More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Timothy Karr

Timothy Karr

Posted: April 7, 2010 01:35 PM

Net Neutrality -- The Fight Ahead

What's Your Reaction:

"The Day the Internet Lost" read a full-banner headline on Huffington Post yesterday. The New York Times held a wake for the Internet reporting that Internet service providers can now "block or slow specific sites" and demand that content producers now "pay a fee to ensure delivery of material."

On Tuesday, the DC Circuit of the Federal Appeals Court took away the Federal Communications Commission's to protect our rights on the Internet. The decision has been widely reported as the end of an era for America's Internet. But what does the future hold? And what can we do to keep the Internet open and democratic?

The ruling echoes the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision, which amounted to a judicial giveaway of our democracy to powerful corporations. Yesterday's court decision effectively hands the future of communications over to corporations like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable.

This is bad news on several fronts:

Broadband Ambitions Sidelined: High-speed Internet access is a central component to our economic recovery. Putting high-speed Internet into the hands of the third of the country that now does not connect is Priority #1 of the FCC's National Broadband Plan. The court decision pulls the carpet from beneath the agency's plan, effectively leaving this essential job to companies that have failed -- by almost every international measure -- to deliver a fast and affordable services to Americans stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The End of Openness: The decision could mark the beginning of America's Broadband Dark Age. The court ruled that the FCC has no right to stop carriers from developing a two-tier Internet and blocking Web content that they don't like. They've already indicated their interest in prioritizing certain content over others. As The Economist reported yesterday an ISP could simply "decide to hijack all search queries... and redirect them to its own search site so it could harvest the extra hits, even when users were attempting to use Google or other search engines." Nice!

It's Now Their Internet, Not Yours: The decision could bring us a world where Internet users no longer have control over their Internet experience -- where we have no protections against ISPs that abuse our Internet rights at will and without repercussions. Increasingly AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have sought to encroach upon user choice online. Net Neutrality is essential to keeping the future of communications in the hands of all Americans -- and preventing ISPs from picking winners and losers on the Web. We've just lost that guarantee and it's only a matter of time before the Great Encroachment begins.

But don't give up hope. There's a way out of this legal mess. The easiest route to restore an open Internet is for the FCC to simply vote to reclassify broadband under Title 2 of the Communications Act. This move would return to the agency the powers to protect consumers that it had before Bush-era deregulation struck it down.

Other remedies include a Supreme Court appeal or congressional legislation but, as Prof. Jack Balkin notes, such actions run the risk of a conservative Supreme Court that appears to favor corporations over the public interest. And a move in Congress would require 60 votes from a Senate where passing anything is nearly impossible - much less on an issue over which broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast wield a corrupting level of influence in both parties.

The FCC, however, could reclassify by a simple majority vote of commissioners. Chairman Genachowski has made protecting the open Internet a signature effort of his tenure. He has the support of the majority of FCC commissioners on that. He should now move to reclassify with a simple vote at the agency.

Moreover, the Supreme Court case has specifically said the decision to reclassify is up to the FCC, and as long as the Commission gives good reasons for its choice to do so, that action should be upheld in the courts.

Makes sense, right? That's why Free Press is pushing full throttle to embolden the FCC to reclassify in a way that allows it to protect Net Neutrality and fulfill the universal access goals envisioned in its National Broadband Plan. (You can join the action here)

In the world of wonky telecommunications policy, reclassification -- or returning the Internet to its legal status prior to Bush-era deregulation -- is tantamount to declaring World War III with the phone and cable lobby.

That's a fight that we're ready to have right now. The future of open communications depends upon it.

 

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
08:31 PM on 04/09/2010
Firstly, I’d love to see more objective reporting. The New York Times holding a wake for the internet for some reason strikes me as slightly biased. Secondly, the point I take issue with is trying to get all ISPs to handle traffic the same. Do you watch videos on Youtube? How about downloading large files? The net neutrality regulations, as proposed, will force ISPs to handle all traffic the same. Your downloading will take forever, and you will go through long lag and loading times when watching videos. What ISPs currently do is manage their traffic to allow it to flow smoothly. Blocking content they don’t like crosses the line, of course, but there are other ways to handle it than forcing them to stop managing their networks altogether.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AltonEDrew
Managing Director, The Alton Drew Group LLC
02:25 PM on 04/09/2010
The court’s net neutrality decision was the right one

Free Press, as expected, railed against Tuesday’s court decision that found the FCC has no authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices. The decision ultimately means that consumers, especially minorities who have yet to adopt broadband, will not face the tremendous increases in broadband prices a net neutrality policy would have assuredly brought about.

The FCC just might try to reclassify Internet services as a common carrier service. I wonder though, has anyone bothered to ask why they didn’t take this allegedly reasonable and legal course in the first place?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
K377
02:25 PM on 04/09/2010
I generally disagree with your analysis of this case. While the court found that the Commission did not make the proper showing to justify ancillary jurisdiction in this instance because the Commission did not connect the asserted jurisdiction to a specific Congressionally delegated duty, the court did not close the door on the Commission’s ability to exercise ancillary jurisdiction in the future. The court clarified, and limited, the Commissions ability to assert ancillary authority to instances where it can be connected to an underlying Congressional mandate. This result is not that different from previous cases. Now that the Commission knows the limits of its jurisdiction, it could still make the showing that they have ancillary jurisdiction based on one of the directives found in Titles II, III, or VI.
lastpost
see biography
07:38 AM on 04/08/2010
“what can we do to keep the Internet open and democratic”
Netcott? The interweb equivalent of boycott. Form an alliance, that will only deal with an operator that maintains the standards demanded by customers.

