FCC to finally publish net neutrality order, and lawyers can't wait

The battle to save net neutrality is about to heat back up.
The Federal Communications Commission is on the verge of officially publishing its order demolishing the rules that protected a free and open internet, and activists actually have a reason to look forward to it. Why? Think lawsuits.

A quick look at the webpage of the Federal Register shows that the order axing net neutrality will be published Thursday, and, according to Reuters, that will give those opposed to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's vision of the internet a chance to fight back.

That's because once that ruling, known as the Restoring Internet Freedom order (ha!), officially drops, opponents will have something to sink their teeth into and can begin the long process of fighting the rules in court.

You'll likely remember that the order in question was passed by the FCC with a vote of 3-2, and at the time Pai insisted everything was going to be totally cool.

"It is not going to end the internet as we know it," he observed (possibly while daydreaming about the contents of his giant mug). "It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online."
 Yummmmmm... deregulation...

Not everyone bought the assurances of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups fan. In fact, the Attorney Generals of 22 different states announced their intention to sue the FCC over its decision.

"An open internet – and the free exchange of ideas it allows – is critical to our democratic process," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman noted in a press release. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."

With the official publishing of Pai's order to the Federal Register happening Thursday, expect to see more lawsuits aiming to defend net neutrality hitting any day now.

Read More >>

Read More

Democrats search for 51st net neutrality vote

Senate Democrats are hunting for one more Republican vote to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from repealing net neutrality rules.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Tuesday that all 49 Democrats have endorsed legislation to preserve the rules. With Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) already on board, Democrats need the support of just one more Republican to ensure the legislation is sent to the House.

The bill, which will be introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would use a legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to roll back the FCC’s vote last month scrapping the 2015 net neutrality rules. The rules have required internet service providers (ISP) to treat all web traffic equally, and supporters say they’re essential to preventing companies such as Comcast and Verizon from abusing their control over internet access.The Democrats plan to use procedural rules under the CRA to force a vote on their bill in the coming months.

Even though the bill is unlikely to pass the House or be signed by President Trump, Democrats see an opportunity to capitalize on the outcry surrounding the FCC repeal and force Republicans to vote on net neutrality ahead of the midterm elections.

“With full caucus support, it’s clear that Democrats are committed to fighting to keep the internet from becoming the Wild West where ISPs are free to offer premium service to only the wealthiest customers while average consumers are left with far inferior options,” Schumer said in a statement Tuesday.

He added, “When we force a vote on this bill, Republicans in Congress will — for the first time — have the opportunity to right the administration’s wrong and show the American people whose side they’re on: big ISPs and major corporations or consumers, entrepreneurs, and small business owners.”

On the House side, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) announced Tuesday that he had lined up 82 co-sponsors for his companion CRA bill, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). But the procedural rules for CRA bills are different in the House; Democrats do not have the power to force a vote by securing co-sponsors.

That’s left the Senate as the primary venue for the net neutrality fight.

Supporters of the rules looking for the 51st vote for the CRA bill could have several targets.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), for example, who made headlines last year by bucking the administration on a handful of judicial nominees, said last week that he is undecided on Markey’s bill.

“There a lot of nuances, and there are very good arguments on both sides,” Kennedy said to reporters, according to the National Journal. “I’m honestly undecided. Right now, to me, it’s a very, very close call.”

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who’s seen as one of the most vulnerable Republicans in this year’s midterm election, is another possible target in the net neutrality push. Spokespeople for Kennedy and Heller did not respond to requests for comment.

Still, Republicans have largely opposed the Obama-era rules as heavy-handed regulation that has stifled investment from broadband companies. They say existing antitrust and consumer protection laws are already sufficient to secure an open internet.

Democrats and their allies disagree and think Republicans will pay a political price for that stance.

Fight for the Future, a group that helped rally internet users to protest the FCC vote, has already launched an online scorecard to track members’ positions on the CRA, directing supporters to reach out to their representatives.

“Net neutrality is going to be an election issue in 2018 and every member of Congress knows it,” Evan Greer, the group’s campaign director, said in a statement.

