US Court block Internet Free Speech law and cripples innovation by giving advantage to established businesses and services in the Verizon v FCC ruling.
Bernie Sanders independent Senator from Vermont summed up the disappointment best:
“I am very disappointed by the decision made by the D.C. Court of Appeals and fear that the result will be an Internet no longer open to the free exchange of ideas and content.
“Whether you are rich, poor, young or old, the Internet allows all people to seek out information and communicate globally. We must not allow corporate interests to disrupt this free flow of ideas. This decision deals a blow to consumers and small businesses alike. When corporations are able to prioritize the information available to users, it stifles ideas and expression, as well as commerce and innovation.”
For those not paying attention the independent internet just took a serious blow. This could be as sweeping to killing democracy as was the Supreme Court Decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) that allowed corporate interests to trump the wishes of the people.
The Federal Court of Appeals has basically ruled that the FCC does not have the power to enforce rules that would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Verizon to treat all traffic equally.
This allows an ISP to squelch, slow down or block internet traffic to any web pages and websites they wish. Which allows corporations such as Verizon control over free speech and allows them to even slow down innovation in favor of monied interests as they see fit.
But not to worry in the case of Verizon they promise that “One thing is for sure: today’s decision will not change consumers’ ability to access and use the internet as they do now. The court’s decision will allow more room for innovation, and consumers will have more choices to determine for themselves how they access and experience the internet. Verizon has been and remains committed to the open internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in light of the court’s decision.”
What Verizon failed to mention was that their statement is true only as long as the profit needs of their stockholders are protected.
Not that it changed the end result of his ruling but even Judge David Tatel said that the FCC should have some authority to regulate service providers. Also that striking down net neutrality could have negative effects on consumers. “The commission has adequately supported and explained its conclusion that absent rules such as those set forth in the Open Internet Order, broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment,” he said, saying that broadband companies have “powerful incentives” to charge for prioritized access or to exclude services that competed with their own offerings.
News Video Report about the Verizon v FCC ruling and implications for Net Neutrality
EV of the Year Judge, independent green journalist, photographer, author and sustainability activist that has published over 1000 articles. Mr Burridge’s travels have taken him to over 30 countries and 300+ major cities. He is originally from the USA, but has been residing in Australia for the last seven years. Connect to Ken Burridge on: Twitter, facebook, Google+, Linked in or website