Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Net Neutrality (and 'the people') Loses... Comcast (and 'the Corporations') Wins

A Blow To Net Neutrality: FCC Loses Appeal to Comcast
by Mike Melanson of ReadWriteWeb.com

In a battle that's been ongoing since the fall of 2007, Comcast just won the latest round against the Federal Communications Commission. A federal appeals court announced its decision this morning to grant ComCast a petition for review, vacating the order by the FCC, which imposed a "net neutrality" on the nation's largest cable company.

The decision appears to focus on the FCC's legal authority to enforce net neutrality and not on the legality of net neutrality itself.

The case began when "several subscribers to Comcast's high-speed Internet service discovered that the company was interfering with their use of peer-to-peer networking applications," the decision reads. Comcast argued that its move to block p2p file-sharing was "necessary to manage scarce network capacity", but the FCC found differently, ruling that the company had "significantly impeded consumers' ability to access the content and use the applications of their choice".

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Court: FCC had no right to sanction Comcast for P2P blocking
By Nate Anderson of arstechnica.com

The FCC's decision to sanction Comcast for its 2007 P2P blocking was overruled today by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The question before the court was whether the FCC had the legal authority to "regulate an Internet service provider's network management practice." According to a three-judge panel, "the Commission has failed to make that showing" and the FCC's order against Comcast is tossed.

When the complaints against Comcast first surfaced, they noted that the company was violating the FCC's "Internet Policy Statement" drafted in 2005. That statement provided "four freedoms" to Internet users, including freedom from traffic discrimination apart from reasonable network management. The FCC decided that Comcast's actions had not been "reasonable network management," but Comcast took to the agency to court, arguing that the FCC had no right to regulate its network management practices at all.

The Internet Policy Statement was not a rule; instead, it was a set of guidelines, and even the statement admitted that the principles weren't legally enforceable. To sanction Comcast, the FCC relied on its "ancillary" jurisdiction to implement the authority that Congress gave it—but was this kind of network management ruling really within the FCC's remit?

The court held that it wasn't, that Congress had never given the agency the authority necessary to do this, and that the entire proceeding was illegitimate. The FCC's "Order" against Comcast is therefore vacated; Comcast wins.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Could Comcast Derail the National Broadband Plan?
By Ed Oswald of PCWorld.com


President Obama has made broadband a key part of his telecommunications agenda. To get there, he has tasked the Federal Communications Commission with the responsibility to make changes to Internet regulations and promote his "National Broadband Plan," an ambitious effort to reform the industry and expand broadband access across the country.

There's an elephant in the room however, and its name is Comcast. The telecommunications company is challenging the FCC's authority on Internet regulation in court, and if successful it could seriously inhibit the agency's efforts to move its plans forward. Comcast's beef goes back to 2008, when the FCC censured the company for its bandwidth-throttling efforts against BitTorrent and others.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

FCC loses Comcast's court challenge, a major setback for agency on Internet policies
via WashingtonPost.com

Comcast on Tuesday won its federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission in a ruling that undermines the agency's ability to regulate Internet service providers just as it unrolls a sweeping broadband agenda.

The decision also sparks pressing questions on how the agency will respond, with public interest groups advocating that the FCC attempt to move those services into a regulatory regime clearly under the agency's control.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 3-0 decision, ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to require Comcast, the nation's biggest broadband services provider, to treat all Internet traffic equally on its network.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

-----

Comcast Can Block BitTorrent Again, Court Rules
by Ernesto of TorrentFreak.com


In 2008 Comcast was ordered to stop slowing down BitTorrent users by preventing them to share files with others. In addition, the company had to disclose all “network management” practices.

The whole Comcast debacle ignited a discussion about Net Neutrality and eventually led to the FCC’s national broadband plan which was released last month. Today, the Court of Appeals overruled FCC’s decision in the Comcast case, with three judges stating that the commission doesn’t have the authority to require IPSs to keep their network neutral.

