United States Federal Government Can Lawfully Block Content On the Internet

[letstalkaboutjesus]

Any semblance of net neutrality in the United States is as good as dead. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s 2010 order that imposed network neutrality regulations on wireline broadband services. The ruling is a major victory for telecom and cable companies who have fought all net neutrality restrictions vociferously for years.

The original FCC order said that wireline ISPs ”shall not block lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management” while also mandating that ISPs “shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service.”

In its ruling against the FCC’s rules, the court said that such restrictions are not needed in part because consumers have a choice in which ISP they use.

“Without broadband provider market power, consumers, of course, have options,” the court writes. “They can go to another broadband provider if they want to reach particular edge providers or if their connections to particular edge providers have been degraded.”

Yahoo!
U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality

 

[crossnote]

I haven't a clue, can someone explain?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I haven't a clue, can someone explain?

Sure, the U.S. is in rapid decline across the board. Everyday some new aspect of our deterioration manifests. In this case, Verizon brought a lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the FCC arguing that because it built its network, it therefore has the right to manage its costs and services as it pleases.

The appeals court judges said although the FCC has oversight of how Internet providers manage traffic, its regulations are overreaching (considering the FCC classified broadband providers as "information services" companies rather than telecom companies) which "exempts them from treatment as common carriers."

After today, Internet service providers are no longer required to treat all kinds of Web activity equally allowing for the online access to be dramatically reshaped.

The decision overturns key parts of the Federal Communications Commission's Net neutrality regulations, which barred Internet providers from restricting speeds or even blocking visits to different sites.

Analysts say the ruling could allow Internet providers to slow down sites like bandwidth-heavy Netflix or Google and force them - or their visitors - to pay for faster access.

Legally, they can now charge you more money to access popular websites and block access to sites they don't want you to visit.

This also creates a situation where the government can more highly regulate you through ISPs since net neutrality died today.

Net neutrality rules struck down, infuriating tech world - SFGate

This fits neatly into the oxymoronical trend of government deregulation for corporate profit combined with government authoritarianism via control of the populace via corporations. Makes no sense on the surface I know but that's what's occurring.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Read this: Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords - latimes.com

 

[overcomer2]

The gov't in US has much control but Iran is really bad. They cannot get simple internet social media like we can. Facebook is not allowed. So, in other words we can socialize about issues they cannot. The gov't does not allow. Sometimes my aunt will send info my way and she will say quick look at this on Utube before it is taken down. Sure enough in a few hours it is gone.

Media and Government go hand in hand. Don't be misled.

 

[crossnote]

Read this: Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords - latimes.com

Uh oh, looks like they already struck...the link won't open on my tablet.

ooops just a bad browser.

 

[Oncefallen]

I have to chuckle about how misleading this thread title is. The court decided that the FCC's regulation prohibiting ISP's from blocking individual sites was an overreach of it's authority and struck it down. The decision had NOTHING to do with the US government blocking websites.

 

[ServantHood]

Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA | Ars Technica

Deep Inspection Packet is on the rise for a long time now, especially overseas. Where companies would sell their DPI gear to oversea terrorist, so that they can spy on their citizen traffic, and see what they were doing, and what program, and what email. Is this real? Yes, very real. It is now being deployed and is very popular in the US, but very secretive. Federal requires ISP to send all logs of user internet traffic to Federal Agency. What is Deep Inspection Packet? New Gears like DPI, can not only just read a header of a packet, but can dig down deeper, so close, that they know exactly what you're typing for an email address, what program you have open, what you are doing on the internet as far as video, gaming, blogs, etc. This will be used and has been secretly deployed in the US to be used in the Country. Probably no wonder, they tried so hard to strike down Net Neutrality. It is now struck down, so get ready for DPI, where ISP and Federal Gov't spies on you. (Read the article). It is real.

This device is also how they will be able to monitor what you're doing at a given time, and can charge you accordingly, and stop your traffic, or flow of traffic, or lower your bandwidth at a given time because you didn't "pay" for it. You want to game? Pay for it. How will they know? DPI gear.

