Court Bars FCC Rules Against Slowing Web Data; Win for Verizon, Setback for Google

[Purveyor]

By Andrew Zajac and Todd Shields - Jan 14, 2014

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) won its challenge to U.S. open-Internet regulations as an appeals court ruled against the Federal Communications Commission, saying the agency’s restrictions have no basis in federal law.

The FCC rule required companies that provide businesses and consumers high-speed Internet service over wires to treat all traffic equally. With the regulation voided, companies such as Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. could face new charges for fast connections.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today sent the rules back to the FCC, which may attempt to rewrite the regulations that bar companies from slowing or blocking some Internet traffic.

The FCC is trying to regulate Verizon and other companies that supply broadband Internet service under a statute that doesn’t apply, according to Circuit Judge David Tatel, writing for a three-judge panel.

“Given that the commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such,” Tatel wrote.

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-14/verizon-wins-net-neutrality-court-ruling-against-fcc.html

[Bjorn Against]

1. More like win for Verizon, loss for everyone else

A lot more people than just Google will be negatively effected by this ruling.

[LiberalArkie]

2. My question is: does this mean that the carriers can slow down a circuit

that a customer has purchased. Let's say a company has purchased a 100gig circuit to the backbone, and slowed it down to let's say 1 gig and force them to pay more to get the full 100gig that they are already paying for.

[RC]

3. How are Internet providers not common carriers?

They carry private, public and business traffic, pretty much all the same and have for many years. They charge a fee for their serves, for almost anyone that wants on the Internet.

A common carrier in common-law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in civil-law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and that is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[2] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body. The regulatory body has usually been granted “ministerial authority” by the legislation which created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality, as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

A common carrier is distinguished from a contract carrier (also called a public carrier in UK English),[2] which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity". A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

In other words, Verizon want to be a contract carrier, not a common carrier.
The Internet has become indispensable for both business and private enterprise/communications. In other words, a privately operated public utility.
The court decision is wrong. Either the judges don't understand the concept of the modern Internet, or they have an agenda. I'm leaning toward higher speaking fees.