Reporting

On July 12, 2017, some of the world's largest companies, activists, and citizens protested the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to rollback (well, gut, really) network neutrality protections adopted in 2017. Here's a look at the news of the day.

The country's biggest broadband service providers, we learned, are huge, huge supporters net neutrality. Companies like Comcast and Verizon, who've sued the FCC after it's previous attempts at writing Open Internet rules -- just so the rules come out just right -- did not sit by quietly during the big online rally. They voiced their support for an Open Internet -- just not using the rules that a federal court upheld in 2016. The companies support the FCC reversing the 2015 decision so they can go back to court and find out if the FCC's next set of rules are enforceable.

• AT&T Vice President of External and Legislative Affairs Bob Quinn said the company supports the repeal of the current regulations set under Title II of the Communications Act, calling it “outdated”, and encouraged Congress to create bipartisan, net neutrality legislation.
• Verizon Senior Vice President of Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs Will Johnson said, “The Internet is too important to have policies that change with each election. It’s time to get past the rhetoric and the pendulum swings and work together to craft a durable set of rules that protect the open Internet without discouraging the investment in the next generation of broadband networks that will enable the next generation of online services. Open Internet protections deserve to be written in ink, not pencil.”
• “Title II regulation and net neutrality are not the same thing,” said Comcast Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer David Cohen. “While some seem to want to create hysteria that the Internet as we know it will disappear if their preferred regulatory scheme isn’t in place, that’s just not reality.”
• USTelecom, the lobbying organization for large broadband providers, dismissed the rally as a campaign of large Internet-based companies. "For many of the large, powerful internet companies who have signed on to today’s net neutrality protest, the real issue here is not protecting the open internet, but protecting their bottom lines," said President and CEO Jonathan Spalter. "What’s the solution? Clean, modern net neutrality rules that safeguard consumers’ online freedoms without sacrificing their equally keen interest in stronger, faster broadband networks—and all the innovation it makes possible. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai should be commended for seeking that balance in his net neutrality proceeding. And, Congress would do right by all consumers to make these protections permanent under the law."
• NCTA – The Internet & Television Association said, "[W]e agree that internet users should have the freedom to go anywhere on the internet or to run any application with confidence that internet traffic will in no way be blocked or throttled."

Free Press, BTW, was quick to point out 10 ways broadband providers could better support network neutrality. #4 -- quit suing the FCC over the 2015 Open Internet rules.

Internet-based companies voiced their support for preserving the FCC's 2015, court-upheld rules.

• Google said, "Internet companies, innovative startups, and millions of internet users depend on these common-sense protections that prevent blocking or throttling of internet traffic, segmenting the internet into paid fast lanes and slow lanes, and other discriminatory practices. Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression, and opportunity. And it should stay that way."
• Twitter Public Policy Manager Lauren Culbertson said, "Without the guiding principles of Net Neutrality, it is entirely possible Twitter would not have come from a somewhat quirky experimental 140-character SMS service to where we are today, an international company with thousands of employees and a service that incorporates pictures, video, and live streaming and connects the world to every side of what’s happening." She continued, "Net Neutrality is one of the most important free expression issues of our time because without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to charge content providers more to access the Internet or to reach other users, frustrating the free flow of information. Moreover, without Net Neutrality in force, ISPs would even be able to block content they don’t like, reject apps and content that compete with their own offerings, and arbitrarily discriminate against particular content providers by prioritizing certain Internet traffic over theirs. This is especially critical for smaller and noncommercial voices, who would be unable to pay a new ISP broadband toll for 'fast lane' service."
• The Netflix homepage included a banner that read, "Protect Internet Freedom. Defend Net Neutrality".
• Airbnb used its homepage to tell users the company was "protesting the FCC's plan to remove common-sense regulations" and provides a form for them to contact members of Congress.
• HomeAway featured a "Save #NetNeutrality" banner with a link to the Internet Association site.
• Reddit helped drive traffic to the "Battle for the Net" and included the message "The internet's less fun when your favorite sites load slowly, isn't it?"
• Dropbox General Counsel Bart Volkmer said, "[W]e strongly favor a free and open internet with fair rules that promote competition, choice, and innovation. We’ve shared this position before and it’s worth repeating."

