US court clash on �Open Internet� rules

AFP, WASHINGTON: Backers and opponents of “Open Internet” rules clashed Friday in a federal appeals court, in the third round of a battle on how US broadband providers may be regulated. The so-called “net neutrality” case, one of the most hotly contested tech policy issues in Washington, tests whether online services like Netflix, Yelp and new startups should have equal access through Internet service firms like Verizon and AT&T.
Supporters of the rule argue that it is needed to ensure access to any type of online service without a gatekeeper, while critics say the FCC is using an antiquated, heavy-handed standard that will ultimately stifle a free Internet.
Two previous efforts by the US Federal Communications Commission were tossed out by the appellate court in Washington, but earlier this year the agency tried again with a new twist—reclassifying  broadband firms as “common carriers” which can be regulated like phone companies under a 1934 law. Peter Keisler, arguing on behalf of cable and telecom providers before the three-judge panel, said the FCC overstepped its authority in the rules approved in February.
He said that Congress, in updating telecommunications law in the 1990s, specifically said the Internet should be treated as “a core information service” that should be exempted from regulation.
Judge David Tatel questioned the attorney, saying that Internet service providers were merely transmitting data and as such could be considered similar to phone carriers.
“Aren’t (consumers) just buying access to the Internet?” the judge asked.
Keisler responded that consumers “are buying the ability to retrieve information” and as such must be considered a different entity.
Jonathan Sallett, the lawyer arguing for the FCC, said that even though Internet firms use more advanced technology they essentially serve the same function as the phone company by transmitting data from one point to another.
Sallett argued that as far back as the 1980s, regulators had determined that “data processing, packet switching and storage were all part of telecommunications.”
“It’s not what is the technology, it’s whether the technology is used to manage a telecommunications service,” he said.
The rules, Sallett argued, were implemented, “to provide the opportunity to go anywhere on the Internet” without an Internet service firm deciding what can be delivered, or which services pay for better access. The plan adopted by a 3-2 FCC vote reclassified broadband Internet service providers as “public utility” carriers, in an effort to address a previous court ruling which said it lacked authority to regulate broadband.

US court clash on �Open Internet� rules

AFP, WASHINGTON: Backers and opponents of Open Internet rules clashed Friday in a federal appeals court, in the third round of a battle on how US broadband providers may be regulated. The so-called net neutrality case, one of the most hotly contested tech policy issues in Washington, tests whether online services like Netflix, Yelp and new startups should have equal access through Internet service firms like Verizon and ATT. Supporters of the rule argue that it is needed to ensure access to any type of online service without a gatekeeper, while critics say the FCC is using an antiquated, heavy-handed standard that will ultimately stifle a free Internet. Two previous efforts by the US Federal Communications Commission were tossed out by the appellate court in Washington, but earlier this year the agency tried again with a new twistreclassifying broadband firms as common carriers which can be regulated like phone companies under a 1934 law. Peter Keisler, arguing on behalf of cable and telecom providers before the three-judge panel, said the FCC overstepped its authority in the rules approved in February. He said that Congress, in updating telecommunications law in the 1990s, specifically said the Internet should be treated as a core information service that should be exempted from regulation. Judge David Tatel questioned the attorney, saying that Internet service providers were merely transmitting data and as such could be considered similar to phone carriers. Arent (consumers) just buying access to the Internet? the judge asked. Keisler responded that consumers are buying the ability to retrieve information and as such must be considered a different entity. Jonathan Sallett, the lawyer arguing for the FCC, said that even though Internet firms use more advanced technology they essentially serve the same function as the phone company by transmitting data from one point to another. Sallett argued that as far back as the 1980s, regulators had determined that data processing, packet switching and storage were all part of telecommunications. Its not what is the technology, its whether the technology is used to manage a telecommunications service, he said. The rules, Sallett argued, were implemented, to provide the opportunity to go anywhere on the Internet without an Internet service firm deciding what can be delivered, or which services pay for better access. The plan adopted by a 3-2 FCC vote reclassified broadband Internet service providers as public utility carriers, in an effort to address a previous court ruling which said it lacked authority to regulate broadband.