After the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released its network neutrality decision, members of the Federal Communications Commission released statements.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, “Today’s ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web, and it ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth. After a decade of debate and legal battles, today’s ruling affirms the Commission’s ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections – both on fixed and mobile networks – that will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future.”
“Today’s D.C. Circuit court decision represents a resounding victory for the American people,” said FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. “The Commission relied on a voluminous record, which included more than four million comments, and demonstrated that a free and open internet is at the very heart of our American democracy. I am particularly pleased that the court upheld protections for mobile consumers, something for which I fought mightily during the lead-up to the Commission’s vote last year. The Court’s validation of that position makes clear that no matter how one accesses the internet, it will remain an open platform that enables free speech, freedom of expression and innovation to flourish.”
”The internet is the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented and our internet economy is the envy of the world. Today’s decision supports internet principles of fairness and openness—the principles that keep us innovative, fierce, and creative,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted against the net neutrality rules, said, “I am deeply disappointed by the D.C. Circuit’s 2-1 decision upholding the FCC’s Internet regulations. For many of the reasons set forth in Judge Williams’ compelling dissent, I continue to believe that these regulations are unlawful, and I hope that the parties challenging them will continue the legal fight. The FCC’s regulations are unnecessary and counterproductive.”
“The D.C. Circuit’s decision is more than disappointing,” said FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, “but I expect it to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court so this opinion is not necessarily the final say. If allowed to stand, however, today’s decision will be extremely detrimental to the future of the Internet and all consumers and businesses that use it. We all will rue the day the Commission was confirmed to have nearly unmitigated power over the Internet -- and all based on unsubstantiated, imaginary ‘harms.’ More troubling is that the majority opinion fails to apprehend the workings of the Internet, and declines to hold the FCC accountable for an order that ran roughshod over the statute, precedent, and any comments or analyses that did not support the FCC’s quest to deliver a political victory. It also confirms why every parliamentary trick in Congress was used to pack this particular court.”
Republican lawmakers said they were still weighing how to move forward after a court upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s sweeping rules to ensure network neutrality.
House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said Republicans were looking at all of their options. "So, I think that door remains open to look at this legislatively,” he said. "But I also think that between now any legislation moving forward you’ll see an appeal by those who disagree with the court’s decision.” Republicans have assailed the rules as an example of government overreach. Chairman Walden said he had doubts about whether President Barack Obama would sign off on any compromise legislation regarding the rules, especially given the court’s decision. “We’ll be evaluating it and look forward to what paths are there, but clearly with President Obama in the White House the odds of him signing a net neutrality reform bill are pretty low,” Rep Walden said. Chairman Walden and full House Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) said they were "disappointed" by the ruling. Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who backs legislation blocking the rules, said that she thought the ruling improved the chances of legislative action on the regulations. “I think it does,” she said. "Well, of course, I would have preferred a different ruling,” she said. "Everybody probably understands that and we will continue to push forward.”
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) hinted at hopes that Congress could move forward with a solution. “Today’s decision is a clear signal that my colleagues and I need to reestablish Congress’ appropriate role in setting communications policy on a bipartisan basis,” he said in a statement with Sen Roger Wicker (R-MS).
Sen Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who is an active voice on communications policy, predicted his party would be less interested in striking a deal now that the court battle went their way. "You know, it’s the ruling we wanted. The reason to work on legislation was that both sides of this debate had the possibility of an adverse ruling. Now that it’s been settled by the courts, there’s less of an incentive to legislate.” Sen Bill Nelson, the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, called the court’s decision “a significant milestone for consumer protections on the Internet.” Longtime network neutrality advocate Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) said, “Today’s court decision makes clear that net neutrality is here to stay. The court decision affirms what we already know to be true: that the FCC has the power to classify broadband Internet access service according to its best and current understanding of the technology, and how consumers harness that technology. The battle for net neutrality is the battle for our online future, and today’s ruling is a victory for consumers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and anyone who counts on the Internet to connect to the world. This decision celebrates the free and democratic expression of ideas that is the hallmark of our online ecosystem. Protecting net neutrality ensures that the best ideas, and not merely the best-funded ideas, will rule the day.”
Rep Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the Ranking Member of the House Commerce Committee, said the decision "is a momentous step to legal certainty that the internet remains an open platform for everyone." Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Communications Subcommittee (she represents Silicon Valley), said, “This is a great day for all Internet users. Today’s ruling of the Court affirms what millions of Americans already knew – that net neutrality rules grounded in Title II gave the FCC the strongest legal authority to adopt strong and meaningful rules against blocking, throttling, and discrimination of online content by both wired and wireless broadband providers."
