In the United States Supreme Court case Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Verizon Communications argued that it was wrong and unreasonable for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate and set leasing rates for networks. Ultimately, the January 14th decision held that the Federal Communications Commission can indeed set rates charged by the service provider for leased elements that are completely unbound from the provider's investment. Also the Federal Communications Commission can also require service provider's to combine certain elements of their networks at the request of the customer or user. However, in regards to network neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to enforce any such rules.
This decision stems from the Telecommunications act of 1996 which gives the Federal Communications Commission the ability define standard leasing rates with almost infinite flexibility. However, Verizon successfully argued that the Federal Communications Commission isn't authorized require a state utility commission to set rates by local exchange carriers for lease of network elements to competitive local exchange carriers. Essentially, three main issues were focused on: the pricing rules for unbundled network elements; whether excluding past costs constitutes a governmental taking; and thirdly what are the rules for combining network elements.
Taking a deeper look at the Telecommunications act of 1996 gives us a better understanding of what type of authoritative power the Federal Communications Commission actually has. The Act contains as follows in the context of local exchange carriers:
" The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier...
... middle of paper ...
...y of any future internet regulation.
But, it is also important to note that all of this could have been avoided if the Federal Communications Commission had the foresight to call broadband providers "common carriers." A common carrier easily falls under Title II of the Communications Act. But, under the decision, any Net Neutrality anti-blocking rules are deemed unlawful. So, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to impose or enforce rules that would give the free market favor against the politically and economically powerful network provider.
Works Cited
http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/22/decoding-net-neutrality-user-friendly-explanation-verizon-v-fcc-and-its-impact http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+carrier
new broadband technology. Therefore, the restrictions enforced by the FTC are to ensure that a full range of content and services by non-affiliated Internet Service Providers is available to subscribers, to prevent discrimination by AOL-Time Warner to other non-affiliated Internet Service providers, to provide a full range of content and services and to lessen competition in the market for broadband Internet Service Provider service. The FTC restrictions state that first AOL-Time Warner must make at least one non-affiliated cable broadband service available on Time Warner's cable systems before AOL itself begins offering its service. Second, AOL-Time Warner cannot interfere with content that it has restricted to deliver to subscribers of its cable
Although the net neutrality debate didn’t come into the spot light so long ago, it has sparked controversy in the communications world. This concept provides a positive impact to the consumers, competition and network owners/internet service providers. It broadens the aspect of equality, which the open Internet was first based on. The profound effects on the aforementioned players provide a supported purpose to regulate the notion of net neutrality.
Broadcasting involves specific rules and regulations that must be followed. The paramount justification for regulating broadcast is the scarcity rationale. The radio spectrum is extremely large, and cannot assist the needs of everyone who wants to broadcast. The spectrum as a whole relies on the government to manage and operate it. It is up to them to decide what broadcasters will best serve the public. A scarcity rationale case, NBC v. United States arose when regulations and restrictions were put on radio stations that were to protect “public interest.” Radio Networks proceeded to test the guidelines and licensing laws, resulting in the FCC gaining strong power over regulations of the radio spectrum. Although the Communications Act provides equal opportunities to all candidates with equivalent broadcast time, it still did not confine the FCC from having overall control.
A recent and hotly debated topic among businesses, politicians, and internet users in the United States is that of net neutrality. With the rise of the internet over the past few decades, laws and regulations have struggled to keep up with the ever changing environment. As such, the problem of whether net neutrality should be enforced, and to what extent, has been a dividing issue. This problem has come into the public’s attention recently due to infringements and controversy surrounding policies by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the following paragraphs, I plan to first define the concept of net neutrality, related topics which are crucial for an informed ethical discussion of the topic, and also related cases in which net neutrality
On thursday The Federal Communications Commission voted to end net neutrality. A Lot of people were not happy with their decision, some states and interest groups are planning to sue. Back in october 29, 2007 Barack Obama pledged support for net neutrality to protect free and open internet, later on in 2015 the FCC voted in favor of strong net neutrality rules to keep the internet open and free. Now 3 men decided to go against it causing the end of net neutrality and ignoring 83% of peoples wishes.
ISPs, including ATT, express concern about the proposed rules of Net Neutrality that would prohibit it from slowing competitors’ web traffic or accessing content (Shatz). By not allowing the ability for ISPs to regulate its network and the bandwidth that moves through it, it can cause a variety of problems that un...