But the debate over an Open Internet isn't just pitting the competing interests of broadband providers and Internet-based companies. According to a recent poll conducted by Civis Analytics, 77 percent of Americans support keeping the strong net neutrality rules we already have and more than 80 percent agree with the principles of net neutrality.

• “The FCC needs to listen to the public, not just lobbyists from big cable companies," said Evan Greer, campaign director for rally organizer Fight for the Future. "Today, the Internet is showing its political power. No one wants companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to have control over what we can see and do online, or to have to pay them extra fees to access the content we want. The Internet is outraged by censorship and corruption, this is our moment to defend net neutrality and fight for the future of freedom of expression. Lawmakers in Washington, DC need to understand that if they stand idly by and allow the FCC to gut these rules that are overwhelmingly supported by voters from across the political spectrum, they will be seen as enemies of the Internet and enemies of free speech.”
• "The facts are clear: The current net neutrality rules are working, they are popular, and they have been upheld in court challenges not once but twice," said Chris Lewis, Vice President at Public Knowledge. "No one should have to pay an extra toll or get permission from their broadband provider to deliver their content or services to consumers online. It’s time to take a stand to preserve these hard-fought rules that protect the internet and internet users everywhere, and the movement starts today."
• Free Press CEO Craig Aaron said, “The fact is, we have something that is already working, so why we would be urging people to take an incredibly popular policy with wide support from millions and millions of Americans and rewrite it to make it 5 percent less awful than whatever the FCC is proposing right now doesn’t make any sense."
• "The open Internet is a place for authentic storytelling by Latinos and communities of color, whose voices have been misrepresented or underrepresented by traditional media,” said Carmen Scurato, director of policy and legal affairs for the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which says undoing Title II would "slash the legal foundation" for online protections. “Strong net neutrality rules, that prevent corporate gatekeepers from standing in the way of how we access and use the internet, ensure that historically underserved communities will be heard online."
• "Net neutrality is essential to 21st Century democracy," said Michael Copps, former FCC chairman and special advisor to Common Cause. "Without real open internet protections, Big Cable gatekeepers are free to filter dissent and stifle online organizing. That's why millions of Americans—and so many of companies—are speaking with one voice. We will never compromise online free speech."

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said, "“Today I stand with those who believe that a free and open internet is a foundational principle of our democracy. Its benefits can be felt across our economy and around the globe. That is why I am excited that on this day consumers, entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including broadband providers and internet startups, are speaking out with a unified voice in favor of strong net neutrality rules grounded in Title II. Knowing that the arc of success is bent in our favor and we are on the right side of history, I remain committed to doing everything I can to protect the most empowering and inclusive platform of our time.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly were silent on the matter on July 12.

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, posted a video urging people to show support for net neutrality. “If we lose net neutrality, we lose the internet as we know it,” he said.

Many have called on Congress to address net neutrality protections in legislation. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman penned an op-ed for Recode saying, Like many organizers of today’s protest, I vigorously support an open internet. But as a senator representing a rural state, I am concerned that such protests often [give] short shrift to ensuring all Americans have access to high-speed internet." His solution: "passing enduring bipartisan legislation, is obvious and — no, I’m not kidding — within Congress’s reach. If Democrats and Republicans have the political support to work together, we can together enact a framework that provides the net neutrality protections wanted by so many internet users, reasonably limits the whims of partisan regulators and grants the necessary flexibility to protect consumers from future harm."

House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said, “Today’s Day of Action highlights the need for Congress to work together to protect consumers and ensure a free and open internet. The internet and the new technologies it unleashed have revolutionized the world in just a few short decades, and done so with little or no federal regulation. I again call on my Democratic colleagues, edge providers and ISPs, and all those who make up the diverse internet ecosystem that has flourished under light-touch regulation to come to the table and work with us on bipartisan legislation that preserves an open internet while not discouraging the investments necessary to fully connect all Americans. Too much is at stake to have this issue ping-pong between different FCC commissions and various courts over the next decade."

"We understand people have some passionate feelings on the issue, and we expect to hear those," said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). But she predicted the day of action will "only be another day of confusion for consumers and users" and criticized Democrats for refusing to engage on net neutrality legislation. "What I find interesting is that we have asked Democrats for years to come to the table on this issue, only for them to hide behind political excuses."