“The CRA is steamrolling through the Senate because lawmakers are reading the writing on the wall that it’s the only viable legislation on the table. Cleanly reversing the FCC’s unpopular and illegitimate decision is, on substance, the correct policy move, and the only one that has support from voters,” Greer said.

It could be months before the net neutrality bill reaches the Senate floor. The FCC’s final order still needs to receive approval from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and must be published in the Federal Register before Congress can review it. At that point, lawmakers will have 60 legislative days to take up the CRA bills.

Even if the effort in Congress fails, as expected, the FCC’s repeal order will be facing court challenges for years to come. That will allow Democrats to extend the shelf life of a political battle in which they see themselves on the winning side.

“Republicans now have a clear choice — be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support a free and open internet, or hold hands with the special interests who want to control the internet for their own profit,” Markey said in a statement Tuesday. “I urge them to join the majority of Americans, embrace the bipartisanship of net neutrality, and support this resolution.”

Read More >>

Read More

The FCC’s Christmas Gift to Internet Users

No doubt your Christmas would be troubled and anxiety ridden if not for this column assuring you that the Trump administration decision last week to “repeal net neutrality” does no such thing.

Net neutrality long ago became the expectation of broadband customers. It was an expectation that internet service providers routinely met during the two decades before the Obama rules were enacted. It’s an expectation they will continue to meet after the Obama rules have been withdrawn.

Net neutrality means unfiltered, unhindered access to what the web offers. Net neutrality is the business that broadband suppliers are in.

What is being repealed is a decision to recategorize broadband from a Title I to a Title II service under the 1934 Communications Act. This decision had little to do with net neutrality but meant that lobbyists and petitioners and courts would be able to pressure Washington steadily in the direction of regulating the internet the way it did the railroads in the early 1900s.

Title II is what many groups militating in the name of net neutrality really wanted. They conflated net neutrality with Title II regulation because they thought it politically expedient to do so.

Does this mean you should run screaming to the nearest cliff and throw yourself off because now the internet will be taken over by “fast lanes”?I, for one, will pass. The whole idea of fast lanes reflects a faulty, obsolete metaphor for how the internet works. The internet is more like a giant computer providing a diverse array of services to a billion-plus users simultaneously.

It delivers you a webpage, me a video. In the future, it will help your driverless car navigate traffic, a doctor examine and treat an injury remotely. It will make sure your refrigerator is full of beer.

The businesses supplying each of these services care only that their own customers are happy. Their customers care only that their own service is satisfactory. They won’t care or even notice that the computer is constantly optimizing its performance so its diverse users are all kept simultaneously happy.

The whole “fast lane” nonsense is even more nonsense when we realize how much it’s the efforts of so-called edge providers that determine service quality. If a static webpage doesn’t load as quickly as you might wish, today it’s because of slow servers among the dozens that nowadays contribute pieces of a webpage. Not to blame usually is the last-mile carrier, who’s moving these elements to you as fast as content suppliers make them available.

Or take Netflix: It spends millions to place servers containing its shows inside the systems of last-mile providers to improve delivery and reduce transport costs.

Laws against fraud and anticompetitive behavior apply to broadband suppliers as they do to other companies in the economy. If a supermarket sells you a can of dirt labeled “peas,” it would not long stay in business. But, wait, aren’t we in a uniquely bad position because so many of us have only one or two choices for broadband at home?

All businesses would like to charge an infinitely high price for infinitely chintzy service, but not even Comcast can get away with this, even when competition is inadequate, because customers have voices and politicians and regulators listen to those voices. And competition can only improve matters.

Ironically, what consistently outrages the net-neut freaks is the wireless sector, where competition is fierce, and where rivals dangle offers of uncapped streaming from certain video services, and even free Netflix or Sling TV. This offends sacred principle, never mind that it increasingly turns wireless into a plausible substitute for the local fixed-line monopolist.

Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile—all have made announcements, and put money behind them, promising that 5G wireless will render the local cable oligopoly a thing of the past. Repealing Title II not only makes such investment attractive. It will enable wireless to support a whole slew of advanced services while keeping customers maximally happy.

