Barbara Van Schewick

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is set to vote on April 25 to restore its authority over the companies we pay to get online, and reinstate federal net neutrality protections that were jettisoned by the Trump administration in 2017.  Net neutrality protections are supposed to ensure that we, not the internet service providers (ISPs) we pay to get online, get to decide what we do online.

On June 13, 2023, the European Parliament voted to adopt its annual competition policy report.

Veterans across the country and in California shouldn’t have to worry they’ll go over their data caps by talking to their doctor or mental health provider online. In fact, no American or Californian should. But California’s net neutrality law is not the problem here. There are easy solutions that broadband providers could embrace that are far more effective at helping veterans and all Californians, while also complying with California’s net neutrality protections.

AT&T Wireless announced it will be suspending its Sponsored Data program nationwide. Under this program, AT&T Wireless exempts AT&T’s video services like DirectTV Now from the data caps of its wireless Internet customers who subscribe to those services. This practice is known as “zero-rating.” All other data on the internet, including from competing video services, counts against users’ caps.

California filed a brief in the lawsuit by the United States and Internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast that seeks to overturn California’s net neutrality law.

The House will vote on H.R. 1644 (Save the Internet Act of 2019), introduced by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), which would reinstate the net neutrality protections of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order. H.R. 1096 (Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act of 2019), a competing measure introduced by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), purports to restore the Open Internet Order’s rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, as well as the transparency rule.

[Commentary] In the rush to eliminate network neutrality protections, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai failed to hold a single public hearing, and has ignored the chorus of entrepreneurs, investors, businesses and citizens asking him to stop. Citizens across the political spectrum are now looking to their elected representatives to speak out on their behalf and call on Chairman Pai to cancel the vote. Chairman Pai’s plan is a radical break from FCC history and a fundamental departure from how the Internet has operated for the past 30 years.

[Commentary] Despite Internet service providers’ clearly stated threats and attempts to circumvent net neutrality protections, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai wants to unilaterally disarm the FCC and move broadband providers from light-touch regulation to no regulation. That would be disaster for the Internet ecosystem. The U.S. has always had a free and open Internet precisely because of net neutrality protections. The only danger now is Pai catapulting us into a future without it.

[Commentary] The Internet uproar about network neutrality tends to come in waves. Right now we’re riding the crest of one.

In the two weeks since Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal for new net neutrality rules became public, the Internet has erupted in protest. The legal vacuum created by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit threatens the Internet that we know and love. It threatens the start-up economy. But simply adopting rules that are network neutrality in name only is not enough. Different rules -- like a ban on access fees versus a ban on discriminatory or exclusive access fees -- will result in vastly different environments for the use of the network and in very different application innovation ecosystems. As we -- the public, policy makers, and regulators -- think through the choice between limited network neutrality regulation under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act and more comprehensive network neutrality rules under Title II of the Communications Act, we need to ask the right questions and ask them in the right order:

1. What kind of rules do we need to protect users and innovators against the threat of blocking and discrimination?
2. How will access fees affect the environment for application innovation and free speech, and how does this affect what kind of rules we need?
3. And, finally, which foundation -- Section 706 or Title II -- will allow us to adopt these rules?

The answers are clear.

• First, we need strong network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, discrimination against specific applications or classes of applications, and access fees – rules that apply equally to the fixed and mobile Internet.
• Second, we need rules that provide certainty to innovators, investors, and ISPs alike. Innovators and their investors need to know that they won’t be discriminated against and that ISPs cannot create new barriers to innovation by charging access fees.
• Third, start-ups are small and don’t have many resources, let alone a legal team. So we need rules that can be enforced through simple, straightforward legal processes, not rules that tilt the playing field in favor of large, established companies that can pay armies of lawyers and expert witnesses and afford long, costly proceedings at the FCC.
• Fourth, we need rules that give ISPs flexibility to realize their legitimate goals such as network management, price discrimination, or product differentiation, albeit through means that do not distort competition, harm application innovation, or violate user choice.
• Fifth, we need rules that do not overly constrain the evolution of the Internet infrastructure and keep the costs of regulation low.

[van Schewick is a professor at Stanford Law School and the director of the school's Center for Internet and Society]