“The future of open communications depends upon it.”
If not the future of humanity itself.
04:51 AM on 04/08/2010
And a move in Congress would require 60 votes from a Senate where passing anything is nearly impossible - much less on an issue over which broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast wield a corrupting level of influence in both parties.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so sure. Couldn't such a change - which I think is rather benign in terms of legislative work or size - could be attached onto an other much greater and more important bill as an amendment?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greg0658
04:09 AM on 04/08/2010
"It's Now Their Internet Not Yours" .. that got me signed in an will get me started .. funny thing about capitalism of services - and not things - and not all things either - some things you buy it with limited rights
.. back to the statement .. Customers buy the service and build its existance - and even provide profit (super-salary at least) for ceos and boards and shareholders (in that order) - but you are only renting the service not buying it - sort of like owning a home kids
.. now I'll deverge back into my business stance - I understand the volume in the pipeline issue - I understand the free speech issue this www is now in possession of for us 5th estateers

we have a content glut going on folks - and we are paying for all of it whether we see it or not - Products Cost More (hype* supposedly needed to bring it to us) (sure its some persons job & for sure its earth waste)

* Ads in tv, radio, newspaper, newspaper flyer inserts, magazines, junk snail mail, internet electricity & spacebytes

I'm so sorry I didn't (can't) build you a stronger ship .. rip Titanic
photo
GoldStarMom
Reading is Fundamentalism ... in Texas.
12:34 AM on 04/08/2010
Signed and sent.
11:57 PM on 04/07/2010
Hey, now that healthcare was deemed a right by some mystical logic, let's make internet a right too! Why not. Maybe everything should be a right. Unless you're on the right. Then you're a racist and have no rights.
01:42 AM on 04/08/2010
I completely agree. Next?
02:19 PM on 04/09/2010
The pronlem with your little pithy statement is that if everything were a right there would be a lot of conflicts since half my rights would encroach on half of yours.
05:05 PM on 04/08/2010
Hey Lemmi, can you add P***Y to that list of rights. My ex had a right to 1/2 of my money.
12:30 AM on 04/09/2010
I said eerything didn't I?
photo
Heartlight3
Every act is an act of self-definition.
11:45 PM on 04/07/2010
Don't we already have slower internet service than most other civilized countries? Weren't these companies given the right to charge more so that they could bring the broadband infrastructure up to the standards of the fiber optic systems in other countries? Didn't they take the money and not provide national fiber optic service? Isn't it clear that corporations do not have the best interest of consumers or the country at heart? Why is it that conservatives will resort to violence if they think the government has too much power over their lives, but don't seem to have a problem giving corporations more and more power over every aspect of their lives?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edejan
11:17 PM on 04/07/2010
Please, everyone! Don't just blog here about this problem! Sign the above linked letter to the FCC supporting the redefinition of the internet so that the FCC DOES HAVE authority over it. If we lose the free internet to the corporatocracy, we will have a hard time getting it back! One more freedom lost! There is a 72 hour window for "community input" with the FCC which I believe started yesterday.

TIME TO SIGN THE LETTER! We CAN make a difference!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ancientuno
09:36 PM on 04/07/2010
The outcome of this will be decided like everything else in this country. MONEY!

For the most part cable companies are a monopoly in that whatever area you live you are stuck with that cable provider. Without a choice of which cable company to chose from, the public is screwed period.
photo
DRaymond
Network administrator, voiceovers
08:27 PM on 04/07/2010
I agree that the FCC should, and most likely will, reclassify internet service.

But I wouldn't count out the prospect of Congress also taking action. Yes, Verizon, Comcast, ATT, etc. have great lobbying clout, but every company that makes money off of providing information on the internet is not going to want to have to pay ransom payments to Verizon, Comcast, ATT, etc. to keep the bytes flowing. So you will likely see lining up on the other side of the lobbying battle Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
06:36 PM on 04/07/2010
There's no crisis. In fact, even the inside-the-Beltway lobbyists at Free Press are likely to be quite happy about this decision, because it means years of additional wrangling -- from which they will profit, because they're paid to lobby on behalf of their corporate sponsors at Google. And during that time, the Broadband Plan -- which never mentions "network neutrality" regulation and doesn't set it as a goal -- will move along just fine, in accordance with the rule of law. Kudos to the court for delineating the FCC's authority and preventing it from overstepping the bounds that Congress places on its power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClarcKing
Citizen
06:35 PM on 04/07/2010
Corporativism of the government and its' policies, that order suppression of information in the public's Internet is fascism. At one time employees of the United States had to swear and sign an oath that they were not communist or fascist and would not aid communists or fascists.

This oath needs to be re-instituted through-out government; too many Americans are not aware of the dangers of fascism. Counteract this ignorance with broadcast information and greater public awareness / discussion regarding fascism in political rhetoric and policies.
ThePeacemakers
Concerned Citizen
06:30 PM on 04/07/2010
What do you guys think of Radio? Back in the day, there were people who thought the "airwaves" would be "free" access, etc.

Well, what happened to Radio has just happened to the internet.

Is pay for play back for music?
Look there first for the changes to come....
Then...the news.