Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality; Sides with Comcast
by Brian Leahy, Apr 06, 2010 7:00pm PDTYahoo reports that a federal court panel of three judges side with Comcast and, by extension, other Internet service providers, when it declared that the Federal Communications Commission "lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks."
This affects gamers because it opens the door for gaming-related traffic to be treated differently as it uses more bandwidth than activities like e-mail or casual web browsing. The origins of this case date back to 2007 when Comcast was accused to blocking BitTorrent traffic on its broadband service.
The FCC wants to "prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser," while the ISPs want more control of what is utilizing available bandwidth.
Comcast appealed, claiming that the FCC didn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality after broadband was deregulated by the government during the Bush administration.
Some experts, like Free Press' Ben Scott, believe that this could lead the FCC to simply reclassify broadband as a regulated industry, giving the commission the authority to enforce net neutrality.
Yahoo has a good explanation as to why broadband providers might want to treat different kinds of Internet traffic differently.
The battle over the FCC's legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast's cable TV business.
The FCC has not disclosed its next course of action, but remains committed to net neutrality.
Chatty: Diablo III, Dragon's Dogma
FileShack: Unity of Command, Skyjacker
Daily Filter: Planetside 2, Deadlight
Weekend PC digital deals: strategy-o-rama
38 Studios, Harry Potter Kinect - Shacknews Daily: May 25, 2012
Minecraft for Xbox 360 dev working on 'Adventure' update
Demon's Souls servers extended again
Resident Evil: Chronicles HD Collection coming in June
Sony patent would interrupt gameplay to display ad
Weekend Confirmed 114 - Diablo 3, Max Payne 3, Lost Planet 3
Comments
it's like saying the government should make it illegal for companies to charge more to ship bigger packages
eventually we might just see low flat fee + charge per byte like other utilities
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 48 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 8 replies.
They just ruled that the FCC can't enforce it without an actual law being in the books. So now, the ball is in Congress' court to drum up the interest to work on a bill. And at this point, it's not likely because there are too many Senators and Reps in the pockets of telecoms (who want to kill net neutrality), and very few major corporations with any lobbying power that want net neutrality free. Maybe Google wants net neutrality, but they aren't really big on lobbying.
I wouldn't expect anything to get better until it gets a lot worse. Get ready for Comcast to charge customers to use Skype over its own phone services - or just charge Skype directly, maybe.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 10 replies.
In both states I have lived there was never an option for your communications service. You either take it or leave it (and I think there was a law against having utility connections without a phone line? You had to take it!) I pay more for internet and basic phone (no TV) than I do for electric and gas combined? Why don't the rules for a monopoly apply here? What happened to Ma-Bell? Legal discussion is encouraged! I'd rather spend that money on universal health-care than cable-internet! Hahahaha, oh man, I think my father was part troll. But to keep on topic: How many people actually have a choice for internet providers?
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 16 replies.
The whole thing is just a mess.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 9 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 6 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 13 replies.
And all it takes is for all ISP's to hop on board simultaneously so the extra fees are garunteed for all of them. Try finding a cable provider that doesn't operate by contract. To my knowledge they don't exist. It's all about extra revenue to serve the bottom line to the company period.
Not that being profitable is a bad thing. But these people go overboard. Sign up for a 12 month contract and when you go to cancel at the end you find out they switched you to a 24 month contract without telling you and if you want to cancel there is a $300 early cancelation fee. Ridiculus stuff like that. But they ALL do it so where else are you going to go?
It could easily happen with charging gamers more for using more bandwidth.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 6 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 5 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
I just did a paper on the topic for my graduate degree. Here are a few very good papers that address all angles of the issue.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1564055/NETWORK%20NEUTRALITY%2C%20BROADBAND.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1564055/A%20CONSUMER-WELFARE%20APPROACH%20TO.pdf
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 5 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
Yeah, mission accomplished! Your reputation is fine now. Oh wait, it's not. It's definitely not.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.