Appeals Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality

Oh shit:

On Tuesday, a Washington appeals court ruled that the FCC's net neutrality rules are invalid in an 81-page document that included talk about cat videos on YouTube. To cut to the chase, the court says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.

Unlike phone companies, broadband providers aren't classified as "common carriers"—and therein lies the root of the appeal court's decision. From the ruling [pdf]:

"Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."

The decision holds tremendous portent for the future of the Internet.

Net neutrality advocates fear that without rules in place, big companies like Netflix, Disney, and ESPN could gain advantage over competitors by paying ISPs to provide preferential treatment to their company's data. For example, YouTube might pay extra so that its videos load faster than Hulu's on the ISP's network.

We've already seen shades of What Could Happen in AT&T's Sponsored Data and Comcast's decision to have the Xfinity TV streaming app for the Xbox 360 not count against Comcast subscribers' data caps.

"We're disappointed that the court came to this conclusion," Craig Aaron, president and CEO of digital rights group Free Press, said in a statement. "Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies—and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers' communications at will."

The issue isn't over. The FCC is already promising to "consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans," and interested groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation will certainly pursue challenges to this ruling. But this isn't good news.

It's also further evidence that the US court system is disinterested in mitigating privilege, and very interested indeed in servicing corporate interests above all.

Net Neutrality is an access issue. Who has access to information, and what kinds of information. One of the most dangerous potential outcomes of subverting net neutrality is that media with the broadest potential audience—i.e. kyriarchy-upholding garbage, which makes money hand over fist—will be the most cheaply accessible, while specialized media—i.e. kyriarchy-challenging material, which struggles to turn a profit—will be the most expensive, since media producers invested in social justice don't tend to get rich from their work.

Because Big Media doesn't have enough of an advantage already. Cripes.