Rep. Darrell Issa said, "You can look at criticism as an opportunity to improve your own game or you can look at it as a nuisance. Rep Issa backs an antitrust approach to open internet protections relying on the Federal Trade Commission rather than the FCC.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said, "President Obama enacted historic and tough net neutrality rules for good reason — we need strong guidelines designed to protect budding startups and businesses from large corporations that might want to stamp out their competition. We need to fight to preserve the power a free and open Internet gives the marginalized and underrepresented to organize and have their voices heard."

“Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it ends,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), speaking alongside other Democratic lawmakers outside the U.S. Capitol. “It’s just that simple.”

“The FCC and everyone in this city is going to know what the political consequences are if net neutrality is repealed,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) stressed that Democrats had been “fighting to protect and promote a free and open internet for a long time” — and did not plan to stop. “Now, the Trump administration and the ISPs want to take that away,” he charged. “I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go back to their districts and ask their constituents if they want slower internet.”

In any case, no one expects Congress to take up this issue fast enough to get ahead of the FCC. Rep. Anna Eshoo said Republicans don’t want to give the FCC any authority, and that “if I drew up the bill right now they wouldn’t support it. Congress is on the wrong side of history on this."

This means the net neutrality fight may end up in a very familiar place: federal court.

Gigi Sohn, who was at the FCC when it passed the current regulations, says that Pai’s rules will face an immediate legal challenge that could actually lead to a durable victory. The basis of a lawsuit could deal with something even more arcane than internet regulation: the limits on the rights of regulators to change their minds.

“It will certainly make a difference to the extent that Pai has to respond” to the comments, said Sohn, a longtime champion of net neutrality who served as counselor to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

“This is not the end of the campaign,” she added. “This is just the beginning. This is just the kickoff.”

Top House Commerce Committee Democrats rebuked their GOP colleagues for failing to hold any oversight hearings of the Federal Communications Commission amid the FCC's efforts to strike network neutrality regulations.

Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) and Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA), the top Democrat on the technology subcommittee, suggested in a letter that House Republicans are trying to “shield the FCC from having to explain its push to install such unpopular policies,” like the repeal of net neutrality rules. “This Committee has an obligation to perform oversight on behalf of the American people and ensure that the American people understand the consequences of the FCC’s actions,” they wrote in the letter to full Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

Seven people blocked by President Trump from seeing or interacting with his Twitter account filed a lawsuit against him, arguing that barring them from his popular social-media feed violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. The lawsuit, which raises interesting questions about what constitutes a public forum, as well as the boundaries of free-speech rights on the Web, comes as Trump continues to draw concern about his novel and erratic use of social media.

“President Trump’s Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President,” the lawsuit said. “In an effort to suppress dissent in this forum, Defendants have excluded — 'blocked' —Twitter users who have criticized the President or his policies. This practice is unconstitutional, and this suit seeks to end it." The Twitter users, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said that Trump's actions violated their Constitutional rights in several ways. They argued that the president has restricted their participation in a public forum, their ability to access official public statements made by him and their capacity to petition the government to air their grievances.

The Twitter users said they brought the lawsuit to seek a declaration that Trump's actions were unconstitutional and to get an injunction requiring President Trump to unblock their accounts and preventing him from blocking other people because of their views.

The Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules to ensure Americans who are blind or visually impaired have access to more video described programming. Video description, also called audio description, allows people with limited vision to hear a description of on-screen activity while also following the dialogue, providing a more fulsome entertainment experience. According to the National Federation of the Blind, more than 7 million Americans have a visual disability. The new rules adopted today will ensure that more video described programming is available to those who rely on it, and also provide broadcast and nonbroadcast television networks more flexibility in complying with the rules.

Beginning in July 2018, broadcasters and pay-TV providers carrying one of the top networks must provide 87.5 hours of described programming per calendar quarter, which averages out to roughly one hour per day of description on each included network. This is an increase of 75 percent over the 50 hours per quarter presently required. While the current 50 hour requirement must be provided during prime-time or children’s programming, the additional 37.5 hours per quarter being added by these new rules can be provided at any time of day between 6 a.m. and midnight. The networks currently covered by the rule are ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, Disney Channel, History, TBS, TNT, and USA. However, the list of the top five nonbroadcast networks will be updated in July 2018, so this is subject to change.

