Regulatory classification

AT&T recently said  the company has never blocked third-party applications and that it won't do so even after the rules are gone. Just one problem: the company fails to mention that AT&T blocked Apple's FaceTime video chat application on iPhones in 2012 and 2013. AT&T blocked FaceTime on its cellular network when users tried to access the application from certain data plans, such as unlimited data packages.

Comcast is defending its changed net neutrality pledges in the face of criticism from Internet users. The deletion of a net neutrality promise immediately after the Federal Communications Commission started repealing its net neutrality rules is just a "language" change, the company says.

Voters know Republicans in Congress are the only ones who can stop Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.  If enough Republicans tell Chairman Pai to stop, he will likely back down. After all, Congressional pressure has stopped the FCC before. Members of Congress face a choice: They can side with their constituents, who overwhelmingly want them to defend the greatest communication and innovation platform ever invented, or support one of the most blatant anti-consumer corporate giveaways in modern history.

First, the Department of Justice sued to block AT&T's proposed $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. The next day, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled a proposal to loosen the limits on the number of television and radio stations a broadcast company can own, the latest in a series of moves that pave the way for Sinclair Broadcasting's proposed $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune Company. The same week, the FCC unveiled its plan to overturn net-neutrality rules that ban broadband providers, including AT&T, from blocking or discriminating against legal content.

[Commentary] The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants to let Comcast, Verizon and other broadband companies turn the internet into a latter-day version of cable TV, in which they decide what customers can watch and how much they pay for that content. That might sound like a far-fetched scenario. But there is reason to fear that some version of that awful vision could become a reality, because most Americans have just one or two choices for broadband access at home.

Fight for the Future (FFTF) called out Pew Research over mistakes and what it said were out of context characterizations and mischaracterizations in Pew's analysis of the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality docket. 

Over the past week, there has been a lot written about what happens to the internet assuming the Federal Communications Commission adopts the proposed order, circulated Nov 22, at its next scheduled open meeting. I would suggest that most of what has been written falls in the category of misinformation and rhetorical excess. I thought I might try something different and attempt to limit us to a discussion of facts. The short answer is, of course, that there will be no change in how your internet works after the order is adopted.

While much the internet is in an uproar about Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to roll back Network Neutrality, I’d like the suggest that they’re focusing on the wrong thing. The reason Pai’s decision is the wrong one is not because the lack of net neutrality is, prima facie, a bad thing. Rather, it’s because we don’t have anything close to free market conditions in the U.S. when it comes to broadband.

The world of the internet, as seen by Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai, is a simple one. Regulation is bad, deregulation is good. Conservatives are victims, and liberals reign supreme. And history doesn’t matter. In defending his campaign to repeal FCC regulations governing network neutrality, Pai got the history of regulation and the history of internet technology wrong, repeated his cherry-picked version of internet economics, and took irrelevant potshots at some of his critics in the information industry.

[Commentary] Net neutrality is founded on the core principle that everyone should have equal access to the internet, regardless of what content the individual chooses to consume. It is the only way we can ensure a level playing field for all citizens of this country. We have many sources of disparity we already reckon with regularly — income, education, race, health, gender, geographic location, and the list goes on. Why are we creating another one?