Disney last week announced it would spend $52.4 billion to acquire certain Fox assets to replicate Netflix’s business model. Notice that Netflix’s business model is premised entirely on the existence of ubiquitous, affordable, unhindered broadband.

Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is the Santa, not the Grinch, of this holiday season. Repeal of Title II is what will make the future internet possible. It’s just too bad those net-neutrality obsessives piling up lifelessly at the bottom of the nearest cliff won’t be around to enjoy it.

Read More >>

Read More

Government-forced 'net neutrality': Putting future inventors between a rock and a hard place

One of my favorite Greek Myths is Sisyphus, an arrogant king who earned a terrible punishment by trying to cheat death: he was forced to roll a rock pointlessly up a hill, only to watch it roll back down every time, for all of time.

Fast forward to modern times, and the debate surrounding “net neutrality” very much feels like my rock. We make a move in the right direction — taking a hands-off regulatory approach to the Internet — but then leftist activists swoop in, and try to throw shackles on the Internet.

Armed with their good old playbook, these activists have declared war and are unapologetic in their efforts to spread mistruths that will hopefully trick enough people into believing that burdensome overregulation of the Internet is our only choice. Instead of commonsense and transparency, they opt for radical ideological warfare.

One point to clarify is that these pretend consumer advocates are not on their white horses, brandishing their swords and shields, to save your “free and open Internet.” That is what they desperately want you to believe.

The activists are supporters of the deceptively titled “net neutrality," which treats Internet service providers as public utilities, like electric companies. Net neutrality is not neutral at all. It would appoint a bureaucrat to play referee over the Internet, which it doesn’t need, but even worse, that referee would only call fouls on one team. That means that it is nearly impossible (Greek mythology-type impossible) for net neutrality to bring down costs.

Their efforts now focus on protecting a set of 2015 rules put in place by former President Barack Obama and his Federal Communications Commission known as Title II, which classifies Internet service providers as public utilities, like electricity, gas, and water. That is the contentious point in this debate, not the issue of a free and open Internet.

These groups are raising an all-out policy war and kicking dust in the air because of the current FCC’s intent to reverse this crippling 2015 rule, which not only prioritizes certain companies over others but it also manipulates the very foundation of how our nation’s markets work.

The irrefutable economic truth is that more regulation like Title II equals more costs and less innovation.

A market doesn’t become more efficient when a bureaucrat tries to step in and dictate how decisions are to be made and how a market/service/transaction is going to run. That kind of meddling always slows things down, both Internet speeds and innovation, because even if a better solution is found, old regulations can stifle the marketplace and hurt consumers. Think of the way taxi unions have tried to stop ride-share programs like Uber and Lyft.

For example, this trend can be seen in markets from TVs to college, as this Bureau of Labor Statistics chart wonderfully illustrates.

Armed with their good old playbook, these activists have declared war and are unapologetic in their efforts to spread mistruths that will hopefully trick enough people into believing that burdensome overregulation of the Internet is our only choice. Instead of commonsense and transparency, they opt for radical ideological warfare.

One point to clarify is that these pretend consumer advocates are not on their white horses, brandishing their swords and shields, to save your “free and open Internet.” That is what they desperately want you to believe.

The activists are supporters of the deceptively titled “net neutrality," which treats Internet service providers as public utilities, like electric companies. Net neutrality is not neutral at all. It would appoint a bureaucrat to play referee over the Internet, which it doesn’t need, but even worse, that referee would only call fouls on one team. That means that it is nearly impossible (Greek mythology-type impossible) for net neutrality to bring down costs.

Their efforts now focus on protecting a set of 2015 rules put in place by former President Barack Obama and his Federal Communications Commission known as Title II, which classifies Internet service providers as public utilities, like electricity, gas, and water. That is the contentious point in this debate, not the issue of a free and open Internet.

These groups are raising an all-out policy war and kicking dust in the air because of the current FCC’s intent to reverse this crippling 2015 rule, which not only prioritizes certain companies over others but it also manipulates the very foundation of how our nation’s markets work.

