海角大神

A federal appeals court has affirmed rules that prohibit internet providers from blocking or slowing down traffic online. The ruling hands a strong victory to advocates of net neutrality, a principle that鈥檚 increasingly growing dominant around the world.

The 2-1 decision Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ensures that sweeping rules passed last year by the Federal Communications Commission that give the regulator more oversight over internet聽providers will likely stay on the books.

鈥淲e鈥檇 like this to be very much the final word on net neutrality. This is an issue that we鈥檝e been working on for over ten years and this is a very important victory,鈥� says Timothy Karr, senior director of strategy at Free Press, an open internet advocacy group.

The court鈥檚 decision comes as a disappointment for industry groups, who had argued that the FCC鈥檚 decision to reclassify internet聽providers as 鈥渢elecommunications services鈥� went too far.

But for advocates, the court鈥檚 affirmation of the FCC鈥檚 rules marks a key milestone, coming as Europe is of its own. In March, India鈥檚 telecom regulator also invoked net neutrality in barring a Facebook-created affordable internet聽service over concerns that it granted users access to a select group of websites while excluding access to others.

鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a significant victory for net neutrality. I don鈥檛 know that other countries have been waiting for the US, in some respects the issue has been pushed much further in other countries,鈥� says James Grimmelmann, a law professor at the University of Maryland who studies the internet聽and legal issues.

鈥淲hat this does is it clear the way for the FCC to deal with the actual hard questions, the hard things that they would like to do in terms of innovative services,鈥� he adds, mentioning changes in smart-home technology and Internet of Things devices.

In , Judges David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan strongly affirmed advocates鈥� contention that the Internet聽deserved the stronger oversight given to networks of the past, such as telephones. That鈥檚 especially true given that consumers use the Internet聽to access a variety of third-party services not created by Internet providers, whether to connect with friends via Facebook, request a ride via Uber or watch TV through Netflix, the court said.

鈥淚ndeed, given the tremendous impact third-party internet聽content has had on our society, it would be hard to deny its dominance in the broadband experience. Over the past two decades, this content has transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, from profound actions like choosing a leader, building a career, and falling in love to more quotidian ones like hailing a cab and watching a movie,鈥� the judges wrote.

The decision frees up the FCC, which approved the rules last year in a partisan 3-2 vote, to tackle a variety of related issues. One is concerns about zero rating, a practice where companies exempt data from counting against a users鈥� cap on data use, such as T-Mobile鈥檚 BingeOn, which offers unlimited video streaming.

While services that promise unlimited video might seem to be a win for users, critics say that such services favor content providers who can afford to get their content in front of users, , such as non-profits or startups.

鈥淶ero-rating is definitely an issue that is not going away,鈥� writes Gabe Rottman, Deputy Director of the Freedom, Security and Technology Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based think tank, in an email to the 海角大神 Science Monitor.

The FCC has so far delivered mixed messages on the issue, with Chairman Tom Wheeler at one point , while he also from mobile providers such as T-Mobile and AT&T last fall. In a letter to the FCC last month, a group of tech companies and civil liberties groups zero-rating in a more public setting.

When it banned Facebook鈥檚 Free Basics service, India鈥檚 telecom regulator explicitly pointed to net neutrality concerns.

But, in the US, says Professor Grimmelmann, 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 tricky, it鈥檚 very easy to build the coalition and the case for anti-blocking rules and it鈥檚 very easy to take the general 鈥榯reat-all traffic-alike鈥� as a rule and a slogan. But when you get in the weeds of [questions] about T-Mobile and BingeOn, it鈥檚 harder to say if that鈥檚 a violation of network neutrality.鈥�

A second concern is online privacy. In March, the FCC introduced a set of opt-in and opt-out rules aimed at helping users gain more control over how internet companies use and share their personal information.

But some argued that the FCC鈥檚 internet rules took the wrong approach in the first place.

In a dissent, Judge Stephen Williams said that while the FCC had successfully demonstrated that it had the authority to legally reclassify broadband providers and telecommunications carriers, the agency that the internet had changed significantly to justify the effort.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the industry鈥檚 biggest trade group, the decision before considering a next step, which could include an appeal to the Supreme Court.

For Professor Grimmelmann, the court鈥檚 ruling could be a 鈥渃onversation starter鈥� between regulators and internet providers.

But Mr. Rottman, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, says the FCC鈥檚 approach 鈥渟houldn鈥檛 be controversial.鈥�

鈥淏asically, the FCC finally said this thing that walks and talks like a duck -- broadband service -- is actually a duck, and therefore we can treat it legally as a duck,鈥� he writes.