Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Seeks Supreme Court Review On Net Neutrality Rule (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the high-authority dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: AT&T and other broadband providers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Obama-era "net neutrality" rule barring internet service providers from slowing or blocking rivals' content. The appeals, filed Thursday, will put new pressure on a rule enacted in 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission was under Democratic control. Filing a separate appeal from AT&T were the United States Telecom Association, a trade group, and broadband service provider CenturyLink. The embattled net neutrality rules bar internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking or slowing some web traffic in favor of other content -- their own or a paying customer's. "The practical stakes are immense," AT&T said in its appeal of a ruling that backed the FCC. The company pointed to a dissenting opinion that said the regulation "fundamentally transforms the internet" and will have a "staggering" impact on infrastructure investment.

8 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Revoke their corporate charters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is clear these corporations no longer serve the public good.

    Why are they allowed to continue existing?

  2. Time for Finesse by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Internet is a set of agreed protocols and standards. If these protocols are not adhered to, then the service provided is not "Internet". It becomes something like the late, unlamented AOL.

    So if an ISP violates net neutrality, like deep packet inspection, blocking ports, injecting data, prioritizing or blocking specific traffic, it is violating one or more of the protocols or standards.

    In such a case, the ISP should lose all Safe Harbor protection, government subsidies and assistance, such as peering, right-of-way access, tax breaks and the like. Of course, under truth-in-advertising regulations, they may not use the word "internet" in advertising or describing their product.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re: Time for Finesse by PoopJuggler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Omg stfu dude. Government regulation is what keeps corporations from doing all sorts of evil shit. The internet is now too important to not have protections for consumers.

  3. The free market argument works if... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The free market argument works if there's competition. If the customers want net neutrality, they will ditch ISPs which accept payments for fast lanes, and switch to ISPs which honor net neutrality. If customers want services who pay for fast lanes, they will ditch neutral ISPs for ISPs which charge for fast lanes. This is pretty much how Internet service works in most of the world. If your ISP's policies piss you off, you cancel and get Internet using a different ISP.

    Unfortunately, this isn't the case in the U.S. The vast majority of Internet providers have a government-granted monopoly, whether it be DSL (local phone service monopoly) or cable (cable TV/Internet monopoly). Without competition, there is no alternate ISP for customers to switch to if they're unhappy with their ISP's policies.

    Hopefully the Supreme Court realizes this, and rules that local governments granting ISP monopolies is unconstitutional - state or local regulation of interstate commerce (the Internet crosses state and national borders). That way, everyone wins. The ISPs opposing net neutrality can charge for fast lanes. The ISPs for net neutrality can provide neutral service. And customers can choose whichever ISP they prefer. (For bonus points, websites which don't like ISPs who charge for fast lanes and artificially throttle their service to those companies as a way to "encourage" their customers to switch to a different ISP. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

    1. Re:The free market argument works if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately no, net neutrality is not achieved by making sure competition exists. Violating net neutrality is a competitive advantage, one which works in favor of consolidation. Not only does competition not bring net neutrality, lack of enforced net neutrality reduces competition where it once might have existed. The way ISPs intend to profit from abolishing net neutrality rules is through double dipping: They want to get paid by the content hosting side as well as the content consuming side, data sources and sinks, even if they're not directly connected to the data sources.

      Violating net neutrality is their instrument of torture to get the hosters to pay up. An ISP that doesn't do that has to derive all income from the consumers, so their break-even rates will be higher compared to ISPs that also get paid by the hosters. In the extreme the anti net neutrality ISPs will use "zero rating", exempting some data from data volume caps. Once all neutral ISPs have been driven out of the market (reducing competition), the double dipping will start in earnest.

      Net neutrality is a necessity for an open, fair and competitive market. It's not just a band-aid for a failing market.

    2. Re:The free market argument works if... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The free market argument works if there's competition. If the customers want net neutrality, they will ditch ISPs which accept payments for fast lanes, and switch to ISPs which honor net neutrality. If customers want services who pay for fast lanes, they will ditch neutral ISPs for ISPs which charge for fast lanes. This is pretty much how Internet service works in most of the world. If your ISP's policies piss you off, you cancel and get Internet using a different ISP.

      This exposes the seed of destruction that Capitalism contains. A free market requires competition, low barriers to entry and informed consumers, among a few other things. But market participants are incentivized to eliminate competition, raise barriers to entry and keep consumers as ignorant as possible. So the free market's participants have a short-term interest in destroying the freedom of the market! It's one of Capitalism's inherent flaws that I have always found interesting, and why government regulation is required to maintain Capitalism.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:The free market argument works if... by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's even worse then that. Common carriers were given authority to seize property to put up telephone poles for the greater good. They own those poles and will not grant competitors access to those poles. If a company uses eminent domain to acquire property they should be bound to operating for the greater good if communications travel on eminent domain poles. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  4. Don't worry 'bout it by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey guys, I was a bit concerned about this whole thing, so I spoke to AT&T.
    They said they're doing this to better serve their customers, so we have nothing to worry 'bout.