The irrefutable economic truth is that more regulation like Title II equals more costs and less innovation.

A market doesn’t become more efficient when a bureaucrat tries to step in and dictate how decisions are to be made and how a market/service/transaction is going to run. That kind of meddling always slows things down, both Internet speeds and innovation, because even if a better solution is found, old regulations can stifle the marketplace and hurt consumers. Think of the way taxi unions have tried to stop ride-share programs like Uber and Lyft.

For example, this trend can be seen in markets from TVs to college, as this Bureau of Labor Statistics chart wonderfully illustrates.

The trend is obvious, but many on the left still think they can regulate an industry into submission. They can use the stick instead of the carrot to encourage innovation and competition. Markets just don’t work that way.

Regulation is an extra constraint, and the way to create more innovation is to eliminate constraints. In a lot of ways, that is the way that the Internet currently functions. The Internet catapulted us into the future because Internet providers and Silicon Valley were not hamstrung by excessive extortion: taxes, regulation, and unionization. Silicon Valley exploded because its barons followed Atlas Shrugged, not Haight-Ashbury.

In the lead up to a potential December vote on restoring Internet freedom at the FCC’s open meeting, there has been an uptick in events, congressional hearings, and commentary. While it’s no surprise that debate continues on the merits of Title II, the FCC needs to look one step further. If it really wants to restore and preserve Internet freedom, it needs a national framework to pre-empt a patchwork framework in the states, which is where the leftist activists will go next to try to get wins.

Sisyphus’s action of rolling his rock make sense, at least in the context of Greek Mythology. It’s his punishment. But this isn’t ancient Greece, and U.S. tech innovators shouldn’t be punished in similar fashion.

The leftist activist support of slow government bureaucracy to foster innovation from the Internet doesn’t make any sense. I guess, unless, they are trying to cheat the laws of economics. That might not be as punishable as cheating death, but maybe they should be “punished” by being forced to read Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action only to return to the riveting beginning of the economic page-turner when they are done.

A punishment for sure, but one which will likely lead to something greater: a faster, cheaper, less-regulated Internet.

Charles Sauer (@CharlesSauer) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Market Institute and previously worked on Capitol Hill, for a governor, and for an academic think tank.
Read More >>

Read More

Is There Any Particular Reason For China To Stop Cyberscrewing the US?

The massive data breach of a US government server originating from China might make for awkward conversation between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping during his visit to Washington this week. But as pissed off as Obama might be, his options for fending off future Chinese hacking may be limited to incoherent mumbling and impassioned gesturing.

In July, the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced it was the target of a yearlong data breach that was the largest of its kind in US government history. The records of more than 20 million people were compromised, including highly sensitive security clearance background information. Media reports citing unnamed government officials indicated the attacks originated in China, but whether the attackers had the support of the Chinese government is unclear. Though the stolen information has not shown up for sale in dark corners of the internet, reports indicate China may be compiling OPM and other stolen data into a database of US federal employees for further espionage potential, according to current and former intelligence officials.

Related: Hacks Bring Down US Background Check System — But the Worst Is Yet to Come

China's alleged cyber intrusions are not limited to traditional espionage. They also target the private sector and commercial secrets -- an issue the House and Senate leadership warned President Barack Obama about in a letter this week.

Most countries make a distinction between political and economic espionage, with the former tacitly accepted as something all nations do, while the latter is not viewed as an acceptable government activity. The Chinese government tends to conflate the two, which makes a certain amount of sense given the intimate relationship between government and private industry in China. Despite high-profile breaches like the OPM hack, the US is most concerned about halting China's economic espionage activities.

"This isn't a mild irritation, it's an economic and national security concern to the United States," National Security Advisor Susan Rice said during an address at George Washington University Monday. "Cyber-enabled espionage that targets personal and corporate information for the economic gain of businesses undermines our long-term economic cooperation, and it needs to stop."

