ISPs may be able to offer faster connections to preferred online portals and even block their rivals, as an American appeals court decided that regulators could no longer enforce the so-called “net neutrality”.
Recently, the US court of appeals ruled in favor of Verizon. In the case, FCC regulators argued that forcing ISP to provide equal access to worldwide web and bandwidth to all legitimate material is very important for the open Internet and encourages innovation. However, ISPs believe that net neutrality hampers both their ability to strike commercial deals with content providers and ability to provide higher-speed access to premium content – for example, high-definition movies. The broadband providers argue deregulation could spur more growth in emerging markets.
Despite the commercial impact, the court decision drew immediate concern from free speech groups that worry about the consequences of undermining net neutrality all over the world. They claim that the court decision will adversely affect the daily lives of US citizens and change the open nature of the web.
Some claim that court’s ruling grants commercial entities the right to block traffic and give preferential treatment to websites they like, thus steering users to or away from them. The FCC is going to appeal the decision, which may eventually wind up with the US supreme court.
One of the judges pointed out that regardless of the merits of net neutrality, the FCC simply had no legal power to treat ISPs like traditional telephone operators. Of course, Verizon welcomed this court ruling, but insisted that it would extend consumer choice in the future. The company assured that this move won’t affect users’ ability to access and use the Internet, but rather allow Verizon more room for innovation.
However, net neutrality supporters claim that allowing powerful tech giants to strike deals with ISPs to promote their material over others may hamper the growth of social media. They complain that the ability of the web to spread and share ideas is getting better, so individuals and small groups are now able produce resources that used to be the exclusive domain of large entities.
Recently, the US court of appeals ruled in favor of Verizon. In the case, FCC regulators argued that forcing ISP to provide equal access to worldwide web and bandwidth to all legitimate material is very important for the open Internet and encourages innovation. However, ISPs believe that net neutrality hampers both their ability to strike commercial deals with content providers and ability to provide higher-speed access to premium content – for example, high-definition movies. The broadband providers argue deregulation could spur more growth in emerging markets.
Despite the commercial impact, the court decision drew immediate concern from free speech groups that worry about the consequences of undermining net neutrality all over the world. They claim that the court decision will adversely affect the daily lives of US citizens and change the open nature of the web.
Some claim that court’s ruling grants commercial entities the right to block traffic and give preferential treatment to websites they like, thus steering users to or away from them. The FCC is going to appeal the decision, which may eventually wind up with the US supreme court.
One of the judges pointed out that regardless of the merits of net neutrality, the FCC simply had no legal power to treat ISPs like traditional telephone operators. Of course, Verizon welcomed this court ruling, but insisted that it would extend consumer choice in the future. The company assured that this move won’t affect users’ ability to access and use the Internet, but rather allow Verizon more room for innovation.
However, net neutrality supporters claim that allowing powerful tech giants to strike deals with ISPs to promote their material over others may hamper the growth of social media. They complain that the ability of the web to spread and share ideas is getting better, so individuals and small groups are now able produce resources that used to be the exclusive domain of large entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment