23Jun

    US Court Rules Internet as a Utility, not Luxury

    In a 2016 Federal court ruling, the courts decided that high-speed internet service is a utility. This was a victory for start-up tech firms, microbusinesses and everyday consumers. They all use and depend on the internet on a daily basis. While some Americans cannot afford high-speed internet, many Americans find it difficult to function without it. Therefore, the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) decided high-speed internet is a necessity and the courts agreed. This ruling affirms that high-speed internet is as important as telephones and electrical power in the lives of Americans. It is not a luxury.
    The decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was made in a case about net neutrality. Net neutrality is a rule that ensures internet service providers deliver the same internet service to all its consumers. This keeps companies who can afford to pay for faster speed and broader service from having an unfair advantage over their competitors who cannot afford it. Without net neutrality broadband providers could allow some content on the web to be delivered at slower speeds. Consumers could be charged extra for better service and have to pay more to be able to receive some content. Only two judges were in agreement. The dissenting Judge, Stephen Williams referred to the rules an “unreasoned patchwork”. He felt that competition in the broadband industry would be jeopardized by the ruling of the F.C.C. Google and Netflix are in favor of the neutrality rules.
    When the rule was put in place Ajit Pai was a commissioner with the F.C.C. He was appointed by President Obama in May 2012. Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner, was outspokenly against the regulation of broadband as a utility from the very beginning. Ajit Pai encouraged cable and telecommunications firms to continue the legal challenges against the rule. Cable, telecommunications and wireless internet providers sued to overturn the regulations put in place by the F.C.C, claiming that the F.C.C. exceeded its authority. This resulted in the 2016 ruling, upholding the decision by the F.C.C. The legal battle is anticipated to continue.
    In January 2017, President Trump named Ajit Pai the new Chairman of the F.C.C. Since Mr. Pai took office, the F.C.C. closed an investigation involving T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon. The investigation was concerning their zero-rating practices. Some view this as the dismantling of net neutrality by the F.C.C.

    19Nov

    Social Media’s Effect on Criminal Trial Law

    imgresThe OJ Simpson trial in the 90s was important for a number of reasons, not least of all as a signifier of the powerful effect of mass media on a trial. High-profile cases are now regularly featured in tabloids and popular online news aggregators.

    A recent study, Public Engagement with the Criminal Justice System in the Age of Social Media, examines this same topic 20 years later, in a world where mass media is much different, and much more pervasive.

    The study links the media’s portrayal of criminal trials to the dwindling of public confidence in the country’s criminal justice system. Researchers looked examined a host of data points for participants, including news reading sources and habits, knowledge about major recent criminal trials, and overall trust in the criminal justice system at large.

    The study’s abstract claims that the study is the first look at social media’s impact, specifically. If that’s true, it’s amazing researchers have waited so long. We have to imagine it won’t be the last study of its kind.

    Ultimately, the study finds that social media coverage and conversation about criminal trials do not enhance public knowledge, and does nothing to increase confidence in the overall system. What does tend to increase when the public engages in social media surrounding a trial, is a “greater desire for vengeance and encouragement of vigilante attitudes and behavior.” The conclusion adds that the advent of ‘cyber vigilantism’ may have been born, in part, from this effect. Noble motives, but potentially harmful actions.

    As we each make choices about how we use the internet to enhance and enrich our lives, we need to consider how it’s affecting us and our perceptions of our world.

    You can download the entire study here. [http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/325/471]