After appealing FCC’s decision in favor of BitTorrent users, Comcast has finally got the verdict (pdf) it wanted. Although it seems unlikely that the ISP will pick up its old habit of preventing BitTorrent users to seed files, it could in theory do so.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Net Neutrality FAQ: What's in it for You

Net Neutrality FAQ: What's in it for You
by Tim Greene, Network World of PCWorld.com

The FCC has approved a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality, and here are a few questions and answers to help shine a light on what that means.
(See "FCC takes first step toward net neutrality rules")

What exactly did the FCC do?
The FCC agreed to consider what regulations, if any, to impose on ISPs about the applications and services that they allow, ban or rate limit. The process calls for formally proposing rules and holding public hearings on them. A vote about the rules themselves will take place sometime next year.

What is net neutrality anyway?
It is the common name for creating and preserving what the FCC calls the "open Internet".

The FCC is trying to write rules that enforce six principles it says ISPs must uphold to preserve what the commission calls the "open Internet." These rules would tell ISPs to:
  • allow sending and receiving all lawful content.
  • allow all lawful applications and services.
  • allow all lawful devices that don't harm the network.
  • allow access to all network, application, service and content providers.
  • ensure there is no discrimination against particular lawful content, applications, services and devices.
  • reveal practices necessary network management that might limit the other five principles.
Who wants it?
A majority of the FCC, Google and other Internet-based companies, consumer advocacy groups and Internet luminaries such as Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee. They fear that without rules, ISPs will impose tiered service levels, making the top-level services so expensive as to rule out their use by innovators trying to start Internet-based businesses. They are also concerned that selectively banning certain applications such as VoIP will reduce consumer choice about how to make voice calls. There have been cases where ISPs blocked VoIP and rate-limited peer-to-peer traffic like that used for gaming and file sharing.

Who's opposed to it?
The loudest opposition comes from AT&T, Verizon and other Internet providers. They say the rules would block charging extra for premium services, the financial incentive they need to invest in network upgrades that keep traffic running smoothly. They say the rules would unfairly restrict what they call differentiating services that might justify higher rates than competitors charge. They say the consequences of net-neutrality rules would be one of two things: higher flat rates for services or paying by the byte for Internet traffic.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also has introduced a bill to block the FCC's net neutrality rules.

What does it mean to businesses?
If net neutrality prompts higher Internet access rates for all-you-can-eat ISP services, businesses would have higher ISP bills. Usage-based fees might or might not increase costs to individual businesses depending on how much they use the Internet. Businesses that rely on the Internet to provide services might face decreased demand if their customers are forced to buy more-expensive services in order to consume their products. For example, a business that sells HD video downloads over the Internet might sell less if customers have to buy premium Internet access in order to enjoy a movie.

What does it mean to carriers?
Carriers fear net neutrality will restrict their ability to make money off their networks to the point that they will slow the rate at which they invest in network improvements that boost Internet performance. They also say they buy into the principles of an open Internet and that no rules are needed.

What does it mean to residential Internet users?
Flat monthly rates that are common now would likely remain, but ISPs might charge more for them. Or they might shift over to billing for the amount customers download, forcing customers to think twice about what they use the Internet for. At the same time, they would be able to use the Internet to make phone calls without worrying that the traffic would be blocked.

The rules would have the biggest impact on what services?
Without rules, ISPs are most likely to limit bandwidth hogs – gaming, streaming video - and VoIP. Many large ISPs such as AT&T and Verizon are also voice carriers, so VoIP riding the Internet is a threat to their revenue streams. The flip side is that providers of VoIP services that rely on the Internet ought not to be hindered by the ISPs.

----

See Also: Jon Stewart on McCain's Anti-Net-Neutrality Bill


Friday, January 9, 2009

Americans! Let the FCC know how you feel about DRM...

Americans! Let the FCC know how you feel about DRM...
Posted On: Thu, 2009-01-08 22:40 by mattl

DRM refers to technologies typically used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, and copyright holders to attempt to control how consumers access and use media and entertainment content. Among other issues, the workshop will address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations.

Interested parties may submit written comments or original research on this topic.
If you're in the USA, please submit your own response.