Network Neutrality

Comcast and Verizon have both asked the Federal Communications Commission to make clear that the FCC's new policy on network neutrality — which could be put to a vote as early as Dec — will preempt state and local regulations that might read differently. The request marks the industry's latest step to weaken federal rules that regulate broadband companies like legacy telephone companies. The broadband industry fears that even if the FCC succeeds in deregulating, states could take steps “countermanding” the federal agency's decision, according to the Verizon white paper.

[Commentary] In a few weeks, it is widely expected that the Federal Communications Commission will release a draft order reversing the Obama Administration’s controversial 2015 decision to reclassify broadband internet access from a lightly-regulated “information” service under Title I of the Communications Act to a heavily-regulated common carrier “telecommunications” service under Title II of that same Act. As with the original 2015 decision, a court appeal of this policy change is a virtual certainty. Yet, even though the DC Circuit in USTelecom v.

House Communications and Technology Chairman Marsha Blackbur (R-TN) is open to using federal antitrust laws to fix the long-running debate over net neutrality. “It’s helpful to consider the complete spectrum of law shielding American consumers from anticompetitive behavior,” she said. “It’s clear that internet service providers are not the only potential roadblock standing between a consumer and his or her content of choice,” she said .

Comcast met with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's staff the week of Oct 30 in an attempt to prevent states from issuing network neutrality rules.

The House Antitrust Subcommittee took a whack at the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules Nov 1, specifically the role of antitrust law in governing broadband access provider conduct. That came as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is expected to circulate an order rolling back Title II classification of ISPs as early as later in Nov. It also came at about the same time that the FCC Democrats went to Capitol Hill to push back on that Pai proposal.

Even though our net neutrality policies are now legally viable and wildly popular, the leadership at the Commission wants to revisit Internet openness. It has started a proceeding that tears at the foundation of net neutrality. It has proposed cutting the rules we have and instead offering our broadband providers the power to favor sites, content, and ideas; the power to discriminate with our traffic; and the power to become censors and gatekeepers for all that is online. If you want an example, look no further than what happened during the last 14 days with the #MeToo movement.

We are weeks away, from broadband providers being given the green light, to freely engage in paid prioritization, blocking, throttling, or unreasonable discrimination at interconnection points. We are weeks away from the probability, of an entirely new and even wider divide – of those that can afford to pay for priority access, and others that cannot.

[Commentary] The exchange of information and ideas that takes place on the internet is more important now than ever. To protect it, we need to keep the current network neutrality rules in places. We need them to ensure that people working to make the world better can reach their intended audiences. We need them to ensure that artists everywhere continue to have a platform through which we can discover their work. Right now, the internet is a level playing field. The question the Trump administration needs to answer is: Why would you want to change that?

Equal protection of data under the law could be removed from the internet for US users. At a recent Keweenaw County Board meeting, Pasty.Net president Charles Hopper discussed the probability that net neutrality laws would be repealed in November by the Federal Communications Commission. Hopper offered one example of the burdens placed on his company as a result of being placed under Title II.

ADT filed a letter to urge the Federal Communications Commission to maintain core net neutrality protections for alarm providers, including preventing blocking or throttling and precluding anticompetitive prioritization schemes. ADT asserted the FCC has ancillary jurisdiction to adopt these specific net neutrality protections based on the FCC’s mandated responsibility in Section 275 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.