Network Neutrality

Broadband industry lobby groups have appealed to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to kill the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules. The groups want the Supreme Court to rule that the FCC exceeded its authority when it reclassified Internet providers in order to impose stricter regulations. Such a ruling could prevent future FCCs from implementing net neutrality rules as strict as the current ones, which outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. A ruling for the industry could also prevent future FCCs from reviving other consumer protections that are likely to be overturned by the commission's current Republican majority.

Lobby groups also allege that the FCC didn't do enough to justify its decision and that it didn't follow the required administrative procedures. But for potential long-term impact, the question of whether the FCC has the authority to classify broadband as a common carrier service is probably more significant. Whether the Supreme Court will actually decide to hear the case is far from certain.

[Commentary] One of us is the inventor of the personal computer, and the other a former commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it.

If FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s majority permits fast lanes for the biggest internet service providers (ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T), companies could speed up or slow down the sites and services they prefer. That’ll be great for their business affiliates and corporate friends, but woe to the startup that wants to build the next great web service — it could find itself in the slow lane, unable to compete with established firms. And pity the local blogger who criticizes her ISP’s crummy service — the broadband gatekeeper would be free to slow or silence her.

The path forward is clear. The FCC must abandon its ill-conceived plan to end net neutrality. Instead of creating fast lanes for the few, it should be moving all of us to the fast lane by encouraging competition in local broadband connectivity and pushing companies to deliver higher speeds at more affordable prices. It’s the right thing for us as consumers and as citizens.

[Steve Wozniak is a computer engineer who co-founded Apple Computer, Inc. with Steve Jobs. Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2011, is a special adviser for Common Cause.]

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission takes up the issue of whether to reverse the Obama-era Open Internet Order, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?

My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations – called "throttling," the practice of limiting download speeds – for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our findings reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy's effect. The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn't – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes.

[David Choffnes is a researcher at Northeastern University]

In his ongoing push to get rid of network neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai claimed in Sept that the rules caused capital investment in wireless networks to drop in 2016. But in doing so, Chairman Pai hasn't addressed data from earlier years that doesn't fit his anti-net neutrality narrative.

Chairman Pai beat the drum again this week in the FCC's annual report on wireless competition, which emphasizes the investment drop in 2016. The current net neutrality rules were voted in by the FCC in February 2015 and took effect in June 2015. But investment also dropped between 2013 and 2015, before the current rules were in place, Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn pointed out. "The discussion of investment in the mobile wireless services industry is fundamentally flawed. By highlighting a decrease in investment between 2015 and 2016, this section was clearly written to support the false narrative that the 2015 Open Internet Order deterred wireless carriers from investing in their networks," Commissioner Clyburn said.

AT&T is trying to take the fight over the Obama-era net neutrality rules to the US Supreme Court. On Sept 29, AT&T, the cable industry group NCTA, and CenturyLink filed separate appeals asking the court to overturn the controversial 2015 rules. A federal appeals court last year upheld the rules, which were passed by a Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission and supported by President Barack Obama. The broadband industry says it has no problem with the idea of an open internet, but it argues the new classification applies outdated regulations that have stifled investment.

Republicans, who now control the FCC, have already begun the process of dismantling the rules. In May FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump, opened a proceeding to rewrite the rules. The FCC could vote to repeal the rules as early as December. Legal experts say this makes it less likely the Court will take the case. "The Supreme Court isn't likely to play a starring role on net neutrality now," said Matt Schettenhelm, a litigation and government analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. "The court's likely to take a back seat, letting the FCC move ahead with its work to undo the 2015 order." This means the fight for net neutrality is likely to go on for several years as Democrats, consumer advocates and internet companies like Mozilla, which support the rules, have vowed to continue to fight.

This report describes “Phish For The Future,” an advanced persistent spearphishing campaign targeting digital civil liberties activists at Free Press and Fight For the Future. Between July 7th and August 8th of 2017 we observed almost 70 spearphishing attempts against employees of internet freedom NGOs Fight for the Future and Free Press, all coming from the same attackers.

AT&T met with staff from the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus and the Office of General Counsel on September 25, 2017 to discuss arguments made in the open internet proceeding regarding the Administrative Procedure Act. AT&T discussed its white paper it says addresses arguments by Title II proponents that the APA imposes various substantive and procedural obstacles to restoration of a Title I regime for broadband internet access.

AT&T claimed nothing in the APA requires the FCC to identify any post-2015 change in factual circumstances as a basis for restoring a Title I regime, to issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking to specify the metrics to be used in a cost-benefit analysis of Title II regulation, or to stall this proceeding pending a new round of comments on the significance or not of informal complaints made public in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Senate majority is charging forward with plans to vote to reconfirm Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai for another five years. Rehiring Pai to head the agency that oversees US communications policies would be a boon for the phone and cable companies he eagerly serves. But it would hurt everyone else who needs this agency to put our communications rights before the profits of monopoly-minded media giants. In the coming days, senators have the opportunity to intervene on the public’s behalf and fire Pai. Here are five reasons they should do so:
1. Net Neutrality Lies
2. Widening the Digital Divide
3. Sinclair Quid Pro Quo
4. First Amendment Fail
5. Assault on Online Privacy

On the floor of the Senate, Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) said, "At every turn, [Federal Communications Commission] Chairman Pai choses corporate interests over consumers." He told his colleagues that the FCC now stands for "Forgetting Consumers and Competition" under Chairman Ajit Pai. He also said he would outline who is getting a big piece of the FCC pie under Pai. He even used a visual aide, an FCC logo divided into Pai wedges he moved from the "consumer" side of his chart to the "corporation" side.

Sen Markey tied his opposition to Pai's proposal to roll back Title II classification of broadband internet access service and repealing network neutrality rules. Markey said Pai was in the thrall of big media to the detriment of consumers. But he also pointed to Pai’s actions on Lifeline, broadband privacy, the Sinclair-Tribune merger, E-rate and more as reasons to deny him a seat on the commission, which were other pieces of the pie he moved to the "corporation" side in his own version of a Senate Ted Talk.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) took to the Senate floor to oppose the nomination of Ajit Pai for a new five-year term on the Federal Communications Commission. His remarks came just before a planned cloture vote on debate on the nomination.

Sen Wyden’s opposition is rooted in Pai's proposal to roll back Title II classification of broadband internet access service and eliminating network neutrality rules. Sen Wyden has been one of the Hill's most vociferous critics of that proposal. Sen Wyden said Chairman Pai had worked long and hard to undermine net neutrality, which he said was folks getting a "fair shake" online. Sen Wyden also took aim at broadband providers, saying their commitment to "voluntary" net neutrality was bogus. He said there was as much likelihood that they would do so voluntarily as that his nine-year-old son would voluntary limit himself to one desert. "It just isn't going to happen." He said Chairman Pai sides with the big cable companies over small businesses and consumers. The senator said Chairman Pai had signaled he was blowing up the internet's level playing field by saying he would take a weed whacker to regulations. He said the debate was not over Google and Oracle, but about start-ups and small businesses wanting to grow.