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules, handing the FCC a major victory in its efforts to step up oversight of cable and telephone companies that provide broadband service.
The ruling means endorses the FCC’s definition of broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service, clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users. The FCC’s rules prohibit broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers. The panel of three judges who heard the case agreed that wireless broadband services were also common carrier utility services subject to anti-blocking and discrimination rules, a decision protested by wireless carriers including AT&T and Verizon Wireless. The court’s majority rejected a wide range of telecommunications-industry challenges to the rules, which were put in place in 2015.
The same appeals court had twice rejected earlier efforts by the FCC to impose net neutrality rules on Internet service providers.
In the core decision, the D.C. circuit court ruled the FCC had sufficient basis to impose utility-style regulation on broadband service, because consumers no longer look to internet-service providers to provide the online content they are seeking. “Over the past two decades, this content has transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, from profound actions like choosing a leader, building a career and falling in love to more quotidian ones like hailing a cab and watching a movie,” the court wrote. “The same assuredly cannot be said” for broadband providers’ own add-on applications. The appeals court’s 2-1 ruling sided with the FCC in a dense, methodical opinion that rejected the challengers’ various arguments one by one. The DC Circuit majority said its role in reviewing the net-neutrality regulations was “a limited one.” The court said its job was “to ensure that an agency has acted within the limits of Congress’s delegation of authority.”
The FCC’s rules fell permissibly within those limits, the court said. The court verdict puts to rest — for now — a key question: Whether the Internet represents a vital communications platform that deserves to be regulated with the same scrutiny as the common networks of the past, such as the telephone system. Writing for the court, Judges David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan held that despite advances in technology, the underlying importance of the Internet to everyday communications and commerce makes it more similar to the phone system than not. Today, for example, consumers are accustomed to using not just the email accounts that their broadband provider gave them, but also using third-party services such as Gmail as well as Netflix, Amazon and Uber.
Industry appeals to the US Supreme Court appear likely.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet/Network Neutrality rules which are essential for preventing blocking or degrading Internet traffic. The following statement may be attributed to Benton Foundation Executive Director Adrianne Furniss and Director of Policy Amina Fazlullah:
BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016
Today's Events:
OWNERSHIP
Microsoft to Acquire LinkedIn for $26.2 Billion
Why is Microsoft buying LinkedIn? - analysis [links to Benton summary]
Letter to the Editor: Hollywood creatives have been instrumental in blessing us with a political class that is intent on regulating most aspects of our lives [links to Wall Street Journal]
ELECTIONS & MEDIA
Why Americans are still waiting for our first tech president - op-ed
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle - research
Washington Post Is Latest News Outlet Barred by Trump [links to New York Times]
The media isn’t going to save the country from Donald Trump. Here’s why. [links to Washington Post]
Google better get used to conspiracy theories about search results this election year [links to Revere Digital]
Political Candidate Ads Without the Candidate’s Voice or Image – What is a Station to Do? [links to Broadcast Law Blog]
INTERNET/BROADBAND
Broadband: 21st-Century Infrastructure - commentary [links to Benton summary]
House Hunters: Fiber Edition [links to Google]
SECURITY/PRIVACY
Wireless carriers see threat from FCC rules
Why the NSA and other spies will love the Internet of Things [links to Benton summary]
B&C Editorial: The Senate Should Pass a Clean Version of Electronic Communications Privacy Act [links to Broadcasting&Cable]
JOURNALISM
After Orlando attack, New York Times warns staff against posting opinions online [links to Politico]
Remembering Tim Russert, 8 years later [links to Washington Post]
How a Chicago reporter ‘explodes stereotypes’ with unexpected stories about the city [links to Columbia Journalism Review]
TELEVISION
How Set-Top Rules Would ‘Lower the Tide’ for PEG - Multichannel News op-ed [links to Benton summary]
B&C Editorial: With Set-Top Debate, Civility, Please [links to Broadcasting&Cable]
FCC: Nielsen Designated Market Areas Still Best Definition of TV Markets [links to Broadcasting&Cable]
CONTENT
Op-Ed: Google’s Fair Use Victory Is Good for Open Source [links to Technology Academics Policy]
President Obama says Orlando killer was inspired by online extremism [links to Verge, The]