 

[posthuman]

I have to chuckle about how misleading this thread title is. The court decided that the FCC's regulation prohibiting ISP's from blocking individual sites was an overreach of it's authority and struck it down. The decision had NOTHING to do with the US government blocking websites.

exactly.

the FCC's position, in fact, is the opposite of what Age of Knowledge implies -- the FCC had stipulated that ISP's cannot single out websites or services and block them or slow down access to them.

ISP's like Verizon would like to block access to some sites or slow download speeds to them when they conflict with Verizon's interests. for example, Verizon has a deal with the NHL to provide mobile streaming of hockey games -- so Verizon wants to block any other website that streams hockey games, or significantly slow down transfer speeds from them, so that their customers will be influenced to use Verizon's own service.

an analogy:
say FoxNews owns radio towers and broadcasts talk radio on some HD frequency for a fee. you pay Fox and they send an unlock signal to your HD radio so you can hear their shows. NPR also broadcasts news and talk, for free​ - so Fox wants to broadcast interference on the NPR frequencies so that people who pay for Fox radio won't be able to listen to NPR. the FCC says this is wrong.

the FCC (and the Obama administration) argue for net neutrality. Verizon's argument in the appeals court was that their right to "free speech" is infringed if it cannot squish competitor's websites.

this "free speech" argument is the tragedy - don't let the anti-Obama propaganda pull the wool over your eyes. the Obama administration is the side of free speech here -

first the conservative supreme court ruled that money = speech.
now a conservative appeals court has ruled that blocking access to free information = speech.

money is not speech. the rich shouldn't get a louder voice.
blocking competition is not free speech. tearing down your rival's billboards is not equivalent to putting up your own advertising.

 

[wisebeardman]

I have to chuckle about how misleading this thread title is. The court decided that the FCC's regulation prohibiting ISP's from blocking individual sites was an overreach of it's authority and struck it down. The decision had NOTHING to do with the US government blocking websites.

just like 20 years ago people would laugh at the thought the Feddies could perma detain you without cause and or just flat out put a bullet in ya. 20 years later the feddies can do just that.

by this ruling, it gives defacto right for the feds to block stuff. remember if a company can do it its legal for the feds.

 

[wisebeardman]

exactly.


this "free speech" argument is the tragedy - don't let the anti-Obama propaganda pull the wool over your eyes. the Obama administration is the side of free speech here -

first the conservative supreme court ruled that money = speech.
now a conservative appeals court has ruled that blocking access to free information = speech.

if you believe the obama admin honestly believes in free speech then you are a fool. EVERYTHING that man has said has been a proven lie time and time again.

 

[posthuman]

if you believe the obama admin honestly believes in free speech then you are a fool. EVERYTHING that man has said has been a proven lie time and time again.

what does it make you, if you think that Verizon winning the argument against the Feds that censorship = free speech means the government is blocking websites?

 

[posthuman]

if you believe the obama admin honestly believes in free speech then you are a fool. EVERYTHING that man has said has been a proven lie time and time again.

here is another example being so full of hate toward the white house that you are blind to the reality of what this ruling means.

do you understand that it was the FCC saying that no web traffic should be singled out and slowed down or blocked,
and the telcom giants saying that censoring the web = their right to free speech?

i think you need to drop the animosity that has been pumped into your brain by "conservative media" before you can think clearly.

telcom wants to treat the internet like it's cable TV. block all your favorite channels. make you pay more if you want certain content.

the FCC (under the direction of the president) wants internet access to mean equal access to every internet site. it's really not that difficult to grasp; but if all you see is "obama bad private industry good" then you're getting tooled.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're wrong. After the oral argument in September, many observers anticipated that the D.C. Circuit would strike down at least part of the net neutrality order. But the court went even farther than many expected, throwing out both the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking provisions.

