Comcast want's to charge YouTube to carry it's video's because they account for 5% of Comcasts traffic. That is reasonable.

Brett, you know better, both the users *AND* the hosts are already paying for that bandwidth and this is just a shameful attempt to double-dip for revenue that technically doesn't belong to the ISP in the first place.

You yourself pay fees for bandwidth at your office and bandwidth for your WebmasterWorld servers.

Should WebmasterWorld also pay fees to the ISPs that deliver WebmasterWorld traffic to the end users?

That's what we're talking about here and it's 100% attempting to double-dip deep pockets to offset their own network expansion, it simply doesn't fly.

If I remember correctly it was the telecoms like BellSouth that originally tried to double-dip by charging to be a carrier to high volume companies like YouTube but their motives were very clear because they have a dead-end product with no hope for additional revenue streams unless you create a bogus one, which didn't fly.

What reason would telcos improve speed? So everyone else can make money faster

To provide better service to their customers.

You can charge customers for the better grade of service if they're willing to pay.

[ember]

As a small publisher with one website, how is this going to affect me? Affect all of us small publishers?

[rbarker]

"It is very reasonable that comcast get a cut of that action the same way Time Warner gets a cut of HBO."

Makes sence to me. Why isn't Comcast already doing that?

[incrediBILL]

Time Warner gets a cut of HBO.

That's entirely different, you're missing apples and oranges.

HBO is a premium product resold directly by the cable company vs.
FOX or CBS which are free broadcast channels that charge cable companies to rebroadcast.

GOOGLE is a 100% free service, including YouTube, so it's more in line with charging to rebroadcast ala FOX or CBS vs. revenue share as a resold premium product like HBO.

As a small publisher with one website, how is this going to affect me? Affect all of us small publishers?

They would charge your host for carrying content to their end users.

The host would pass on the charge to webmasters.

Not a big leap there.

[ember]

So Comcast, AT&T, Quest, etc. are all going to charge my host to carry my website, and all those charges will come back to me. Good way to put me out of business.

[Brett_Tabke]

Here's a better analogy, Google, like the broadcast TV stations, should CHARGE the ISP!

That is plausible too. It really is an upside down situation. Think about it from Comcasts situation:

a) they get paid by HBO and other premium services to carry their data.
b) they pay many other networks to get their signal.
c) they get a combo on some where they get free air time to run their commercials in exchange for free usage rights (eg: weather channel)

So for comcast, the whole situation is in flux. It is all about where the demand is at. That is why I ended by saying it is all about corporate power and control.

I think the best solution is to let the market figure it out.

[Brett_Tabke]

> That's entirely different, you're missing apples and oranges.

Google is mixed as well. They have premium enterprise services that are taking in millions. (docs)

[mcavic]

So Comcast, AT&T, Quest, etc. are all going to charge my host to carry my website

Probably not you personally, unless your host is a huge one.

Still, there are too many ISP's for this to be feasible. When your host grows large enough to warrant being billed, they're going to get bills from ISP after ISP, and if they don't pay them all, you lose traffic. That's extortion.

[albo]

@rbarker I also do not think I should have to give my tax dollars to subsidize the construction of lines which become the private property ISPs residing on public property

[rbarker]

Albo... I have no problem giving public land to private companies if they're going to improve that land for the public good. I think that's what we did to get the railroads to build lines coast to coast. Is that what you're saying you don't want to do?

[incrediBILL]

They have premium enterprise services that are taking in millions.

You can't charge money based on the fact that some other service is making money that isn't germane to the conversation.

YouTube, which is a sinkhole of massive bandwidth fees is what has everyone up in arms, not the enterprise services.

FYI, YouTube used to be hosted on ServerBeach before Google bought them, same place I host, the last of YouTube just rolled into Google's network 100% about a year ago.

Somehow, YouTube seemed to purchase bandwidth via ServerBeach back then and it was cool.

Suddenly Google buys YouTube and that bandwidth fee is no longer enough?

What we're talking about is extortion.

[Brett_Tabke]

> What we're talking about is extortion.

Not at all. The market will only allow for so much of that until it self corrects. If the "gouge" factor gets to be too much, then we will look elsewhere for connections. Despite alot of noise about the state of broadband in the USA, most of us have multiple options at connections. The numbers of those choices are growing for most people. Right now, I have connections through AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and Clear Channel. I even have a "emergency line" on Earthlink dialup. I bet there are many other choices I could have as well. I'm just a believer in letting the market figure this stuff out. I am much more concerned about the growing Apple monopoly than what my ISP does with their lines. If they can charge YouTube a few cents and lower my bill - so much the better.