Today, A Federal Appeals Court Killed Free Speech On The Internet

[NickNitro]

What do you guys think?

Today, a federal appeals court handed over control of free speech on the Internet to a handful of companies. This is why it matters.

A federal appeals court ruled that the FCC can no longer enforce which websites Verizon and all other broadband providers can favor, limit access to, or outright block — even if it’s to prop up a service or website of their own.

This is not a binary political issue. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue.

This is naked corporate greed. It is a bunch of companies who want to control the largest free information platform in the world.

There is nothing good that an individual can derive from this decision. Nothing.

Before someone tells you otherwise, Internet service providers’ backs were not against the wall in any way. “Bandwidth congestion” is not real. It costs just as much money, if not more money, to cap the data flowing through your broadband connection as it does to serve it to you. Data caps are solely a money-making construct.

Average connection speeds in South Korea are twice as fast as those in the United States. That gap will grow even wider now. This ruling is anti-competitive for American business on a global level.

Tech giants Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Yahoo have come out against rulings like this in the past. Instead, the decision favors companies with access to pipelines, like Comcast. It will help them use the Internet as a marketing tool for its other ventures, like NBC Universal.


http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/fcc-free-speech-ruling

 

[enterthemadness]

There's a thread for this in the politics forum, but I hope this stays open here. This NEEDS more attention.

I already signed one petition today from I think Free Press. It's surreal...I've been following this for year and years, since MySpace was still a thing to go to...it's just...I kinda can't believe it finally happened. Now we're at the mercy of companies like Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, etc and hope they don't block sites or slow down sites.

 

[NickNitro]

no one goes into the politics forums....unless they want to get banned lol

Can you break it down for us simpletons (like me) enterthe?

 

[enterthemadness]

no one goes into the politics forums....unless they want to get banned lol

Can you break it down for us simpletons (like me) enterthe?

Yes. Um, it means the ISP's (Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, etc whoever you get internet from) can basically do whatever they want. Charge more, slow down speeds on sites or services they do not like. Maybe even make deals, exclusive windows.

You see, ISPs hate the idea that they’re nothing more than providers of “dumb pipes.” Now that they are free from any legal restraints, the ISPs will try to get Internet companies to pay extra tolls—and threaten to block or delay them if they don’t. Exclusive deals could become the norm, with AT&T exclusively bringing you Netflix, while Comcast is the sole source for YouTube.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...uling-mean-the-end-of-the-internet-maybe.html

A petition that goes to the FCC telling them to take action.

http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_FCC_court_decision2/?source=huffpo

 

[Superwoman Prime]

What motive would they have for slowing down what sites, exactly? They still need to keep customers happy for business.

 

[enterthemadness]

What motive would they have for slowing down what sites, exactly? They still need to keep customers happy for business.

Comcast owns part of Hulu...one poster on here said he could count on his hand how many times Netflix streamed in HD on his Comcast internet. Verizon, has said they are for a open internet, but that remains to be seen.

ISP's could come out now with cable like plans. It's just about greed. Yeah, every ISP has different plans already for connection speeds and what not. But now they can include websites. Ex: Sports packages, video streaming etc

 

[NickNitro]

Do you think this is because cable companies are losing money? More people are streaming shows/movies than buying cable packages? Couldn't this just be a ploy to earn back some of their loses.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Do you think this is because cable companies are losing money? More people are streaming shows/movies than buying cable packages? Couldn't this just be a ploy to earn back some of their loses.

Even if that was the case for Comcast should it really matter to any of us? Besides Verizon hasn't been in the TV game for very long anyways.

 

[Destructus86]

It means they can lower your connection speed for things like Netflix and Hulu. They may also decide to lower your connection for gaming because it eats up too much bandwidth for them.

All the major companies have been wanting to this for a long time.

Can we PLEASE have a violent uprising now? That's what this country was founded on.

 

[Marvolo]

Charter is doubling their internet speed at the end of this month (60 mbs) so im not concerned about this. This is a capitalist free market country. There is supply and demand. And there is competition. Companies who want to keep customers and stay in business have zero incentive to slash internet speeds when other companies are driving them up.