Xi repeated what has become China's standard answer to US accusations: "China takes cybersecurity very seriously," he said. "China is also a victim of hacking. The Chinese government does not engage in theft of commercial secrets in any form, nor does it encourage or support Chinese companies to engage in such practices in any way." China has in the past expanded on these denials, citing its lack of control over independent actors — so-called "patriotic hackers" — and unsanctioned activities by local governments far from Beijing.

Determining who's doing the hacking is also challenging. Denise Zheng, deputy director and senior fellow in the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said hackers "may wear a PLA [China's People's Liberation Army] hat during the day and black hat at night."

The question of how the US should respond remains tricky. Obama last week said the attacks were straining the US relationship with China, and "that we are prepared to some countervailing actions in order to get their attention."

Those actions may not necessarily take place online.

"We've made clear that we have other punitive measure available when we do see instances of cyber intrusion and cyber theft," Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said yesterday in a conference call with reporters. "Sanctions remain a tool of the United States, and we would be prepared, if necessary, to pursue sanctions."

Related: Chinese Cyber Attacks Trigger US MIDLIFE Crisis


Follow Shannon Hayden on Twitter: @ShannonKHayden
Read More >>

Read More

Verizon could be sued by NYC over reportedly broken FiOS promises

A number of New York City officials said they are considering suing Verizon (NYSE: VZ) for not meeting their proposed FiOS buildout obligations set in their 2008 franchise agreement.

"We want them to make it available to everyone in every ZIP code and on every block so that everyone can get online, to do research, to do their homework," said Maya Wiley, the chief lawyer for Mayor de Blasio, in a New York Times article. "We need our residents to get online."

Wiley said that her staff was working with Verizon and would like avoid a lawsuit, adding that "if that's what we have to do, then that's what we'll do."

John Bonomo, a Verizon spokesman told FierceTelecom in an e-mail that it wants to resolve the issues it has with the city in order to extend FiOS to more users.

"We want to work with the city administration on a workable solution to this and other impediments so that all New Yorkers can benefit from FIOS," Bonomo said. "In completing this massive infrastructure achievement, the company has both provided New Yorkers hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers with a choice for better TV, and a better value over the incumbent cable TV monopoly companies, and it has provided the City with a resilient, reliable telecommunications infrastructure that is the envy of cities the world over."

Verizon and the city have not been on the greatest of terms lately.

In June, an audit conducted by the New York City's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications found that Verizon failed to deliver on its promise to provide fiber-optic service for television and broadband to anyone who wants it by 2014.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Verizon was quick to dismiss the audit, saying it was based upon erroneous information and incorrect interpretations of the company's franchise deal that was signed with the city in 2008, which allowed it to deploy FiOS throughout the city.

Following the audit, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio began requiring city hall to approve any business local agencies do with the service provider, a measure focused on getting it to fulfill its goal to wire the city with FiOS fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service.

Under the terms of the agreement, Verizon agreed to pass all 3 million homes in New York City by the end of 2014, an obligation that the telco said it has met.

"By installing fiber-optic cables throughout the five boroughs -- an initiative no other communications company has done -- Verizon has met its commitment to New York City under the cable television franchise it was awarded in 2008," Bonomo said. 

According to city officials, FiOS is not available in large parts of the city, including the Co-op City complex in the Bronx, which comprises more than 15,000 apartments and whose residents say they want FiOS. 

Bonomo said that "Co-Op City has an exclusive agreement with Cablevision, which could make it unprofitable for us to market FiOS there."

Verizon has long argued that one of the issues it has run into in building out FTTH service to more areas of the city are landlords that restrict access to their facilities.

Kevin Service, senior vice president for network operations for Verizon, told theNew York Times as a way to illustrate the point of the challenges it faces with properties owners if it wants to wire 118th Street in East Harlem it will have to work with multiple property owners.

"To get to the 10th floor in the middle of the block," he said, "we've got to talk to not only that building, but the three buildings on one side and the four buildings on the other side."

For more:

- New York Times has this article

Read More >>

Read More

Net Neutrality Is on trial: Help defend it !!

The big cable companies are back — and this time they're going through the courts to try to kill the Net Neutrality rules we won earlier this year. Activists are filing a "People's Brief" in a few days to make sure that the court understands just how important Net.

