U.S. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of FCC Net Neutrality Rules

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Jun 15, 2016.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    A U.S. appeals court yesterday upheld landmark federal rules preventing internet service providers from obstructing or slowing down consumer access to web content (via Reuters).

    The backing for the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules came in a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The outcome reaffirms the law enforced last year that says ISPs must treat all internet traffic equally.

    The rules prohibit broadband providers from giving or selling access to faster internet lanes for specific internet services, which the FCC claims will help protect freedom of expression and innovation on the internet.

    The court also rejected legal arguments from telecommunications industry groups that the rules should not apply to mobile phone web use or that they violated the constitutional free-speech rights of internet service providers.

    The court's decision in favor of the FCC means that it too considered the internet to be a public utility, and therefore subject to government regulations. White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the ruling "a victory for the open, fair, and free internet as we know it today," and one that barred service providers from becoming "paid gatekeepers".

    The outcome will also be seen as a personal victory for President Barack Obama, who is a strong advocate of net neutrality rules, although ISPs have already said they plan to appeal to either the full appellate court or the Supreme Court over the ruling. Telecoms industry groups have also said they will continue with efforts to get Congress to limit the FCC's authority.

    Netflix and Twitter were among the companies that praised the ruling, while Google and others have backed the rules. Democrats in Congress also lauded the decision to back the FCC rules, which have been in place since June 2015.

    However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group accused the FCC of "essentially transforming an entire industry... from an innovative, lightly regulated enterprise that made huge investments into this country, into a public utility subject to the whims of regulators."

    South Dakota Republican John Thune, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, said the decision upholds FCC restrictions "designed for the monopoly-telephone era" and asked the Republican-led Congress to step in to overturn a decision that results in "a highly political agency micromanaging the internet ecosystem."

    US Telecom, the telecommunications industry trade association that led the legal challenge, said the court failed to recognize "the significant legal failings" of the FCC rules that "we believe will replace a consumer-driven internet with a government-run internet, threatening innovation and investment in years to come."

    But FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler called the ruling "a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web" and claimed that it would ensure the internet remained "a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth."

    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: U.S. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of FCC Net Neutrality Rules
     
  2. MH01 macrumors G4

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #2
    Interesting . seems like a win for the average consumer or am I missing something ?
     
  3. phalseHUD macrumors regular

    phalseHUD

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Location:
    Digital Sprawl
    #3
    So Alphabet are against Net Neutrality...?
     
  4. Mac Fly (film) macrumors 65816

    Mac Fly (film)

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    That FCC badge looks like an effort from a baked student.
     
  5. goobot macrumors 603

    goobot

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    long island NY
    #5
    No, it says they backed it.
     
  6. Glassed Silver macrumors 68000

    Glassed Silver

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    Kassel, Germany
    #6
    Wow, the audacity these scumbags have...

    Glassed Silver:mac
     
  7. CFreymarc Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #7
    Keep wondering of this ruling will create a separate "elite net" that is not part of the Internet, funded by big boys, orders of magnitude faster than current bandwidth, gets the subscription money and leaves the existing Internet as a ghetto of ner-do-wells.
     
  8. Jax44 macrumors 6502a

    Jax44

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Location:
    Carmel, California
    #8
    They will find some way to screw us. If they can't charge for faster lanes, they will up the cost across the board.

    Oh yeah, Apple is doomed, arrogant and fire Tim Cook.
     
  9. CFreymarc Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #9
    If anything, net neutrality will create a market for compression codecs. While the same data rate is the same, the relevant data send varies from service to service.
     
  10. LordBeelzebub macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    #10
    I say yay to net neutrality, because you know these scumbag greedy ISP's are always trying to find ways to pick more money from our pockets. And you know they are willing to show favoritism via "fast lanes" for people who are willing to slip more money into their wallets at the expense of other companies who don't or can't afford to. It's funny how Netflix supports net neutrality and this ruling when they where one of the first scumbags to work a deal to get the advantage of faster speeds over others.
     
  11. jayducharme macrumors 68030

    jayducharme

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    The thick of it
    #11
    So there really isn't a victory yet. The telecoms will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

    That's exactly what it is, Thune! How many people have choice about their ISP? In most communities, it's a monopoly just like in the old days.
     