 

[Teelie]

It's not as bad as it seems. There's still a chance the FCC can get its act together. They still have jurisdiction over internet access and can rephrase the law to pass muster. See Nick? I'm not always a Buzz Killington.

The court left part of the Open Internet Order intact, however, saying that the FCC still has "general authority" to regulate how broadband providers treat traffic.

[...]

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the commission might appeal the ruling. “The DC Circuit has correctly held that ‘Section 706 . . . vests [the Commission] with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure’ and therefore may ‘promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic," Wheeler said in a written statement. "I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment. We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

Consumer advocacy group Free Press lamented the ruling. “We’re disappointed that the court came to this conclusion," Free Press CEO Craig Aaron said in a written statement. "Its 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."

Aaron further blamed former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who "made a grave mistake when [his Commission] failed to ground its open Internet rules on solid legal footing. Internet users will pay dearly for the previous chairman’s lack of political will."

Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge offered similar thoughts, while urging the FCC to come up with new rules that meet legal muster. "[T]he Court did uphold broad Commission authority to regulate broadband," Public Knowledge Senior VP Harold Feld said. "To exercise that authority, the FCC must craft open Internet protection that are not full fledged common carrier rules. Alternatively, if the FCC needs broader authority it can classify broadband as a title 2 common carrier service. Both of these are viable options. In fact, Public Knowledge has long held that both broadband is a telecommunications service, and that the modest protections offered by the Open Internet rules fall well short of full common carrier regulations."

Ars Technica

 

[NickNitro]

Nooooooo Teelie!!!! Don't kill my thread too!!!!!!!!

Nice I'm glad that it isn't set in stone just yet.

 

[Teelie]

I've been keeping my eye on this for as long as enterthemadness has and while it's a defeat it's not entirely a defeat. It's more like a set back.

 

[NickNitro]

Well I'm glad some of us have. Like me I just regurgitate popular news onto the SHH with little to know research.

 

[Teelie]

I keep up with technology news on a daily basis so I'm a bit more knowledgeable about some of the stories that come up. Whereas DJ just finds the most bizarre stuff that people do and posts it for all of us to be amazed at.

 

[NickNitro]

Lol and to continually hate on FL

 

[Teelie]

All of those articles and somehow the state of Florida still hasn't been banned.

 

[enterthemadness]

All of those articles and somehow the state of Florida still hasn't been banned.

Florida and I are unmanageable on the Hype.

 

[Teelie]

And this is why it's too early to call free speech on the internet dead.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler today said the commission will take another shot at preventing abusive practices by ISPs after the commission's Open Internet Order was vacated Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

[...]

Despite vacating the anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules, the court said the FCC has general authority "to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic." The court remanded the case back to the commission, perhaps inviting it to rewrite the Open Internet Order in a way that puts it on a solid legal footing.

"The court invited the commission to act, and I intend to accept that invitation," Wheeler said today at a conference hosted by the Minority Media & Telecom Council. (C-Span has video of the speech.) "Using our authority we will readdress the concepts in the Open Internet Order, as the court invited, to encourage growth and innovation and enforce against abuse."

Wheeler didn't detail any specific ways in which the FCC might prevent abuse. But he said he is encouraged by "expressions from many Internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the Open Internet Order's concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission."

[...]

Besides rewriting the Open Internet Order, it's possible Wheeler could seek new voluntary agreements with ISPs as he did when he cajoled wireless carriers into promising to unlock out-of-contract phones. Whatever happens, the FCC's attempt to maintain a level playing field on the Internet will likely end up a watered-down version of its former self.

Consumer advocacy group Free Press argued today that the only good option left is reclassifying broadband as a common carrier service. Without doing so, the FCC might be able to force ISPs to disclose the fact that they are blocking services, but couldn't actually prevent the blocking, Free Press wrote.

Ars Technica

 

[NickNitro]

Sign the petition Google has going please. Anyone who wants to fight this regardless of technicality. We need to nip this in the butt. Let your voice be heard.

https://www.google.com/takeaction/?...&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=20140116fbP