Federal Court Ruling a Blow to "Net Neutrality"
Thursday 08 April 2010
by: Kyle Berlin, t r u t h o u t | Report

(Photo: amberlynnlane; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
In a blow to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and supporters of net neutrality, the Federal Appeals Court in DC ruled unanimously on Tuesday that the FCC cannot interfere in the management of networks run by telecommunications companies.
The case, Comcast v. FCC, was brought to court when a number of Comcast broadband customers who were using peer-to-peer file sharing services found that their Internet service was being restricted. Comcast has complained that peer-to-peer networking sites, like BitTorrent, use up large amounts of bandwidth and that the company has a right to restrict access to them.
Supporters of net neutrality, who believe that no web sites or applications should be given preference over others, argue that telecommunications companies could use the ruling as a precedent to broadly restrict access to certain sites or services, or restrict certain users.
"As a result of this decision, the FCC has virtually no power to stop Comcast from blocking Web sites," said S. Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, one of the nonprofit advocacy groups that filed the original complaint with the FCC.
"The decision has forced the FCC into an existential crisis, leaving the agency unable to protect consumers in the broadband marketplace," he said.
Comcast applauded the ruling. "Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation," said Vice President of Government Communications Sena Fitzmaurice in a statement. "Comcast remains committed to the FCC's existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet."
The ruling comes only weeks after the release of the National Broadband Plan, a major initiative by the FCC to focus government resources on expanding access to broadband services, especially in rural areas, open up broadcast spectrum for wireless devices and give consumers the option of purchasing a set-top box through which Internet and cable services would be run.
According to The New York Times, about a third of Americans do not own or do not have access to high-speed Internet services.
As the use of broadband Internet has expanded, telecommunications companies like Comcast and AT&T have been aggressive in trying to clearly demarcate just how much regulatory control the FCC has over Internet service.
In the ruling, the FCC acknowledged that there is not specific law or statute that grants them the power to intervene in the network management practices of Internet service providers. Instead, the FCC argument rested on the "ancillary" authority provision of the Communications Act, which says, "the Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders ... as may be necessary in the execution of its function."
Consumer advocacy groups worry that the ruling could pave the way for Comcast and other telecommunications companies to promote their own content and services at the expense of content and services that are not associated with the company. For example, access to video sharing sites like YouTube or Hulu might be restricted to encourage users to visit a company-associated video sharing service like Comcast On Demand.
Another fear is that the ruling could set a precedent for unrelated regulations, like requiring telecommunications companies to provide broadband access to remote areas, and could provide companies with ammunition to fight competition from set-top boxes that are not tied to one service provider. Without the ability to prevent companies from restricting access to certain sites or applications, the FCC will, "be unable to implement the National Broadband Plan," Turner said.
In response, the FCC could push Congress to give the Commission explicit regulatory power over the use of high-speed Internet, as Congress has granted in the past to the regulation of the radio and television industries.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Horrible news. The internet
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 11:45 — jack kane (not verified)Horrible news. The internet is one of the few things we the people have. The elites and the government have the media, the army, the cops, the schools, the judges, etc... Almost everything.
This is just another step towards hard fascism.
As the last bastion of
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:28 — RalphIng (not verified)As the last bastion of democracy comes under attack.
and this is a good thing.
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 04:32 — poptoy (not verified)and this is a good thing.
SMELL THE
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 04:54 — Anonymous (not verified)SMELL THE CORPORATACRACY..!!... ''WE THE PEOPLE'' my butt..!!... Now, its merely WE THE CONSUMERS who live in a Corporcratic Republic of the Corporate by the Corporate for the Corporate as Mediated and Accommodated by the US Congress of Corporate Facilitations and the US Federal and Supreme Courts of Corporate Considerations... All brought to US by Republicans and the NeoCONjobs over at the CONservative Media Empire and their 30 year long HOODWINKING effort to bring All of US ''Less Government'' (of the People) through ''Less Regulation'' (of everything Corporate) and ''Less Taxation'' (of the Global Corporate Wealthy Class)... All WE need now to top it all off ceremonially would be a FAT LADY draped in Flag Pins Standing before 10,000 U.S. Flags on Fairly Unbalanced Fux Snooze singing THE FALL OF THE REPUBLIC to cheering crowds of CONservative Media's vast Legions of HOODWINKEES as they cheer it on in the Fascist name of ''No More Socialism in America..!'.....
We should recognize the very
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:18 — Lizzy (not verified)We should recognize the very real possibility that not one single member of the Supreme Court has a CLUE about the meaning of bandwidth, Internet Protocol addressing, or anything else even semi-technical regarding the operation of the Internet. If I am right, they depend solely on lawyers to explain to them, probably metaphorically, what this all MEANS. And that means that whoever hires the slickest lawyers WINS. Given that the slickest lawyers demand the highest incomes, we should then understand this ruling; for Comcast is likely to have more money to pay the most talented and slickest lawyers than does the FCC or any other "agency of the People" (which we cannot even trust them to be, anymore).
This is a serious and very different problem than an attempted "free" society has been faced with before--in a world that "progresses" exponentially faster than ever before. We don't even have the TIME to teach the younger generations what they are "doing" with the technological "toys" they are being given, much less go back and teach a previous generation or two.
This is what some wise humans need to be sitting around conference tables discussing, and a problem that must be solved if we are not to return to a purely "lords and serfs" society.