Circuit Court Of Appeals Strikes Down FCC’s Open Internet Order

[Sitting Out]

For now, isp's are put in position to ban sites and throttle back sites like Netflisx that up to now was barred by the fcc. Beginning of the end of the internet as we know it:

In a decision that could have far-reaching consequences, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down the FCC’s Open Internet Order. That Order, put into force in 2010 by then-chairman Julius Genachowski, was designed to make it so that broadband service providers couldn’t meddle with specific kinds of internet traffic – in other words, they couldn’t block certain kinds of online data transmission just because it didn’t align with their own goals and financial strategy.

Media watchdog and advocacy agency Free Press released the following statement about the decision via President and CEO Craig Aaron, condemning it while also acknowledging that the Open Internet Order probably wasn’t the best possible solution for enforcing net neutrality:

We’re disappointed that the court came to this conclusion. 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.

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.

The FCC — under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski — made a grave mistake when it 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. That’s why we need to fix the problems the agency could have avoided in the first place.

New FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently stated that the FCC must have the ability to protect broadband users and preserve the Internet’s fundamental open architecture. In order to do that, he must act quickly to restore reassert the FCC’s clear authority over our nation’s communications infrastructure. The agency must follow its statutory mandate to make broadband communications networks open, accessible, reliable and affordable for everyone.

We look forward to working with Chairman Wheeler and the rest of the Commission to protect and preserve real Net Neutrality.

Basically, the key takeaway for the above is that while the Open Internet Order was far from perfect, it was pretty much the only tattered barrier standing in the way of providers like Verizon decided what can and can’t be transmitted across its broadband data network, and now Free Press foresees providers moving to a model more like that they favor with cable TV, where content types are parcelled out and monetized piecemeal.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/fcc...r-struck-down/

[DirtyB]

For now, isp's are put in position to ban sites and throttle back sites like Netflisx that up to now was barred by the fcc. Beginning of the end of the internet as we know it:

In a decision that could have far-reaching consequences, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down the FCC’s Open Internet Order. That Order, put into force in 2010 by then-chairman Julius Genachowski, was designed to make it so that broadband service providers couldn’t meddle with specific kinds of internet traffic – in other words, they couldn’t block certain kinds of online data transmission just because it didn’t align with their own goals and financial strategy.

Media watchdog and advocacy agency Free Press released the following statement about the decision via President and CEO Craig Aaron, condemning it while also acknowledging that the Open Internet Order probably wasn’t the best possible solution for enforcing net neutrality:

We’re disappointed that the court came to this conclusion. 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.

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.

The FCC — under the leadership of former Chairman Julius Genachowski — made a grave mistake when it 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. That’s why we need to fix the problems the agency could have avoided in the first place.

New FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler recently stated that the FCC must have the ability to protect broadband users and preserve the Internet’s fundamental open architecture. In order to do that, he must act quickly to restore reassert the FCC’s clear authority over our nation’s communications infrastructure. The agency must follow its statutory mandate to make broadband communications networks open, accessible, reliable and affordable for everyone.

We look forward to working with Chairman Wheeler and the rest of the Commission to protect and preserve real Net Neutrality.

Basically, the key takeaway for the above is that while the Open Internet Order was far from perfect, it was pretty much the only tattered barrier standing in the way of providers like Verizon decided what can and can’t be transmitted across its broadband data network, and now Free Press foresees providers moving to a model more like that they favor with cable TV, where content types are parcelled out and monetized piecemeal.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/14/fcc...r-struck-down/

That's unfairly harsh to former FCC Chairman Genachowski. The only other real option to the Open Internet Order that just got shot down was to designate ISP as "common carriers" like the phone company. From my understanding, doing that would prevent ISP from being able to ban users for spamming or DOSing, and create a bunch of other regulatory problems.

I'm obviously a defender of net neutrality, but we do need to address the fact that Netflix and YouTube are absolutely crushing the US networks. Netflix is 28% of all data. YouTube is 17%. BitTorrent is 7%. iTunes is 3%. Facebook, Amazon video, and Hulu, are less than 1.5% each. For comparison, all HTTP traffic, all of the text and non-graphic content on every other web page, is 9%. The ISPs are forced to spend a lot of money expanding network capacity to accommodate Netflix and YouTube traffic, without seeing any real return on that investment.

