Public Knowledge Rejects Unfounded Industry Petitions Against Net Neutrality

The Internet service providers argue that the Federal Communications Commission must delay implementation of its Open Internet Order because the Order protects consumers too much. Respecting the privacy of subscribers, they argue, constitutes an ‘irreparable harm’ that warrants the extraordinary relief of a stay request. Petitioners also object that the FCC requirement that any interconnection agreement must be just and reasonable rather than the product of market power creates ‘uncertainty’ and so gravely undermines their ability to conduct business that they deserve a stay.

It speaks volumes that Petitioners regard respecting subscriber privacy as ‘irreparable harm,’ and are so uncertain whether they are exercising market power when they demand companies like Netflix pay tolls for interconnection, that the ‘uncertainty’ would disrupt their business. Likewise, the objection by Petitioners to the ‘general conduct’ rule which requires that ISPs not circumvent the net neutrality rules tells us volumes about their future business plans. Petitioners boldly assert that granting the stay will not harm anyone. From a consumer perspective, the fact that ISPs think they have a right to violate our privacy, exercise market power over interconnection negotiations, and plot clever ways to undermine the open Internet makes it clear how vitally essential these rules are, and why they must go into effect on schedule.