Brendan Sasso

Government-run Internet service is an abomination, a waste of taxpayer funds, and an assault on private industry. And if states want to ban it, the federal government should get out of their way.

That's what congressional Republicans are saying now, but just a few years ago, top GOP lawmakers were not only on board with municipal Internet -- they were actively working to protect it.

Some Republicans argue the debate is not about the virtue of municipal Internet, but rather the question of a federal board intervening against state laws. States should be able to overturn local officials' decisions, but the FCC shouldn't overturn the states' decisions, they argue.

But it's hard to ignore the most significant change since the Republicans sponsored the municipal broadband bills a few years ago: The Obama Administration has taken a position on the issue.

The real threat to online freedom is from Internet giants like Google and Netflix, according to major cable companies. Those sites could block access to popular content and extort tolls out of Internet service providers, the cable companies warn.

The argument is the backward version of the usual fight over network neutrality. In a filing to the Federal Communications Commission, Time Warner Cable claimed that the controversy over Internet providers potentially charging websites for access to special "fast lanes" is a "red herring." The real danger, the cable company claimed, is that Google or Netflix could demand payments from Internet providers.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association wrote that "a relatively concentrated group of large [Web companies] -- such as Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook -- have enormous and growing power over consumers' ability to access the content of their choice on the Internet."

The NTCA argued that Google, which handles about 68 percent of all Internet searches, has far more control over access to other sites than any individual broadband provider does. "It makes no sense to focus exclusively on Internet access providers and ignore conduct by [websites] that threatens similar harms," the cable lobbying group wrote.

Sen Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is getting ready to settle into retirement. But before he does, he'd like to upend the entire television industry.

His goal is to boost online video services like Netflix to allow them to become full-fledged competitors to cable giants like Comcast. Although his ambitious gambit is unlikely to pay off in the final few months of his 30-year career, it could lay the groundwork for future congressional action that could change how Americans watch TV.

The Federal Communications Commission is blaming a lack of funding from Congress after its website crashed due to an onslaught of outraged comments on network neutrality.

An agency spokesman said Congress has failed to give the agency enough money to upgrade its information-technology systems. The official said additional funding could help prevent similar backlogs and ensure that the public is able to share its views with the agency. Republicans seem more inclined, however, to move the agency's budget in the opposite direction.

Several lawmakers want to apply utility-style regulations to Internet service providers. Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) collected signatures for a letter urging the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet like the telephone system. Sens Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Al Franken (D-MN), and Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have signed on.

The lawmakers have planned a press conference with Internet advocacy groups. In the letter, the senators argue that stronger authority is necessary to enact strong network neutrality rules to prevent broadband providers such as Comcast from manipulating Internet traffic to favor giant corporations.

"Broadband is a more advanced technology than phone service, but in the 21st century, it performs the same essential function," the senators write. "Consumers and businesses cannot live without this vital connection to each other and to the world around them. Accordingly, it would be appropriate for the FCC to reclassify broadband to reflect the vital role the Internet plays in carrying our most important information and our greatest ideas."

Privacy groups are sounding the alarm that a new Senate cybersecurity bill could give the National Security Agency access to even more personal information of Americans.

The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act would create a "gaping loophole in existing privacy law," the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and dozens of other privacy groups wrote in a letter to senators.

"Instead of reining in NSA surveillance, the bill would facilitate a vast flow of private communications data to the NSA," many of the same privacy groups warned in a second letter to lawmakers.

The goal of the bill, authored by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and ranking member Sen Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), is to allow the government and private sector to share more information about attacks on computer networks. Privacy groups are worried that the legislation could encourage a company such as Google to turn over vast batches of emails or other private data to the government.

[Commentary] A Democratic bill to ban "fast lanes" on the Internet isn't going to become law. Republicans have long opposed network neutrality regulations, and as long as they control the House, they'll block legislation that would restrict the business choices of Internet service providers.

But the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, introduced by Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep Doris Matsui (D-CA), isn't really about changing the law. It's about sending a message to the Federal Communications Commission.

"We put forth the bill to put increased pressure on the FCC to ban paid-prioritization agreements," an aide to a bill supporter explained. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler expected to take criticism from Republicans, who are skeptical of the government telling broadband providers how to manage their networks. But the growing opposition to his proposal from Democrats could leave the FCC chief in a tenuous political position. Even the White House has offered little support, noting that the FCC is an "independent agency."

Chairman Wheeler needs the votes of both Democrats on the five-member commission to enact his proposed regulations. But those commissioners, Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn, might not be eager to help the chairman if he's all alone on the issue.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which also has the support of Sen Al Franken and Reps Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA), would instruct the FCC to enact rules banning paid prioritization within 90 days of the bill becoming law. The bill would also call for rules banning Internet providers from favoring content they own or are affiliated with.

The world's largest Internet companies and thousands of average Internet users are trying to hide their private information from government snooping. The goal is to set up technological barriers to the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance programs.

Rather than waiting for Congress to rein in the agency, many people want to take privacy into their own hands. But the truth is, efforts to improve online encryption and security can't totally thwart the NSA. Joseph Lorenzo Hall, the chief technologist for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said the idea of becoming "NSA-proof" is "just silly."

"If they want it, they can get it," he said of the NSA's expert spies. The agency can hack or bypass many security measures if it is determined enough, Hall said. And it doesn't matter how heavily encrypted an email is in transit if the NSA just forces the email provider to turn the message over.

While the NSA collects some of its data by surreptitiously tapping into communications, much of the surveillance is done through court orders to Internet and phone companies.

Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said tech companies such as Google could hamstring the NSA if they just stopped collecting so much information about their users. If a company doesn't have information on a person, there's nothing to turn over to the government.

A federal judge in Idaho upheld the National Security Agency's controversial phone surveillance program. But Judge B. Lynn Winmill seemed to invite the Supreme Court to overturn his decision.

He suggested that the program, which collects data on millions of US phone calls, likely violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Winmill upheld the program because he concluded that his hands were tied by current Supreme Court precedent. He pointed to the Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland, which held that people don't expect privacy in the phone numbers they dial.

[Commentary] Federal regulators are trying to leave themselves plenty of power to oversee the Internet -- they're just not willing to get too specific about what they plan to do with it.

The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with a network neutrality proposal, but no one knows exactly what business practices it would ban. And for the FCC, that's all part of the strategy. The commission wants a vague standard to allow Internet companies to experiment with new business models, while giving the agency authority to step in when it sees abuses.

A senior FCC official argued that "putting rigid rules in place" would not let the Internet "evolve in a natural way." But the official added that "the government has to be in a position to oversee the Internet and intervene if it needs to."

Vague rules could allow future FCC chairmen (especially Republicans) to be lax on enforcement, letting Internet providers get away with a host of abuses. The next administration could essentially ignore net neutrality if the regulations don't specify which particular business practices are illegal.