Net neutrality loses the first round

While most of the technorati were singing hosannas for Apple's new iPad, out in the real world, a court announced a decision which could determine how much of the Internet we'll have access to.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to tell Comcast -- and, by extension, other Internet providers -- whether or not they can limit access to the Internet.

The decision was the result of an attempt by the FCC back in August 2008 to stop Comcast from slowing traffic for those customers who were using the BitTorrent peer-to-peer service. According to many commentators, this has opened the way for Internet providers to slow or block access to specific services and/or sites.

The decision could have other effects as well. According to the New York Times, it also suggests that the FCC didn't have the authority to move funding around in order to help finance Internet access in rural areas.

There are some who are quite gratified by the court's decision. I imagine that there are a lot of smiles, not only in Comcast's offices, but in those of Verizon, Time Warner, and other providers, not to mention their stockholders. (CTIA-The Wireless Association, for example, which represents the wireless telecommunications industry, released a very satisfied statement on the ruling.) It can also be considered a victory for those who distrust the FCC's authority.

Others, however, aren't as happy. Advocates of net neutrality, for example, are now considering other ways of ensuring that providers are prevented from giving some sites and/or services preference over others when it comes to bandwidth.

So what will happen now? The FCC will no doubt regroup, and try to figure out what to do next -- as will those who favor net neutrality. An article in the Washington Post describes three alternatives available to the FCC: Try to classify broadband as a common carrier service similar to that of normal phone services; have Congress expand the FCC's authority; or simply appeal the decision.

It will be interesting to follow what will happen next on this stage. While I can sympathize with the efforts of service providers to rein in those who over-use their broadband, I also have little faith that, given half the chance, they won't also do their best to accelerate profits by, say, charging sites extra fees for the privilege of not being slowed down. And in the long run, that could have a far greater effect on our ability to use the Web than Apple's new tablet.