This hacker is fighting ISIS by spamming its Twitter accounts with porn [links to Washington Post]
Orlando attack: Clinton calls on tech companies to help disrupt terrorist plots [links to Reuters]
Technology companies are selling software designed to counteract the effects of ad-blocking [links to Wall Street Journal]
LABOR
More than two dozen companies have signed a White House pledge to conduct an annual gender pay analysis aimed at eliminating inequitable compensation [links to Wall Street Journal]
ACCESSIBILITY
Chairman Wheeler Honors Innovators in Accessible Communications Technology - press release [links to Benton summary]
HEALTH
Digital disabilities — text neck, cellphone elbow — are painful and growing [links to Washington Post]
GOVERNMENT & COMMUNICATIONS
CBO Scores Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Modernization Act of 2016 - CBO research [links to Benton summary]
House looks to send FOIA reform to President Obama’s desk [links to Hill, The]
LOBBYING
Cable Industry Mobilizes Lobbying Army to Block FCC Moves
POLICYMAKERS
Common Cause Names Karen Hobert Flynn President [links to Common Cause]
STORIES FROM ABROAD
In “an unusual move,” US government asks to join key EU Facebook privacy case
A Russian Cybersleuth Battles the ‘Dark Ages’ of the Internet [links to New York Times]
Red astroturf: Chinese government makes millions of fake social media posts [links to Ars Technica]
China, US hold talks to bridge cybersecurity differences [links to Associated Press]
OWNERSHIP
MICROSOFT TO ACQUIRE LINKEDIN FOR $26.2 BILLION
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Jay Greene, Anne Steele]
Microsoft, in what is by far the biggest acquisition in the company’s history, said it had reached a deal to buy LinkedIn, the professional social-networking company, for $26.2 billion in cash. Integrating Microsoft’s and LinkedIn’s offerings would broaden their reach, enhance their utility, and create market-leading services for business customers, the companies said. Microsoft said LinkedIn will “retain its distinct brand, culture and independence,” with Chief Executive Jeff Weiner remaining at the helm, reporting to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. The deal is expected to close within the year. The companies see cost savings of about $150 million a year by 2018. Microsoft believes the acquisition will expand the market for both LinkedIn and Microsoft’s Office products. The software giant has made a significant push in the past few years to make its products more connected and wants to use data to make them more intelligent. LinkedIn’s vast network offers data that could help. Connecting LinkedIn directly to Office could help attendees of meetings learn more about one another directly from invitations in their calendars. Sales representatives could pick up useful tidbits of background on potential customers from LinkedIn data. Microsoft is betting that the combination of Microsoft and LinkedIn services will make workers more productive by revealing connections and data that might otherwise take additional steps to find. That could increase the value of Office to customers, and helps explain why Microsoft made the deal.
benton.org/headlines/microsoft-acquire-linkedin-262-billion | Wall Street Journal | Microsoft | The Verge | Revere Digital
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
ELECTIONS & MEDIA
WHY AMERICANS ARE STILL WAITING FOR OUR FIRST TECH PRESIDENT
[SOURCE: The Guardian, AUTHOR: Timothy Karr]
[Commentary] As Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have shown, any candidate hoping to connect with voters in the 2016 election can’t do so without a strong online presence. But embracing the Internet as an organizing tool isn’t enough. To become the nation’s first genuine tech president, a candidate must also champion Internet policies that safeguard users and ensure the network’s survival and continued growth. On June 13, a coalition of public interest organizations that played leading roles in these policy fights will release the 2016 Internet Policy Platform and send it to the leaders of both major parties, including their presumptive nominees, as a roadmap to becoming America’s first tech president. The platform has been endorsed by more than a dozen Internet rights, social justice and consumer advocacy organizations, including 18 Million Rising, ColorOfChange, Demand Progress, Free Press, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, New America’s Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge. We built the platform around six guiding principles supported by millions of Americans who have become forceful advocates for internet rights. These principles – free speech, access, choice, privacy, transparency and openness – are what make the Internet a democratic medium like no other. They must be upheld by anyone seeking elected office – not just our next president. The Internet isn’t just a tactical tool for campaign organizing. Candidates need to pay attention to Internet users and protect the interests of everyone who’s fighting for policies to keep the network open, secure and available to everyone.