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission is preparing to overturn the two-year-old decision that invoked the FCC's Title II authority in order to impose net neutrality rules. It's possible the FCC could replace today's net neutrality rules with a weaker version, or it could decide to scrap net neutrality rules altogether. Either way, what's almost certain is that the FCC will eliminate the Title II classification of Internet service providers. And that would have important effects on consumer protection that go beyond the core net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Without Title II's common carrier regulation, the FCC would have less authority to oversee the practices of Internet providers like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, and Verizon. Customers and websites harmed by ISPs would also have fewer recourses, both in front of the FCC and in courts of law. Title II provisions related to broadband network construction, universal service, competition, network interconnection, and Internet access for disabled people would no longer apply. Rules requiring disclosure of hidden fees and data caps could be overturned, and the FCC would relinquish its role in evaluating whether ISPs can charge competitors for data cap exemptions.

Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has a reputation as a nice guy who remembers co-workers’ birthdays and their children’s names. After he was targeted by trolls on Twitter, he took it in good humor, participating in a video where he read and responded to “mean tweets”. This is the man who could destroy the open internet.

Chairman Pai argues that if the US introduced strong net neutrality protections, authoritarian states would have an excuse to clamp down on online freedoms – in spite of the fact that authoritarian states don’t need an excuse to do so. He also says that legislation should only be applied if there’s a market failure. However, as Pai has said, “nothing is broken” and the rules were established on “hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom”.

Americans are divided over whether the news media's coverage of President Trump has been too tough or not tough enough, according to a new poll. A Gallup survey finds 35 percent of Americans said the media has been "too tough" on President Trump, compared to 34 percent who think the media has been "not tough enough." Twenty-eight percent think the media has been "about right" with its coverage of Trump. Republicans and Democrats differ in their opinions of the president. A majority of Republicans, 77 percent, said the media's coverage of Trump is too tough, compared to just 7 percent who said it is not tough enough. But among Democrats, only 8 percent think the media's coverage is too tough and 53 percent think it is not tough enough. Another 38 percent of Democrats think it is about right. In a January poll taken shortly after Trump's inauguration, 36 percent of all voters said the media's coverage was too tough on the president, compared to 28 percent who said it was not tough enough.

Asked by New York Times reporters about emails revealing that he had agreed to a meeting to hear damaging information about Hillary Clinton proffered by an intermediary for the Russian government, Donald Trump Jr revealed the emails to the public instead. The move was cheered by some of the president’s supporters. They called it a clever way to upend a narrative emerging in the news media that Donald Trump Jr. — whose public explanations of the meeting had evolved several times since The Times revealed it — had not been forthcoming.

Still, political veterans from both parties said that while the pre-emptive publication might register as a short-term win, it could have long-term implications for the Trumps’ ability to shape coverage. Reporters seek comment ahead of an article’s publication to ensure a piece is fair; if the subject leaks the story to a competitor — or, in this case, leaks the information himself — it can be tough to re-establish trust. “You get one mulligan to do it this way, and he just took it,” said Ari Fleischer, a press secretary to President George W. Bush. “He will not get that consideration from the press corps again,” Fleischer said. “The next time something comes up, reporters are going to jam him in, 10 seconds before they hit the ‘send’ button, because they won’t trust him not to do the same thing again.”

Net neutrality supporters preparing for July 12’s online protests to defend the set of rules enacted two years ago by the Federal Communications Commission are using the freedom of speech to bolster their case.

The Obama-era rules, codified in the 2015 Open Internet Order, aim to prevent internet service providers from blocking, slowing or otherwise unreasonably discriminating against content that end-users could access. On July 12, in response to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to undo the rules, a slew of prominent websites and companies intend to show their support for net neutrality. Similar protests against a crackdown on copyright violation in 2012 were able to help move the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act bills off the table through coordinated site “blackouts.” For the net neutrality fight, participants will use memes, push notifications, banner ads and other means to drive comments to the FCC’s website before a July 17 public comment deadline. “Wednesday’s day of action is only the beginning of a massive pushback against the effort to remove essential net neutrality protections,” said Chris Lewis, vice president at digital consumer rights group Public Knowledge by email Monday. “This is especially important when broadband providers are getting into a variety of other markets where they can prefer their services over competitors, from online payments and financing to security systems and competitive video offerings.”

The June 3, 2016, e-mail sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton. The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication. He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Four days later, after a flurry of e-mails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.” Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would most likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers.