Week 6 News Post

Verizon, FCC Battle in Court Over Net Neutrality, Site Blocking

Verizon v. FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Judges are hearing appeal by Verizon Communications of the U.S. government’s open Internet rules. They are focusing on the kinds of charges brought upon websites would be considered illegal blocking. The 2011 rules require ISPs to treat all traffic equally and give customers equal access to lawful content event.

Verizon is challenging the FCC regulations as an “excessive, ‘arbitrary and capricious’ intrusion which violates the company’s right to free speech strip it if of control over what its networks transmit and how.” Verizon’s attorney Helgi Walker says it is not credible that Congress would authorize these rules and believes the FCC lacks statutory authority. The Judge repeatedly asked if companies that provide Internet service could charge websites for access to those customers and if the websites refused to pay and the ISP refused to carry the website, is that blocking? The rules say you can’t charge to avoid blocking but you can charge. FCC General Counsel Sean Lev said no one is being told they can’t charge but the FCC would have concerns if a major website like Google paid a large sum to ensure faster access for their users. Verizon says it had a FA right to decide what websites its users had access to using chemical bomb making sites as an example. The judge said Verizon has said repeatedly that it is a conduit for others’ speech.

This case shows us the immediacy of FCC regulation and Internet cases today. The FCC has interpreted the law dealing with ISPs because it is so ambiguous. Interpretation is challenged as we have seen in this case and the FCC is still receiving backlash for their nondiscriminatory clause. The FCC failed to deal with network neutrality in their case against Comcast Corp. because it did not have the authority to do so according to the Court of Appeals. Instead, they adopted a rule forbidding ISPs from blocking lawful content and applications computers use nor may providers unreasonably discriminate in transmitting content. This is what Verizon is contesting against. They are saying it is a violation of the company’s right to free speech and control over what its networks transmit and how. If they struck down the nondiscrimination clause, would that mean they could charge websites for higher speeds and give priority access? Commercialization seems to be a concern for the Court. This case shows us how FCC rules are too weak and that there is a need to adopt a more direct and clear power of oversight. Is the nondiscriminatory clause really infringing on Verizon’s rights to determine what their users have access to as a company? Do they even have that right on the Internet which is a platform of free speech and completely protected by the FA?

Article:http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/verizon-fcc-battle-court-over-net-neutrality-site-blocking-8C11115171

Image:

http://images.cspanvideo.org/Files/566/20130914162854001_hd.jpg/Thumbs/height.288.width.448.jpg