benton.org/headlines/why-americans-are-still-waiting-our-first-tech-president | Guardian, The | 2016 Internet Policy Platform
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
HARVARD RESEARCH ON ELECTION COVERAGE
[SOURCE: Harvard University, AUTHOR: Thomas Patterson]
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role. The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls. The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
benton.org/headlines/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-presidential-race-trumps-rise-sanders-emergence-clintons | Harvard University | Huffington Post
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
PRIVACY
PRIVACY AND WIRELESS
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: David McCabe]
Wireless carriers are clashing with the Federal Communications Commission over proposed regulations that could thwart their ambitions of expanding in the mobile advertising business. The FCC is considering privacy rules that wireless companies say could hurt their ability to compete with the likes of Facebook and Google. The regulatory push comes at a time when Verizon and AT&T are working aggressively to sell ads that accompany their growing array of video products. “I think the rules as proposed are explicitly structured to lock down providers into providing broadband service and not providing digital advertising,” said Doug Brake, a telecom analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The credit rating agency Moody’s has warned investors about the potential impact of the FCC’s plan, saying it would be “credit negative” for Internet providers.
benton.org/headlines/wireless-carriers-see-threat-fcc-rules | Hill, The
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
LOBBYING
CABLE INDUSTRY MOBILIZES LOBBYING ARMY TO BLOCK FCC MOVES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Cecilia Kang]
In recent weeks, staff members for Rep Bobby Rush (D-IL) have asked fellow lawmakers to sign a letter opposing a Federal Communications Commission proposal to limit how broadband providers can share users’ personal data. In May, 60 lawmakers signed a separate letter voicing their objections to an FCC regulation that would open the market for cable television set-top boxes. What the actions have in common: the financial connections and legwork of cable companies like Comcast. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, an industry lobbying group, said it had edited the letter shared by Rep Rush’s staff. Cable industry lobbyists also helped gather the 60 signatures on the set-top-box letter; nearly all of the lawmakers who signed count cable and telecom companies as top campaign donors, according to federal disclosures. The behind-the-scenes activity by cable companies and their industry groups is part of the biggest lobbying push by the $115 billion industry in Washington since 2009, when the government drew up its net neutrality rules. These days, the cable and telecom industries are hiring more lobbyists, issuing warnings that they may sue federal agencies, and making speeches and writing scathing blog posts about policy makers. The trigger? A string of proposed regulations by the FCC that has left cable companies feeling besieged.
benton.org/headlines/cable-industry-mobilizes-lobbying-army-block-fcc-moves-0 | New York Times
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
STORIES FROM ABROAD
US GOVT ASKS TO JOIN KEY EU FACEBOOK PRIVACY CASE
[SOURCE: ars technica, AUTHOR: Glyn Moody]
The US government has asked to be joined as a party in the Irish High Court case between the Austrian privacy activist and lawyer Max Schrems, and the social network Facebook. Schrems called this "an unusual move." He said that there are no documents relating to the "amicus curiae"—friend of the court—request yet. "The US government simply appeared via a barrister at the first (administrative) hearing today," he said. "They will be able to file the documents until the 22nd." Schrems speculated that the US government has made this move because it wanted to defend its surveillance laws before the European Courts. "I think this move will be very interesting," he said. "The US has previously maintained that we all misunderstood US surveillance." The Court of Justice of the European Union struck down the Safe Harbour agreement between the EU and the US largely because of fears that personal data sent from the EU to the US would be subject to US surveillance without sufficient safeguards. The latest move seems to be an attempt by the US government to convince European courts that personal data is adequately protected when it is transferred to the US. But as Schrems notes, the US government's bold approach carries risks. "Compared to diplomatic talks with the EU and EU member states, as well as public statements in the United States, it will not be protected by US laws on confidentiality and be placed under oath," he wrote. "The party that gives evidence on behalf of the US government could therefore face severe consequences, if he does not truthfully answer all questions raised on US mass surveillance."
benton.org/headlines/unusual-move-us-government-asks-join-key-eu-facebook-privacy-case | Ars Technica | Schrem's press release
Share: Twitter | Facebook
back to top
Wireless carriers are clashing with the Federal Communications Commission over proposed regulations that could thwart their ambitions of expanding in the mobile advertising business. The FCC is considering privacy rules that wireless companies say could hurt their ability to compete with the likes of Facebook and Google. The regulatory push comes at a time when Verizon and AT&T are working aggressively to sell ads that accompany their growing array of video products.
“I think the rules as proposed are explicitly structured to lock down providers into providing broadband service and not providing digital advertising,” said Doug Brake, a telecom analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
The credit rating agency Moody’s has warned investors about the potential impact of the FCC’s plan, saying it would be “credit negative” for Internet providers.
© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.
