Jacob Kastrenakes

We’re still too far out to know exactly what disclosures all the big Internet service providers are going to make — the rules (or lack thereof) don’t actually go into effect for another few months — but many internet providers have been making statements throughout the year about their stance on net neutrality, which ought to give some idea of where they’ll land. We reached out to 10 big or notable ISPs to see what their stances are on three core tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization.

A new “fact sheet” sent out by the Federal Communications Commission asks: what if facts are flexible things that we can bend to our preferred reality? It lists a series of “myths” about the commission’s proposal, followed by “facts” that supposedly debunk them — except the facts are often wrong, or directly confirm the myth that they’re trying to debunk. Here are some of the most flagrant examples.

The Federal Communications Commission received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate, but from the sound of it, it’s ignoring the vast majority of them. A senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses. But even ignoring the potential spam, the commission said it didn’t really care about the public’s opinion on net neutrality unless it was phrased in unique legal terms.

T-Mobile has made an enormous investment in wireless spectrum in a very expensive bid to put its LTE network on par with Verizon’s and AT&T’s. The carrier is spending almost $8 billion to acquire more than 1,500 wireless licenses that span across the United States. The licenses are for spectrum in the 600MHz range, which in terms of spectrum, is some seriously high-quality stuff. It’s at a relatively low frequency, which means it’s good at traveling long distances and penetrating walls — attributes that make for a strong network. This move is all about catching up to Verizon and AT&T. Both of those carriers made big investments in spectrum in the 700MHz range — which has similar properties — years ago, and they’ve been able to use it to build strong, nationwide LTE networks.

Dish Network, which already sits atop a pile of mid-range spectrum and has announced its intentions to build an NB-IoT network, was the second-biggest bidder, committing $6.2 billion. Comcast, which recently outlined plans to deploy its own wireless service, will spend $1.7 billion.

Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon published statements responding to the backlash they’ve been receiving since Congress voted to revoke a strong set of internet privacy rules that would have prevented internet providers from using or sharing their customers’ web browsing history without permission. The companies take different approaches when responding, but the takeaway from all three is that they think customers should stop worrying.

• Comcast takes a friendlier approach and actually makes some basic commitments to customers. “We do not sell our broadband customers’ individual web browsing history,” writes Gerard Lewis, Comcast’s chief privacy officer. “We did not do it before the FCC’s rules were adopted, and we have no plans to do so.”
• Verizon’s approach is similar. The company’s chief privacy officer, Karen Zacharia, offers a fairly clear statement: “Verizon does not sell the personal web browsing history of our customers,” she writes. “We don’t do it and that’s the bottom line.”
• AT&T’s response has the same message at its core, but the tone couldn’t be more different: it’s standoffish and argumentative, with AT&T’s public policy chief, Bob Quinn, trying to explain why nothing has changed and the FCC was wrong in the first place.

Congress shot down the Federal Communications Commission’s internet privacy rules this week, and in doing so, created a world of confusion over what Americans should expect when it comes to online privacy. With the protections gone, no one’s quite sure what to expect — some suspect their browsing habits are going up for sale, while others see no changes coming whatsoever. That uncertainty and confusion is justified: the rules Congress shot down were meant to clarify an existing set of already vague and confusing policies. On some level, it’s being left up to internet service providers, or ISPs, to decide what the rules do and don’t allow them to do. And while none of them are very clear about their intentions, there’s plenty we can suss out based on what we already know. So to cut through the haze, we pulled together everything you need to know about the current state of online privacy rules.

Your internet provider can see bits and pieces of almost everything you do online: the sites you visit, the apps you use, the services you connect to. It’s an unpleasant reality for anyone concerned with their privacy, since this information can reveal a whole lot about you. But it’s stayed that way because that’s how internet providers want it — and government regulators feel compelled to listen.

Feb 26 marked the two-year anniversary of network neutrality passing at the Federal Communications Commission. Unfortunately for advocates, the anniversary hasn’t been so sweet. “It’s kind of tragic that we're observing the second anniversary of its passing with all signs indicating a frontal assault is going to be launched against it,” said Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner.

You’d think that with net neutrality now in effect, we’d be able to look around to see what kind of impact the policy has had — whether it’s lived up to advocates high hopes or whether it’s destroyed the internet as opponents warned. But for the most part, net neutrality opponents are sticking with the same arguments they used two years ago: the rules rely on law that’s too old, they’ll hurt investment, and they’ll leave internet providers uncertain of their fate. “Contrary to the over-hyped fears of the carriers and their friends, nothing bad has come to pass,” says Gigi Sohn, who worked as a counselor to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler while the net neutrality rules were being put in place. “They continue to invest heavily in their networks, they’re buying other properties ... they continue to buy edge companies and other telecoms.”

It seems that the pending AT&T–Time Warner merger continues to be a political hot potato, with different factions of government and industry continuing to argue over who will review it. Whether the merger ends up at the Department of Justice alone or at the DOJ and the Federal Communications Commission will make all the difference: DOJ policies make it likely to approve the merger, whereas the FCC, even with its corporation-friendly chairman, will have to give it a more rigorous review that could kill the deal or at least place some restrictions on it.

As you may remember, back in the strange world of 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump expressed very clear opposition to the proposed merger, saying it was “a deal we will not approve.” That seems clear cut, except it’s Trump, so... maybe not. And while he can pressure the FCC to act one way or another, the commission is technically independent and out of his complete control. News Corporation / 21st Century Fox overlord Rupert Murdoch “now regularly lobbies Trump against AT&T and Time Warner's tie-up,” trying to have him get it under the FCC’s review so that the commission can block it. The FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, Mignon Clyburn, is also trying to get some say over the merger.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has had a whirlwind first month, taking immediate action to scale back network neutrality, slow broadband subsidies for low-income households, and block efforts to reform the exorbitant calling rates to prisons. But in the background of all of this, Chairman Pai has also made a series of changes at the commission in the name of transparency.

He’s explored publishing FCC orders a month before they're voted on, alongside a one-page summary (instead of close to one month after they’re voted on); limited the extent to which the commission can edit orders after a vote; and given commissioners more oversight of enforcement actions (fines, mostly) that punish companies for violating FCC rules These appear to be positive developments for the public. We get more insight into what the FCC is up to, and more assurance that the commission won't try to meaningfully alter orders at the last second. Politicians and former FCC insiders seem to agree, to a point. But many also express concerns that the changes could backfire, by working in lobbyists’ favor, slowing down the commission, or putting its rulings in a legally precarious position. Some also questioned how committed Chairman Pai was to transparency, pointing out that he’s been less than forthcoming about the commission’s most controversial actions.