<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  A Washington, D.C., court yesterday issued a ruling that will change how Internet users access, pay for, and experience the web, in a move many are calling a blow to free speech and the open internet. The ruling in Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission came down against net neutrality, establishing that the FCC does not have the authority to force Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. The appeals court&amp;#039;s decision wasn&amp;#039;t based on an opposition to net neutrality in principle, but rather on the legal footing of the FCC&amp;#039;s case. In 2010, under former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the agency said that Internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast are not &amp;quot;common carriers,&amp;quot; the designation that is used for the phone companies, for example. Citing the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the court found that if the ISPs are not common carriers, the FCC does not have the authority to force those companies to treat all traffic equally. However, the court did uphold disclosure requirements that Verizon had also challenged, which means that service providers must inform their customers of any changes to their service. Because the ruling had to do with weak legal footing and not with an opposition to net neutrality itself, there is the possibility for the FCC to appeal to the Supreme Court, an option FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he would consider &amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; according to a statement released yesterday. The end of net neutrality would be a particularly big deal for video-streaming sites like Netflix and YouTube, which gobble up bandwidth. Without net neutrality, ISPs might begin to charge those services more for the use of that bandwidth, they would presumably pass those hikes on to the consumer. ISPs could begin to create service plans where consumers pay more for some types of content or specific sites than for others, or agree to pay more for &amp;quot;unlimited&amp;quot; plans where all content is treated equally the way it is now. They could also force some sites to load slower than others if they haven&amp;#039;t agreed to increased fees, meaning your Internet service could work fine while reading a news site but suddenly grind to a near halt when you switch over to, say, a video on Buzzfeed. Supporters of the new ruling argue that the increased competition will create a more robust internet, free of regulation and more open to innovation in the way it runs. Verizon yesterday released a statement on the decision affirming its &amp;quot;commitment to an open internet,&amp;quot; saying, &amp;quot;One thing is for sure: today&amp;#039;s decision will not change consumers&amp;#039; ability to access and use the Internet as they do now. The court&amp;#039;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.&amp;quot; "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a10024/why-the-courts-ruled-against-net-neutrality-16384378/>