The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled in the case of Verizon et al. v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (PDF)
This regulation essentially provides an economic preference to a politically powerful constituency, a constituency that, as is true of typical rent seekers, wishes protection against market forces. The Commission does not have authority to grant such a favor.
#Net_neutrality gets a kick in the teeth | ZDNet
Think about it. #Netflix eats up more Internet bandwidth than any other Internet service. Netflix’s traffic keeps growing and it’s about to explode. Netflix has started broadcasting a handful of shows in 4K Ultra HD. These shows will require a speed of approximately of 15.6 megabits per second (Mbps).
You don’t think #Verizon wants a piece of the action for providing the high-speed pipes 4K video will require? I sure would if I were in their shoes.
We’ve also seen in just the last few days that the content providers aren’t happy about letting “free” content, such as over-the-air (OTA) TV on the Internet at all. Put these factors together and I see an Internet that’s far less open not just to entertainment, but to all kinds of content.
None of this is set in stone yet. The next step for net neutrality is for the FCC to come up with a new set of rules. The Supreme Court must rule on the legality of OTA content being shared over the Internet.
Across the pond, the European Union is dead set in favor of net neutrality, so some companies might decide to host their Websites in Europe to avoid the US’ regulations. I could see Google/YouTube or Netflix doing that.
Sound crazy? I think it would be crazy like a fox. The EU is already trying to grab a big hunk of American cloud services business because of NSA privacy fears, so why couldn’t EU-based content delivery networks [#CDN] and website-hosting businesses host US regulation-free sites there as well? I’d consider it, if I were a content provider.
There’s one good thing that might come of it. The US government may finally spell out how the Internet will be governed.
As George Foote a partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney who works on FCC-related matters said, “The court has invited the FCC and Congress to finally come to grips with the digital, ubiquitous, riotous world of communications. The FCC’s attempt to use the common carrier rules to regulate the Internet would never work, despite the very good policy of ensuring fair and competitive communications service. The Internet simply cannot be regulated under rules written when there was a telephone monopoly. Congress is reviewing the whole Communications Act and there is a new FCC Chairman. The Court has asked them to get to work.” Let’s hope they do.
This is all speculation now of course. Still, if the Supreme Court rules against sharing OTA TV over the Internet and Verizon get the rules set up the way it wants, the top-level ISPs become the de facto gatekeepers of the Internet. They’ll decide what we can view and how much we’ll pay for it.
Mais pour les membres du think tank #libertarien TechFreedom, le problème est ailleurs :
The Feds Lost Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Web | Wired Opinion | Wired.com
To some extent, the FCC’s newfound sense of restraint is required by the court’s decision, which hinged on a provision of the Communications Act barring the Commission from imposing “common carriage” obligations on Title I “information services” like broadband. Instead, the FCC has to leave room for “individualized negotiation” between ISPs and so-called edge providers (Netflix, Google, etc.). But the FCC can still require that, for example, premium carriage agreements be “commercially reasonable” and non-discriminatory — as it did when requiring wireless carriers to provide data roaming to their competitors’ customers (which the D.C. Circuit recently upheld). This would prevent the clearest potential problems (like, say, degrading Netflix just to favor an ISP’s own video service) while still allowing pro-consumer deals (like guaranteeing quality of service for video providers).
In short, the FCC now has vast discretion, and seems unwilling to give that up.
Cela n’empêche pas les papiers sur le caractère crucial de la #neutralité_du_net de fleurir à nouveau :
Net Neutrality and the Future of #Journalism | Free Press
For newsrooms the decision means that a company like AT&T or Verizon could decide where their uses can go for news and what stories get buried or blocked online. Verizon could strike a deal with CNN and hamper their users’ ability to access alternative news sources. Comcast could slow access to Al Jazeera, because it wants to promote its NBC news offerings*.
That’s why, in 2010, Senator Al Franken argued that “Net Neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time.”
PS : je suis du coup passé par la page WP de la FCC et j’ai découvert ce bandeau que je n’avais jamais vu :
#actualité #média #wiki ▻https://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Accueil