Spread the word!!

Neutrality is: To read the brief and add your name to sign on.

CLICK HERE

Read More

F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules Clear Hurdle as Republicans Concede to Obama

Photo

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said that Democrats were lining up with President Obama in favor of the F.C.C. position on net neutrality. Credit Jabin Botsford/The New York Time

WASHINGTON — Senior Republicans conceded on Tuesday that the grueling fight with President Obama over the regulation of Internet service appears over, with the president and an army of Internet activists victorious.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected on Thursday to approve regulating Internet service like a public utility, prohibiting companies from paying for faster lanes on the Internet. While the two Democratic commissioners are negotiating over technical details, they are widely expected to side with the Democratic chairman, Tom Wheeler, against the two Republican commissioners.

And Republicans on Capitol Hill, who once criticized the plan as “Obamacare for the Internet,” now say they are unlikely to pass a legislative response that would undo perhaps the biggest policy shift since the Internet became a reality.

“We’re not going to get a signed bill that doesn’t have Democrats’ support,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. “This is an issue that needs to have bipartisan support.”

The new F.C.C. rules are still likely to be tied up in a protracted court fight with the cable companies and Internet service providers that oppose it, and they could be overturned in the future by a Republican-leaning commission. But for now, Congress’s hands appear to be tied.

The F.C.C. plan would let the agency regulate Internet access as if it is a public good. It would follow the concept known as net neutrality or an open Internet, banning so-called paid prioritization — or fast lanes — for willing Internet content providers.

In addition, it would ban the intentional slowing of the Internet for companies that refuse to pay broadband providers. The plan would also give the F.C.C. the power to step in if unforeseen impediments are thrown up by the handful of giant companies that run many of the country’s broadband and wireless networks.

Republicans hoped to pre-empt the F.C.C. vote with legislation, but Senate Democrats insisted on waiting until after Thursday’s F.C.C. vote before even beginning to talk about legislation for an open Internet. Even Mr. Thune, the architect of draft legislation to override the F.C.C., said Democrats had stalled what momentum he could muster.

And an avalanche of support for Mr. Wheeler’s plan — driven by Internet companies as varied as Netflix, Twitter, Mozilla and Etsy — has swamped Washington.

“We’ve been outspent, outlobbied. We were going up against the second-biggest corporate lobby in D.C., and it looks like we’ve won,” said Dave Steer, director of advocacy for the Mozilla Foundation, the nonprofit technology foundation that runs Firefox, a popular Web browser, referring to the cable companies. “A year ago today, we did not think we would be in this spot.”

The net neutrality movement pitted new media against old and may well have revolutionized notions of corporate social responsibility and activism. Top-down decisions by executives investing in or divesting themselves of resources, paying lobbyists and buying advertisements were upended by the mobilization of Internet customers and users.

“We don’t have an army of lobbyists to deploy. We don’t have financial resources to throw around,” said Liba Rubenstein, director of social impact and public policy at the social media company Tumblr, which is owned by Yahoo, the large Internet company, but operated independently on the issue. “What we do have is access to an incredibly engaged, incredibly passionate user base, and we can give folks the tools to respond.”

Internet service providers say heavy-handed regulation of the Internet will diminish their profitability and crush investment to expand and speed up Internet access. It could even open the web to taxation to pay for new regulators.

Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said the pro-net-neutrality advocates turned a complex and technical debate over how best to keep the Internet operating most efficiently into a matter of religion. The forces for stronger regulation, he said, became viewed as for the Internet. Those opposed to the regulation were viewed as against the Internet.

The Internet companies, he said, sometimes mislead their customers, and in some cases, are misled on the intricacies of the policy.

“Many of the things they have said just belie reality and common sense,” he said.

In April, a dozen New York-based Internet companies gathered at Tumblr’s headquarters in the Flatiron district to hear dire warnings that broadband providers were about to obtain the right to charge for the fastest speeds on the web.

The implication: If they did not pony up, they would be stuck in the slow lane.

