A Federal Court Just Rewrote the Rules for the Internet. What Does That Mean for You?

None

A Verizon store is seen April 21, 2011 in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. Verizon announced today that it activated 2.2 million iPhones during the first quarter, helping the company more than triple its profit from a year ago. The company reported earnings of $1.4 billion on revenue of $27 billion for the quarter. Profit grew more than three-fold from the $443 million the telecom company earned during the same period last year. 
National Journal
Laura Ryan
Jan. 15, 2014, midnight

A fed­er­al court on Tues­day over­threw fed­er­al rules to en­force what is known as net­work neut­ral­ity, the prin­ciple that all In­ter­net traffic should re­ceive free and equal ser­vice. Now, with those rules on ice, In­ter­net car­ri­ers such as Ve­r­i­zon and Com­cast can charge web­sites for faster ser­vice — or even block some data from en­ter­ing all to­geth­er.

So what does that mean for your surf­ing?

For now, not much. The rul­ing mostly af­fects the scope of the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tion Com­mis­sion’s au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the In­ter­net. It won’t be un­til if and when In­ter­net pro­viders be­gin to ex­per­i­ment with new pri­cing schemes that the changes start — and even then it will be web­sites, and not in­di­vidu­al users, that ab­sorb most of the im­pact.

But make no mis­take, if the FCC’s rules really are gone and stay gone, In­ter­net users will feel it.

Take Net­flix. The web­site is a band­width glut­ton, as its stream­ing ser­vice re­quires massive amounts of in­form­a­tion to pass through the Web. That could prove pricey now that In­ter­net pro­viders are per­mit­ted to charge more, and that bill would likely be passed on to con­sumers when it came time to pay their monthly sub­scrip­tion fees.

Net­flix, like oth­er video-stream­ing ser­vices, is par­tic­u­larly vul­ner­able be­cause not only does it use sig­ni­fic­antly more data than oth­er web­sites, it com­petes dir­ectly with In­ter­net pro­viders’ cable of­fer­ings.

“The way to think about [In­ter­net] pro­viders is that they own the drive­way to your house,” said John Blev­ins, as­so­ci­ate pro­fess­or of law at the Loy­ola Uni­versity New Or­leans Col­lege of Law. “What this de­cision does is, it ef­fect­ively en­ables a pro­vider to act like a boun­cer and dic­tate what data [go] in­to your house.”

In the long run, net-neut­ral­ity ad­voc­ates worry that charge-for-speed ar­range­ments will stifle in­nov­a­tion. Con­sumers might miss out on the next Google, the ad­voc­ates say, be­cause In­ter­net fledglings that lack the cash to pay for faster ser­vice are at a dis­ad­vant­age.

“Strong en­force­ment of the Com­mis­sion’s Open In­ter­net prin­ciples is the least Con­gress can do to pre­serve a free and open In­ter­net, en­sur­ing that net­works re­main a ro­bustly com­pet­it­ive en­gine for in­nov­a­tion and eco­nom­ic growth,” said Demo­crat­ic Rep. Anna Eshoo, whose dis­trict in­cludes a large por­tion of Sil­ic­on Val­ley. “I will util­ize every ar­row in my quiver, in­clud­ing le­gis­la­tion, to make sure the FCC can carry out this crit­ic­al mis­sion ef­fect­ively.” 

Oth­ers, however, be­lieve that the lack of reg­u­la­tion is what built the In­ter­net as we know it, and they say less reg­u­la­tion will pro­duce new tech­no­lo­gies. Re­fer­ring to the FCC’s de­cision to clas­si­fy the In­ter­net as an in­form­a­tion ser­vice rather than a tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions ser­vice, Re­pub­lic­an Reps. Fred Up­ton and Greg Walden said in a joint state­ment Tues­day:

“In the In­ter­net’s in­fancy, the com­mis­sion made the right de­cision to leave it free from the in­ter­fer­ence of gov­ern­ment reg­u­lat­ors. Today’s rul­ing va­cates the com­mis­sion’s at­tempt to go back on this policy and to smoth­er the In­ter­net with rules de­signed for the mono­poly tele­phone net­work.”

Al­though Ve­r­i­zon said in a state­ment Tues­day that users’ In­ter­net ex­per­i­ence will not change post-rul­ing, the com­pany’s at­tor­ney said dur­ing the or­al ar­gu­ment in Septem­ber that Ve­r­i­zon will ex­plore char­ging web­sites for faster ser­vice if the open In­ter­net rules are over­turned.

Net-neut­ral­ity ad­voc­ates got some solace Tues­day, however. The court left in­tact one piece of the FCC’s rule that re­quires ser­vice pro­viders to dis­close which traffic they speed up, slow down, or block al­to­geth­er.

So, yes, your In­ter­net pro­vider could block ac­cess to your fa­vor­ite site, but it would at least have to tell you that it did.

This story has been up­dated with a state­ment from the of­fice of Rep. Anna Eshoo. A pre­vi­ous ver­sion in­cluded a draft state­ment from her of­fice.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×