Free Press Group Challenges FCC 'Net Neutrality' Rules

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Public interest group Free Press filed a petition for review in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Wednesday, challenging U.S. Internet rules set to go into effect November 20.

The rules, adopted last December by the Federal Communications Commission and published in the Federal Register last week, forbid broadband providers from blocking legal content but leave flexibility for providers to manage their networks.

Free Press said it will challenge provisions of the rules that leave more flexibility for wireless broadband.

"Our challenge will show that there is no evidence in the record to justify this arbitrary distinction between wired and wireless Internet access," said Matt Wood, policy director for Free Press.

(Reporting by Jasmin Melvin, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Comments

[Politics Matters]

09:57 PM on 09/30/2011

On the subject of net neutrality, Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, recently said: “It’s a debate that is going on in the Congress, and it’s really: Is the Internet going to be something that everyone has free and open access to, or, is it going to be something that is sort of controlled? What we don’t need is a lot of government control in the businesses of the internet. I think what we need is more of what we have with National Public Radio, which is a really true and balanced set of reporting that unfortunately has become politicized. What we are seeing is a shift from “anything goes” on the Internet to a shift where major corporations are shaping the news outlets and buying up more and more of the news outlets and putting them under corporate control and one set of a small number of hands.... We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.” (Gibson appeared on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism http://bit.ly/pm-gibson)

[markIDGCONNECT]

09:49 AM on 09/30/2011

The Internet might of lacked definitive ownership at its conception, but piece-by-piece, it is being commodified. To suggest that it is 'for the people' is illusory. State controls and financial powers are filling it out.

Mark at http://www.idgconnect.com/blog

[Liz Pierce]

08:16 AM on 09/30/2011

On November 20, just 53 days from today, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) will unconstitutionally
seize control of the Internet through their Net Neutrality
regulations.

Not only will the move destroy one of the last, great
free-market frontiers our nation and the world has ever
seen, but the move will also kill an estimated 100,000
to 200,000 real jobs -- not to be confused with the fake
jobs created by President Obama and his socialist cronies.

is this okay with everyone???

[Shere]

01:41 PM on 09/30/2011

It'd be better for your argument to steer clear of erroneously labeling the President as a socialist.

Mainly because it's a ludicrous charge.

[Liz Pierce]

04:06 PM on 09/30/2011

I called his cronies socialists...

[WESTistheman]

11:28 AM on 09/29/2011

If the Progressives / Socialists are in favor of this, which they are, it can only mean that it will lead to more govt power and control of what is available to the public. And guess what? The govt will decide what is good for us and what is bad. One freedom at a time is their plan.

[baldguy]

02:39 PM on 09/29/2011

I think that means you don't have a clue. Why don't you do some research on the subject before you make uninformed statements and decisions? You might learn something...

[knoxvillegirl]

02:53 AM on 09/30/2011

I'm going to bet West is too young to know any real history, here. Oh, and he clearly does not understand Net Neutrality. Not to bash him only though, there are far too many otherwise well-educated people that can't grasp the fact that they should be very concerned about the implications.

[edenooch]

10:43 AM on 09/29/2011

cell phone and data access are NOT necessities. its luxury. every one has a cell phone. its matter of how nice is it. u need iphone 6 or u can only afford nokia 7000 with black and white screen

[knoxvillegirl]

02:54 AM on 09/30/2011

You think this is about cell phones....LOL....really?

[Anthony Abney]

01:09 PM on 09/30/2011

This has nothing to do with cell phone data. How do you think the internet is going to be for HOME use in the next 10-20 years? Its primarily going to be wireless. Unless of course, corporations get their way with net neutrality laws. Then it will strangulate technological innovation because people will be wary to switch to wireless providers because they will all have terrible restrictions and less freedoms.

[Jeff Parfitt]

10:02 AM on 09/29/2011

If it's legal, it should be free. I have no problem with providers banning or blocking content that is illegal, but when it comes to things like this, it's a very slippery slope that leads to America turning into China, where information is limited and the people are left uninformed. Where do you draw the line? And who comes up with the line? What stops one company from blocking anything to do with a competitor, or anything to do with it's own problems? Information should be free and available to anybody who seeks it.

[lucy padin]

06:33 AM on 09/29/2011

Call it what you want It's just another noose around freedom of your 1st amendment and more pocket change for those greedy despicable monopolistic monsters

[BoFo]

05:33 AM on 09/29/2011

Land-line telephone service providers are considered public utilities (as are natural gas, electricity, and water providers) and are regulated as such because they are vital necessities, require extensive infrastructure, and are thus monopolistic by nature.

Wake up -- it's the 21st century and wireless and Internet access are just as vital to communication as land-line telephones.

Cellular service and Internet service providers should, therefore, also be considered public utilities and regulated as such.

The Alliance for Customers’ Telecommunications & Broadband Rights is a great source of information on this and other telecommunications issues:

http://www.teletruth.org/

http://breakupatt.com/

[Chaton de Malheur]

12:21 AM on 09/29/2011

The internet was created by the government, so technically, doesn't it belong to the taxpayers? The only limitations regarding its use should be to protect the consumer from the greed of ISP's, who basically built an industry around a free toy that they didn't have to design. It should be illegal to slow down a connection deliberately to extort higher fees, filter information based on advertising contracts, and arbitrarily block access to certain sites that offend their moral or political sensibilities. IT'S OUR INTERNET!!!

[leftword]

11:01 AM on 09/29/2011

Excellent points. I agree 100%: the Internet belongs to the people.

[edejan]

12:45 AM on 09/30/2011

Exactly!!

[MIKEinNYC]

10:43 PM on 09/28/2011

There should be no regulation of internet content. The phone company doesn't tell me who I can call. The car companies don't tell me where I can drive. And the internet providers should have no say whatsoever as to how I use the internet.

[Zachary Edwards]

11:09 PM on 09/28/2011

The phone company does tell you who you can and can't call. International calls cost more, for example. Long distances for land lines, roaming charges for cell phones (or call limits), blocked numbers...

Car companies don't tell you where you can drive, but the government does regulate that. Speed limits, parking restrictions, licensing and regulations galore.

I don't disagree with you saying that ISP's shouldn't regulate internet usage, I just think your examples are wrong.

[tooncesrocks]

09:07 PM on 09/28/2011

"manage their networks"

TRANSLATION:

$crew you six ways to sunday

[Chaton de Malheur]

12:22 AM on 09/29/2011

You got it. F&F 'cause I love me some Toonces!

[gmgl]

03:44 AM on 09/29/2011

yep, translation "you will only get to see content they get paid to let you see and want you to see"

[nomac]

07:58 PM on 09/28/2011

....."blocking legal content".....read as content from corporate sponsors ...-or-... unsanctioned (unprofitable?) user data transfer....

just a thought...