What followed was the longest, most sustained campaign of Internet activism in history. A swarm of small players, like Tumblr, Etsy, BoingBoing and Reddit, overwhelmed the giants of the broadband world, Comcast, Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable. Two of the biggest players on the Internet, Amazon and Google, largely stayed in the background, while smaller participants — some household names like Twitter and Netflix, others far more obscure, like Chess.com and Urban Dictionary — mobilized a grass-roots crusade.

“Our community is the source of our power,” said Althea Erickson, director of public policy at Etsy, an online craft market, where users embroidered pillows and engraved spoons promoting net neutrality.

In mid-October, the tech activist group Fight for the Future acquired the direct telephone numbers of about 30 F.C.C. officials, circumventing the agency’s switchboard to send calls directly to policy makers. That set off a torrent of more than 55,000 phone calls until the group turned off the spigot on Dec. 3.

In November, President Obama cited “almost four million public comments” when he publicly pressured the F.C.C. to turn away from its paid “fast lane” proposal and embrace a new regulatory regime.

Since then, the lobbying has grown only more intense. Last week, 102 Internet companies wrote to the F.C.C. to say the threat of Internet service providers “abusing their gatekeeper power to impose tolls and discriminate against competitive companies is the real threat to our future,” not “heavy-handed regulation” and possible taxation, as conservatives in Washington say.

Republicans have grown much quieter under the barrage.

“Tech companies would be better served to work with Congress on clear rules for the road. The thing that they’re buying into right now is a lot of legal uncertainty,” said Mr. Thune. “I’m not sure exactly what their thinking is.”

Mr. Thune said he was still willing to work with Democrats on legislation that he said would do what the F.C.C. is trying to accomplish, without a heavy regulatory hand: Ban paid “fast lanes” and stop intentional slowdowns — or “throttling” — by broadband companies seeking payment from Internet content providers.

But even he said Democrats were ready to let the F.C.C. do the job.

 
Read More >>

Read More

Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

What happened?

In May 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a plan that would have allowed companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to discriminate online and create pay-to-play fast lanes.

Millions of you spoke out — and fought back.

Thanks to the huge public and political outcry, Wheeler shelved his original proposal, and on Feb. 4, 2015, he announced that he will base new Net Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act, giving Internet users the strongest protections possible.

The FCC will vote on Wheeler’s proposal at its Feb. 26 meeting. If all goes well, it will be a watershed victory for activists who have fought for a decade to protect the open Internet.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

 

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

 

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

 

What was the FCC’s ‘Open Internet Order’?

The FCC’s 2010 order was intended to prevent broadband Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on the Web. The Open Internet Order was generally designed to ensure the Internet remained a level playing field for all — that's the principle we call Net Neutrality (we say “generally,” since the FCC’s rules prohibited wired ISPs from blocking and discriminating against content, while allowing wireless ISPs to discriminate against but not block websites).

 

In its January 2014 ruling, the court said that the FCC used a questionable legal framework to craft the Open Internet Order and lacked the authority to implement and enforce those rules.

 

Did the court rule against Net Neutrality? 

No. The court ruled against the FCC's ability to enforce Net Neutrality under the shaky legal foundation it established for those rules. The court specifically stated that its “task as a reviewing court is not to assess the wisdom of the Open Internet Order regulations, but rather to determine whether the Commission has demonstrated that the regulations fall within the scope of its statutory grant of authority.”

 

When the FCC made its open Internet rule, it relied on two decisions made by the Bush-era FCC, rulings that weakened the FCC’s authority over broadband Internet access network providers. There is nothing in the January court decision that prohibits the FCC from reversing those misguided decisions and reclassifying ISPs as common carriers.

 

In fact, both this decision and a prior Supreme Court decision clearly establish that the FCC must reclassify broadband if it wishes to prohibit practices like blocking websites or discriminating against apps.

 

What does ‘reclassify’ mean? 

When Congress enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it didn’t want the FCC to treat websites and other Internet services the same way it treats the local access networks that enable people to get online. Congress understood that the owners of the access networks have tremendous gatekeeper power, and so it required the FCC to treat these network owners as “common carriers,” meaning they couldn’t block or discriminate against the content that flows across their networks to/from your computer.