Of particular importance is the deregulation of the telecommunications industry as mentioned in the act (“Implementation of the Telecommunications Act,” NTLA). This reflects a new thinking that service providers should not be limited by artificial and now antique regulatory categories but should be permitted to compete with each other in a robust marketplace that contains many diverse participants. Moreover the Act is evidence of governmental commitment to make sure that all citizens have access to advanced communication services at affordable prices through its “universal service” provisions even as competitive markets for the telecommunications industry expand. Prior to passage of this new Act, U.S. federal and state laws and a judicially established consent decree allowed some competition for certain services, most notably among long distance carriers. Universal service for basic telephony was a national objective, but one developed and shaped through federal and state regulations and case law (“Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Technology Law). The goal of universal service was referred to only in general terms in the Communications Act of 1934, the nation's basic telecommunications statute. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 among other things: (i) opens up competition by local telephone companies, long distance providers, and cable companies ...
...s article “Ma Bell’s Revenge: The battle for Network Neutrality” shows us in a just a few of the hundreds of arguments which have been brought up over the proposal of network neutrality. Network neutrality essentially means that all data gets treated the same by an ISP or service, whether it be an incoming email or a gigantic video file, it’s is based on the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they choose to use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. In other words, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet in terms of overall speed. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
Reuters, (2006, June 16,2006). Appeals court backs FCC on telephone network unbundling. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://news.com.com/Appeals+court+backs+FCC+on+telephone+network+unbundling/2100-1037_3-6084867.html?tag=sas.email
Federal Communications Commission has (Cano 712). This court case set that companies must be classified as common carriers if the FCC wants to prevent unreasonable discrimination and blocking websites that are lawful and competing with the company’s own website. So to prevent this from happening the FCC must reclassify again. Net neutrality is necessary to consumers because of how much the internet is needed in today’s society. Without the equal access to the internet, people may be unable to complete certain tasks which their jobs or government requires of them. This leaves the poor at a disadvantage as they may be unable to pay for increased prices. It also makes it increasingly more difficult for them to go about their lives as the internet has become woven into the fabric of our society. The principles of net neutrality need to be upheld in order to protect the freedoms of the users that are defined by the FCC. People should not have to go through unreasonable barriers in order to access content that is
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has worked to create an environment promoting competition and innovation to benefit consumers. Historically, the FCC has not regulated the Internet or the services provided over it. On February 12, 2004, the FCC found that an entirely Internet-based VoIP service was an unregulated information service.
Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable for $45.2 billion was first announced on February 13, 2014. Since then, the corporation has begun the regulatory review process by filing a public interest statement at the Federal Communications Commission. In order for the proposed merger to gain approval, both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) must find that it is lawful and in the public interest. Despite consistent and vocal opposition by millions of Americans, the chances of the merger being disallowed is slim to none due to the power and influence of the companies. The acquisition of Time Warner Cable by Comcast would result in an increase in market power, a decrease in innovation, and a
Internet providers have never had any plans to block content or to try to degrade the performance of the network.” (Hart 750). Essentially, they think having the internet without any laws would be in general more beneficial. The parties who support the keeping of net neutrality and its laws include tech giants such as Netflix, Mozilla Foundation and Consumer Federation of America. Their arguments are that “they are concerned about the potential discriminatory service from providers. Telecommunications companies should be required to provide all the consumers equally regardless of their geographical location or income. If the FCC stops regulating, providers can decide to stop offering services to lower-income families or to poorer neighborhoods. Also, in the absence of regulation internet access providers will adopt a non-neutral
Net Neutrality is a politically charged topic in the United States, and has been for several years now. Both sides of the issue are attempting to influence the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC), which theoretically has the power to decide the matter. During the Obama administration, the FCC ruled that Internet Service Providers must operate in a net neutral manner. Since then, the membership of the FCC has changed and now the FCC is moving to rescind that ruling. Neither position has been tested in court. So, the ultimate position is in flux…
Net neutrality is another chance for the government and businesses to limit citizen’s freedom of choice. The government should not try to control people’s lives and watch what people do on their phone! If the government controls everything us being the people will have no rights or freedom. “In the future, intelligence services might use the internet of things for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials,†Clapper told a Senate panel as part of his annual “assessment of threats†against the