Domingo, 24 Junio, 2018

Net Neutrality Rules Could Be Headed For A Supreme Court Showdown

View 1 Item View 1 Item
Tobias Pedroso | 07 May, 2017, 01:49

Pai's supporters say that means he will protect open-internet principles but get rid of the utility-style regulatory framework the FCC's previous Democratic majority approved.

While some see the rejected request as a step towards keeping the internet open, the Court of Appeals stated the only reason they rejected the review was because the FCC would be changing net neutrality rules soon anyway, "En banc review would be particularly unwarranted at this point in light of the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the FCC's Order." the court stated.

Consumers, of course, were the real losers. However, we're not neutral about net neutrality. "It's nearly as if the special interests pushing Title II weren't trying to solve a real problem but instead looking for an excuse to achieve their longstanding goal of forcing the Internet under the federal government's control". Instead, they exclusively govern the behavior or the companies that provide the on-ramps to the internet, the broadband providers.

Minority entrepreneurs face a lot of challenges; heavy-handed government overregulation of the internet shouldn't be one of them.

Shortly after Pai's proposal was unveiled, Lee said he would introduce legislation to permanently remove the FCC's "ability to issue net neutrality regulations".

Meanwhile, more than 800 USA online start-ups signed a letter to Pai stressing the importance of a free and open internet. The removal of the Title II classification would return regulatory control of the privacy practices of internet service providers from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission, which already monitors the privacy practices of Internet companies like Google and Facebook, the FCC said. This form of strict government regulation, with controlled rates and non-discrimination prohibitions at its core, was conceived in the 1800s to regulate railroads, and applied in the 1900s to the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.

Pai says the rule change is necessary to encourage internet service providers to expand access to rural areas.

Among the nation's 12 largest Internet service providers, domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6 percent percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the Title II era.

Last week, Pai outlined his new proposal for overhauling net neutrality. Other estimates are higher. Plus, when Consumerist looked into publicly available numbers to investigate the drop, they didn't find evidence supporting Pai's claim.

"It's basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get".

The FCC has not proposed any explicit net neutrality rules, under any legal footing. It would allow broadband providers to erect barriers or charge tolls to any application, connected device, or website that the broadband providers' customers want to reach. The commission itself called the "good conduct" rule a "catch all" provision.

The curious thing about Pai's speech is that he went to great pains to single out network neutrality advocates for scorn, accusing them of actually wanting a government take-over of the internet.

The group Public Knowledge stated today that Lee's latest bill "underscores the need for all Americans to defend the current open internet rules". But internet access is pretty obviously a public utility. For example, the absolute ban on so-called paid prioritization, which requires that even Amber alerts and medical imaging data be accorded the very same priority as ordinary emails, needs to be revised in a way that provides internet service providers with some degree of flexibility to differentiate their services without harming consumers.

According to Szoka, a Supreme Court ruling against the order could be the only way to convince Democrats to finally compromise with Republicans on net neutrality legislation, and prevent a future Democratically controlled FCC from reclassifying broadband again. This will create more jobs and grow the economy.