 

However, in a series of politically motivated decisions first by FCC Chairman Michael Powell (now the cable industry’s top lobbyist) and then by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, the FCC decided to classify broadband Internet access service as an “information service,” meaning that the law sees it as no different from a website like freepress.net or an online service like LexisNexis. These decisions removed the FCC’s ability to prohibit ISPs from blocking or discriminating against online content (it also removed the FCC’s ability to ensure that ISPs protect your privacy). 

 

In Verizon vs. FCC, the court stated that the FCC lacks authority because of “the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of ‘telecommunications services’ but instead as providers of ‘information services.’” 

 

The FCC is free to revisit those prior classification decisions. If the FCC votes to define broadband as what we all know it is — a connection to the outside world that is merely faster than the phone lines we used to use for dial-up access, phone calls and faxes — then it can “reclassify” the transmission component of an ISP’s service back under the law as a “telecommunications service.”

 

Doing so would give the FCC authority to adopt Net Neutrality rules and/or intervene if ISPs harm the open Internet through discriminatory practices.

 

What has the FCC proposed for a vote?

Chairman Wheeler plans to introduce “the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC” for a vote on Feb. 26. Wheeler's rules, based on Title II of the Communications Act, will ban throttling, blocking and paid prioritization.

 

While the public hasn't yet seen the full text of Wheeler’s proposal, early press reports and the chairman’s own comments look promising.  

 

Why is Net Neutrality important for businesses?

Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, startups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the open Internet to launch their businesses, create a market, advertise their products and services, and distribute products to customers. We need the open Internet to foster job growth, competition and innovation.

Net Neutrality lowers the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, startups and small businesses by ensuring the Web is a fair and level playing field. It’s because of Net Neutrality that small businesses and entrepreneurs have been able to thrive on the Internet. They use the Internet to reach new customers and showcase their goods, applications and services.
No company should be able to interfere with this open marketplace. ISPs are by definition the gatekeepers to the Internet, and without Net Neutrality, they will seize every possible opportunity to profit from that gatekeeper control.
Without Net Neutrality, the next Google being built in a garage somewhere will never get off the ground.

Why is Net Neutrality important for communities of color?

The open Internet allows communities of color to tell their own stories and to organize for racial and social justice in the digital age.

The mainstream media have often failed to allow people of color to speak for themselves. And thanks to economic inequality and runaway media consolidation, people of color own just a handful of broadcast stations. The lack of diverse ownership is a primary reason why the media have gotten away with portraying communities of color stereotypically.

The open Internet gives marginalized voices an opportunity to be heard. But without Net Neutrality, ISPs can block unpopular speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online. Without Net Neutrality, people of color will lose a vital platform to shape debates on issues that impact their communities’ well-being.

And without Net Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color won't be able to compete against larger corporations online, which will further deepen the economic inequality in our nation’s most vulnerable communities.

So what can we do now?

On Feb. 26, the FCC will vote on rules that use Title II to protect real Net Neutrality. If all goes well, it will be a watershed victory for activists who have fought for a decade to protect the open Internet.
Unfortunately, the cable and phone companies are doing everything they can to weaken these rules before the vote. And members of Congress are also trying to stop the FCC.
Go here to find out how you can help.

Read More >>

Read More

We petition the obama administration to: President Obama, Lets Preserve Net Neutrality. Lets start treating broadband like a communications service!

We petition the obama administration to:

President Obama, Lets Preserve Net Neutrality. Lets start treating broadband like a communications service!

The FCC is spitting in the eyes of the millions of Americans who demanded real Net Neutrality by reclassifying ISP's as Title II services.
We need the FCC to implement a strong Title II rule that bans fees and discrimination.
If they don’t, Obama will go down in history as the president who broke the Internet.
But there’s hope:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler can correct the agency’s past mistakes and truly protect our nation’s communications infrastructure. The agency must take the necessary steps to make broadband networks open, accessible, reliable and affordable for everyone.
Tell the FCC to do its job and preserve the openness of the Internet.

SIGN PETITION HERE

Read More