Neutralidade da rede nos Estados Unidos. De volta para o quadro-negro

Autores

  • Martin Mois Aninat Schwencke & Cía.

Resumo

Este artigo analiza a sentença da Corte de Apelações do Circuito do Distrito de Columbia (o "Circuito D.C."que anulou parcialmente a Open Internet Order, ditada pela Federal Communication Comission (FCC) dos Estados Unidos no 2010, que estabeleceu normativamente o princípio de neutralidade da rede. Para isso, junto com um breve resumo do tópico, revisa-se os antecedentes judiciais e administrativos que antecederam a sentença relacionados con o princípio de neutralidade. Logo se analizam os argumentos do Circuito D.C. para anular quase totalmente a Open Internet Order, incluindo um breve comentário sobre o voto dissidente. O artigo termina com conclusões relativas à sentença e às decições eventuais que poderia tomar agora a FCC.

Palavras-chave:

Circuito D.C., common carrier, FCC, neutralidade de Internet, Open Internet Order

Biografia do Autor

Martin Mois, Aninat Schwencke & Cía.

Martín Mois Freiwirth es abogado. Licenciado en Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales por la Universidad de Chile y Master of Law por la Universidad de Pennsylvania. Actualmente se desempeña como asociado senior en el estudio Aninat Schwencke & Cía. 

Referências

Cannon, Robert (2003). «The legacy of the Federal Communications Commission’s computer inquiries». Federal Communications Law Journal, 55 (2): 167-205.

Crawford, Susan (2013). Captive audience: The telecom industry and monopoly in the New Gilded Age. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cooper, Steve (2013). «The Internet is a 21st Century utility and we deserve better». Forbes, 29 de enero, disponible en <http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecooper/2013/01/29/the-internet-is-a-21st-century-utility-and-we-deserve-better/>.

FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2002). In re inquiry concerning high-speed access to the Internet over cable and other facilities, 17 F.C.C.R. 4798 (2002), disponible en <https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf>.

FCC (Federal Communications Commission) (2010). Open Internet Order, disponible en <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf>.

Gautham, Nagesh (2014), «FCC to propose new ‘net neutrality’ rules». The Wall Street Journal, 23 de abril, disponible en <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304518704579519963416350296?mod=LS1> (enlace pagado).

Gross, Grant (2014). «FCC’s new net neutrality proposal: What do we really know?». PC World, 28 de abril, disponible en <http://www.pcworld.com/article/2148900/fccs-new-net-neutrality-proposal-what-do-we-really-know.html>.

Owen, Bruce M. y Gregory L. Rosston (2006). «Local broadband access: primum non nocere or primum processi? A property rights approach». En Thomas Lenard y Randolph L. May (eds.), Net neutrality or net neutering. Should broadband Internet services be regulated? Nueva York: Springer.

Patel, Nilay (2014). «The Internet is fucked». The Verge, 25 de febrero, disponible en <http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5431382/the-internet-is-fucked>.

Sandvig, Christian (2007). «Network neutrality is the new common carriage». The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Communications, Information and Media, 9 (2/3): 136-147.

Van Schewick, Barbara (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Van Schewick, Barbara (2014) «The FCC changed course on network neutrality. Here is why you should care», disponible en <http://netarchitecture.org/2014/04/the-fcc-changed-course-on-network-neutrality-here-is-why-you-should-care/>.

Wu, Tim (2003). «Network neutrality, broadband discrimination». Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2 (1): 141-176.

Wu, Tim (2010). The master switch: The rise and fall of information empires. Nueva York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Yoo, Christopher (2013a). «Libertad de expresión y el mito de Internet como una experiencia no intermediada». Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 2 (1): 11-111.

Yoo, Christopher (2013b). «Is there a role for common carriage in an Internet-based world?» Houston Law Review, 51 (2): 545-608.