  12. H2SO4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #12
    I’m not sure of my stance here. I’m asking my self how this is any different from Toll routes on roads that governments primarily operate.
     
  13. Glideslope Suspended

    Glideslope

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    NY
    #13
    This is how I see the outcome. It will be a while though. :apple:
     
  14. H2SO4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #14
    Me too. Large scale VPN.
     
  15. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #15
    Lmao "the whims of regulators"... what, so like, looking out for the average person? I bet they hate unions too.
     
  16. 2457282 Suspended

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    #16
    So this is sort of good IMO. If we break things up into 3 parts, we can see that providers like Netflix live in the first part serving up content. They have to build and pay for the connection into the telco. This first part is not covered by any current net nutrality, meaning that we see disputes from time to time as providers and telcos argue over connection fees and bandwidth. Netflix was the primary voice on this issue a couple of years back. The second part is the telco, which is the only thing covered by nutrality. Once the providers get into the telco pipe, then we cannot treat one data packet any different than any other data packet. How does this affect Tmob and the binge on program, I wonder. The third part is the connection to the consumer. Here, very clearly we see that we have to pay for different speeds and for data caps, so nothing neutral about that.

    Looking at this in those three parts, saying the middle "pipe" between the provider and consumer should be neutral makes sense to me so I applaud this ruling.
     
  17. Amazing Iceman macrumors 68040

    Amazing Iceman

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Location:
    Florida, U.S.A.
    #17
    Superficially, it sounds good. The resulting product is yet to be seen. It may end the ISPs interest in improving bandwidth, and just conforming to slow internet.

    Would this mean everyone will get the same internet speed, without the option to have higher speeds?

    If I could get 50 / 50 mbps for $ 20.00/ month, I would be very happy! :D
     
  18. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    I'm glad but it's foolish to assume that this really means anything. At the end of the day Comast will get bigger and bigger and U.S. Internet speeds will lag far behind other developed nations.
     
  19. BeefCake 15 macrumors 65816

    BeefCake 15

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Location:
    near Boston, MA
    #19
    How does that affect the current state of the last mile?
     
  20. Toutou macrumors 6502a

    Toutou

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #20
    Well, I dunno about you guys in the US, but I'd say that the government regulating any business is the exact opposite of freedom. Be it your local grocery store or your ISP.
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    How about airliners? If governments stop regulating Boeing and Airbus are you comfortable flying on their unregulated products?

    We are way too overregulated but not all regulation is bad.
     
  22. Renzatic, Jun 15, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016

    Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    If you want to know what the internet will be like governed under net neutrality, just look at the way it is now. It's always been run under the agreement that no one can screw with data streams for arbitrary or selfish reasons. When you pay for the internet, you get access to all the internet, period. You pay more to get a faster connection to it, but you don't pay more to get more.

    The alternative would be allowing Comcast to look at something like Netflix and say "hey, this thing's pretty popular, why aren't we making more money off of it", so they slow down the connection speed, then charge you an extra $4.99 a month to get access to their super special internet movie provider line. Or even worse, they permanently throttle Netflix over their network, so they can make their ultra fast by comparison Comcast Internet Movies service more appealing.
     
  23. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #23
    I disagree, most things need at least some minimal level of oversight to keep unscrupulous businesses from harming the public. Should the government have no oversight of a grocery store selling expired or bad food? Sure a box of expired Cheerios won't do much harm to anyone. However, what if said grocery store sources beef from another unscrupulous business and we also no longer have that evil government USDA/FDA oversight. What if that beef is tainted with mad cow disease, potentially causing incurable and fatal, creutzfeldt-jakob disease in people?
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    Exactly. Net Neutrality is basically the FCC telling the ISPs that the internet as it current exists is a major economic driver, and works wonderfully, so don't **** with it just so they can make extra money by throwing up artificial road blocks along the last mile.
     
  25. CFreymarc Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    #25
    I know of people running numbers on business plans for not just a "fast lane" but an entire Internet bypass where the big domains don't even delivery content via the Internet but by an "elite net" that is not subject to Net Neutrality rules at all.

    The control channel could be Internet but the full blast data would bypass the routers all together via shared leased lines right into cable companies similar to how long distance companies work these days.

    The prince may have won the castle but the merchants can still refuse to keep the route.
     

Share This Page