"ISPs can now discriminate against content they dislike." "ISPs can discriminate, favoring their business partners while delaying or blocking websites they don't like."

Why You Should Be Freaking Out About The End Of Net Neutrality

The feds can no longer stop ISPs from doing this, if they decide to, but ISPs do have to tell their customers they are doing it.

Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality: What This Means For You : All Tech Considered : NPR

It will be interesting to see if the FCC attempts to rewrite the regulations that bar companies from slowing or blocking some traffic.

Please stop spreading false information posthuman. But you're right about one thing. This has nothing to do with the federal government seeking to block websites. One of the reasons for Net neutrality WAS intended to stop ISPs from doing that.

the FCC's position, in fact, is the opposite of what Age of Knowledge implies -- the FCC had stipulated that ISP's cannot single out websites or services and block them or slow down access to them.

 

[posthuman]

You're wrong. After the oral argument in September, many observers anticipated that the D.C. Circuit would strike down at least part of the net neutrality order. But the court went even farther than many expected, throwing out both the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking provisions.

Please stop spreading false information posthuman.

please explain how Verizon being able to shut down their customer's access to ATT's website if they like means the government is now controlling your internet experiece.

please explain how the FCC's intent that Verizon should not be able to do this means that the government wishes to censor websites.

please explain how the FCC wishing to maintain net neutrality means that corporations are proxy agents of the evil totalitarian big brother.

please explain how a government agency that wishes to secure unrestricted access to information losing in court to a Telcom giant aiming to censor it's economic rivals is an example of authoritarian government control.

 

[posthuman]

if a company can do it its legal for the feds.

that's a stretch!

 

[PennEd]

exactly.

the FCC's position, in fact, is the opposite of what Age of Knowledge implies -- the FCC had stipulated that ISP's cannot single out websites or services and block them or slow down access to them.

ISP's like Verizon would like to block access to some sites or slow download speeds to them when they conflict with Verizon's interests. for example, Verizon has a deal with the NHL to provide mobile streaming of hockey games -- so Verizon wants to block any other website that streams hockey games, or significantly slow down transfer speeds from them, so that their customers will be influenced to use Verizon's own service.

an analogy:
say FoxNews owns radio towers and broadcasts talk radio on some HD frequency for a fee. you pay Fox and they send an unlock signal to your HD radio so you can hear their shows. NPR also broadcasts news and talk, for free​ - so Fox wants to broadcast interference on the NPR frequencies so that people who pay for Fox radio won't be able to listen to NPR. the FCC says this is wrong.

the FCC (and the Obama administration) argue for net neutrality. Verizon's argument in the appeals court was that their right to "free speech" is infringed if it cannot squish competitor's websites.

this "free speech" argument is the tragedy - don't let the anti-Obama propaganda pull the wool over your eyes. the Obama administration is the side of free speech here -

first the conservative supreme court ruled that money = speech.
now a conservative appeals court has ruled that blocking access to free information = speech.

money is not speech. the rich shouldn't get a louder voice.
blocking competition is not free speech. tearing down your rival's billboards is not equivalent to putting up your own advertising.

It is one of the Governments PRIMARY responsibilities to prohibit monopolies, and encourage competition. The classic example is the At&t phone company breakup. Those of us old enough remember when it ahd to be a special occasion or emergency to make a long distance phone call. All of that went away once Gov. forced the breakup of the monopoly. I'm not positive where I fall on the net neutrality issue, so I look at the people who support to gauge the right course. I am absolutely convinced Pres. Obamo is a corrupt, wicked man. If he is for it it cannot be good.
Your rationale of allowing all content with no cost reminds me of the argument that we can't have ala-carte cable service because the thousand QVC, Sports, local, MTV, etc... channels, that maybe I don't ever want to watch, I have to pay for.

Also, the moment you think that money doesn't equal speech, you move away from freedom and capitalism and drift towards repression and socialism. Another one of those ideas that look good on paper, but when you look a little deeper falls apart.