Lauren Frayer

April 26, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that he would open a proceeding to revisit the question of whether Congress directed the FCC to regulate the internet using the regulatory framework adopted in 1934 for the monopoly-era telephone networks. To be clear, this proceeding is not about whether the open internet will continue to be protected and preserved. That question has been asked and answered repeatedly and in the affirmative by Democratic and Republican Administrations alike for well over a decade, first with the Powell and Martin Internet Principles, then with the Genachowski Open Internet Order...

[T]he question of this moment is not whether the internet will remain open – it undoubtedly will. The question is how, as a country, we will regulate the Internet ecosystem – including not only Internet service providers and the broadband infrastructure they deploy, but the tech companies that now dominate the Internet experience. The question is also whether Congress will commit on a bi-partisan basis to adopt a balanced and durable statutory framework that will enshrine reasonable rules for the digital road with specificity and clarity. That, in the end, is the only way to resolve the open internet debate once and for all.

[Commentary] Needless to say, regularly rewriting the rules that govern one of the largest industries in the economy isn’t a good way to run an industry. Unfortunately, it’s not within the current commission’s power to adopt rules that will likely constrain a future commission. But by returning to a more neutral baseline approach to internet regulation, Chairman Pai is creating an opportunity for Congress or the courts to step in and put an end to the destructive, yet largely meaningless, generational fight over “net neutrality.”...

The most important thing that Chairman Pai’s proposal does is to tidy up the net neutrality mess and deliver it to Congress. His proposal reverses the most extreme aspects of the 2015 rules — Title II reclassification in particular — and leaves the direction of substantive rules open. He has reestablished what has long been considered the neutral baseline of agency authority. Now it’s Congress’s turn.

[Gus Hurwitz is an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law]

Note: This is an updated version of an older post. Due to the Trump Administration's recent attacks on network neutrality, we felt it was important to resurface these important examples of what happens when cable and phone companies are left to their own devices. For years a lineup of phone- and cable-industry spokespeople has called Net Neutrality “a solution in search of a problem.” The principle that protects free speech and innovation online is irrelevant, they claim, as blocking has never, ever happened. And if it did, they add, market forces would compel internet service providers to correct course and reopen their networks.

In reality, many providers both in the United States and abroad have violated the principles of net neutrality — and they plan to continue doing so in the future. This history of abuse revealed a problem that the FCC’s 2015 Net Neutrality protections solved. Those rules are now under threat from Trump’s FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, who is determined to hand over control of the internet to massive internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

[Commentary] In just three months, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai managed to mess up a lot of stuff. Here’s what he’s been busy doing:
Making it harder for the poor to get broadband: In March, Chairman Pai announced he would direct the FCC to eliminate the federal designation process for broadband providers under the LifeLine program, which provides subsidized phone and internet access for the poor.
Eroding network neutrality: While his big secret plan to repeal net neutrality regulations is still a big secret, Chairman Pai has already acted to erode some net neutrality principles.
Scrapping restrictions on rates for prison phone calls
Rolling back internet privacy & security rules
Tweeting: Chairman Pai tweeted about how much he loved Amazon Prime, possibly violating an ethics rule preventing government employees from promoting any product or service.

Earlier in 2017, AZ officials announced a plan they say could harness more than $100 million in federal funds to bring broadband internet connections to schools and libraries across the state. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed in January to head the agency by President Trump, has generally spoken in favor of the E-Rate system.“Regarding E-rate, Chairman Pai strongly supports the program,” an FCC spokesman wrote.

But the FCC retracted the largely favorable January report shortly after Pai’s appointment, and it remains to be seen whether he will seek to make changes to the E-Rate rules approved under his Democratic predecessor, and what effects that may have on the program. Whether E-Rate will continue in its current form under the Trump administration and the Republican-led FCC is still an open question. Some conservatives have spoken out against the E-Rate program altogether; a 2015 set of budget recommendations from the conservative Heritage Foundation advocated phasing out the program.

[Commentary] This week saw a furor surrounding Unroll.me, a service that offers to unsubscribe users from unwanted e-mails, but which apparently sold user data to Uber in the past in a way that wasn’t transparent to users. CEO Jojo Hedaya said it was “heartbreaking” to learn that some customers didn’t understand how the company monetizes its free service. The reaction to the revelations was predictable: Some decried all ad-based business models, using cliches like, “if you’re not paying, you’re the product,” while others said users were naive for imagining a free service wasn’t monetizing their data in some way. Every time I see this happen, I wish we could get beyond the simplistic painting of all ad-based services with the same brush, and have a more nuanced conversation about ad-based business models.

[Jan Dawson is founder and chief analyst at Jackdaw]

An order that Alphabet's Google turn over customer data stored overseas relied more on the specific storage technology at play than on an outdated federal e-mail privacy law. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled April 19 that Google must turn over customer data stored overseas subject to a valid search warrant issued in June 2016 under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701. The ruling may not offer real clarity sought by companies that store large amounts of data in the cloud, such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.com, on whether they must comply with government demands for the release of consumer data stored outside the US. But it does offer some insight into how courts may parse the technological issues surrounding the storage of data and identification of the consumers tied to that data by focusing on the ability of the company to readily identify the citizenship of a particular user.

During the long saga of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan – an ongoing, multilayered disaster that exposed about 100,000 residents to harmful contaminants and lead and left them even as of early 2017 advised to drink filtered or bottled water – local and regional audiences used online search engines as a way to both follow the news and understand its impact on public and personal health. A new Pew Research Center study, based on anonymized Google search data from Jan. 5, 2014, through July 2, 2016, delves into the kinds of searches that were most prevalent as a proxy for public interest, concerns and intentions.

The study also tracks the way search activity ebbed and flowed alongside real world events and their associated news coverage. The study begins in 2014, when officials switched the source of municipal drinking water from the Detroit city water system to the Flint River. The study period covers ensuing events that included bacteria-related “boil water” advisories, studies showing elevated lead levels in children’s blood and tap water samples, government-issued lead warnings, bottled-water distribution, declarations of emergency, the filing of criminal charges, a Democratic presidential candidate debate in Flint and a visit to the city by President Barack Obama.

[Commentary] Stop me if you’ve heard this before. News leaked that the Federal Communications Commission Chairman will propose new network neutrality rules to ensure a free and open Internet. People freaked out. FCC Chairman outlines his plan for net neutrality. People freak out more. FCC Chairman releases full net neutrality proposal. All Hell breaks loose. Although there’s generally been bipartisan agreement that broadband subscribers deserve consumer protection, there’s never been political consensus on how to ensure those protections. For anyone scoring at home, here's how we arrived at where we are this week. And here's what to expect in the weeks ahead.

[Commentary] Here are 4 ways the internet will change if Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai gets his way on net neutrality: 1) More free data plans, 2) Internet fast lanes, 3) Smaller internet service providers and internet startups could be in for a tough time, and 4) Shifting broadband regulation to the Federal Trade Commission.