The bullshit part of this court decision, that I'm hoping gets it tossed on appeal, was the judge citing consumer choice of ISPs as justification for the ruling. Theoretically, if one ISP is gouging you for access to YouTube, you could just go to another ISP with lower fees. He might be the only person in America under the impression that there is legitimate competition between ISPs.

[nunbeater]

Can't wait for Google fiber.

[DirtyB]

Can't wait for Google fiber.

They're everyone's hope. Google is a supporter of net neutrality when it's hugely useful to them (due to YouTube). But if they were a major ISP and net neutrality was dead and buried, they would be in a position to do some very shady things. Type in www.itunes.com- go to the Google Play store. I can't really see them doing that, but they could.

The biggest obstacle for Google Fiber is the hugely varying local ordinances on telecom infrastructure. The towns that have Google Fiber now had municipally owned dark fiber in the ground that Google just had to buy or lease. Many town have municipally owned conduits, that telecom companies can pay to run their own cabling through. That's a lot of work blowing new fiber through those conduits, but Google could do it. But a lot of towns saved money by allowing telecom companies to put conduits in the ground and then own the whole deal. Those companies wouldn't sell space in those conduits to Google for any price. Google's only option would be recreating work that the other companies have spent 30 years doing.

[Walter Sobchak]

Fucking terrible

[Sitting Out]

Can't wait for Google fiber.

They're everyone's hope. Google is a supporter of net neutrality when it's hugely useful to them (due to YouTube). But if they were a major ISP and net neutrality was dead and buried, they would be in a position to do some very shady things. Type in www.itunes.com- go to the Google Play store. I can't really see them doing that, but they could.

The biggest obstacle for Google Fiber is the hugely varying local ordinances on telecom infrastructure. The towns that have Google Fiber now had municipally owned dark fiber in the ground that Google just had to buy or lease. Many town have municipally owned conduits, that telecom companies can pay to run their own cabling through. That's a lot of work blowing new fiber through those conduits, but Google could do it. But a lot of towns saved money by allowing telecom companies to put conduits in the ground and then own the whole deal. Those companies wouldn't sell space in those conduits to Google for any price. Google's only option would be recreating work that the other companies have spent 30 years doing.

You made me think. I'm conneted to comcast via cable, but use comcast only for tv; I don't use comcast for my isp, I use another provider (but still use comcast's infrastructure to get to my isp.) So my question is, if you can answer it, what does it take to create your "own" isp? I can think once an isp starts throttling streams, my "neighborhood" isp could step up. Just thinking out loud...

[sonatine]

They're everyone's hope. Google is a supporter of net neutrality when it's hugely useful to them (due to YouTube). But if they were a major ISP and net neutrality was dead and buried, they would be in a position to do some very shady things. Type in www.itunes.com- go to the Google Play store. I can't really see them doing that, but they could.

The biggest obstacle for Google Fiber is the hugely varying local ordinances on telecom infrastructure. The towns that have Google Fiber now had municipally owned dark fiber in the ground that Google just had to buy or lease. Many town have municipally owned conduits, that telecom companies can pay to run their own cabling through. That's a lot of work blowing new fiber through those conduits, but Google could do it. But a lot of towns saved money by allowing telecom companies to put conduits in the ground and then own the whole deal. Those companies wouldn't sell space in those conduits to Google for any price. Google's only option would be recreating work that the other companies have spent 30 years doing.

You made me think. I'm conneted to comcast via cable, but use comcast only for tv; I don't use comcast for my isp, I use another provider (but still use comcast's infrastructure to get to my isp.) So my question is, if you can answer it, what does it take to create your "own" isp? I can think once an isp starts throttling streams, my "neighborhood" isp could step up. Just thinking out loud...

peering, an ASN, an IP block delegation from ARIN would be requisites id imagine you could not avoid. the ASN would be easy enough of course, the ARIN block is also mostly a matter of process and procedure, but peering these days is largely a product of politics, personal networking, and reputation.