Internet/Broadband

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has repeatedly signaled that he wants to dismantle the net-neutrality protections that were put in place during the Obama years after a massive campaign by democracy advocates, consumer groups, and defenders of a free and open Internet. If Pai’s FCC votes later this summer for that dismantlement, the future of personal communications, education, commerce, economic arrangements, and democracy itself will be radically altered.

The fight over net neutrality is about much more than the fight over whether telecommunications companies will be able to create “fast lanes” for paying content from corporations and billionaire-funded politicians while relegating the essential informational sharing of civil society to “slow lanes” on the periphery of what was supposed to be “the information superhighway.” Because our lives are now so digital, and because they are becoming so automated, the fight over net neutrality is really the fight over the whole of the future. It comes down to a simple question: Will that future be defined by civic and democratic values? Or will it defined by commercial and entertainment values?

Rep Keith Ellison (D-MN), along with Reps Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), introduced the Online Privacy Act (HR 3175). This bill would re-instate the Federal Communications Commission’s original online privacy rule, which would prohibit Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from selling user browsing data.

“The Internet should be open and free for everyone – and every person who uses it should be able to do so without worrying what their service provider might be doing with their data,” Rep Ellison said. “Our government should work for us – the people – not massive telecom corporations. This bill would make sure that every American can get online without having their personal information sold to the highest bidder. And it will provide justice for those who already have had their information taken from them.”

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.”

[Commentary] We’re still picking ourselves off the floor from all the laughing we did when AT&T issued a press release announcing that it was joining the “Day of Action for preserving and advancing the open internet.” Here are some things AT&T could actually do to defend Net Neutrality and the open internet:

1) Quit trying to co-opt the terms “Net Neutrality” and “open internet.”
2) Actually support real Net Neutrality.
3) Get your CEO on the record in support of Title II.
4) Quit suing the FCC over the 2015 Open Internet Order.
5) Stop sending all your lobbyists to lobby against Net Neutrality.
6) In fact, leave Congress out of it altogether.
7) Stop lying.
8) Specifically stop lying about investment.
9) Abandon your merger with Time Warner.
10) If you won’t do that, can you at least pledge to extend John Oliver’s contract when you own HBO? That’s our guy.

The House of Representatives adopted the Email Privacy Act in February to modernize the protections afforded electronic communications that would require obtaining a search warrant in almost every case. That proposal met resistance in the Senate in 2016 when Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, sought to add a provision allowing law enforcement to skip the warrant requirement in emergency situations. Whether the legislation can get through the current Senate is an open question, and it is not clear whether President Donald Trump would sign off if the Justice Department opposes the bill. That may mean the Supreme Court will have to establish the broad parameters of digital privacy while Congress tries to deal with the intricacies of a world of electronic communication that continues to evolve rapidly.

Devices connected to the internet, from cellphones to watches to personal training trackers that facilitate our personal habits and communications, are a fact of daily life, and the Supreme Court will have to start drawing clear lines around what types of electronic information are — and are not — protected by the Fourth Amendment. Simply asserting that there is a right to privacy does not provide much help in determining how far that protection should extend in a digital world.

[Commentary] Broadband providers need to know that they can innovate, invest and operate their networks without constantly worrying about federal bureaucrats second-guessing their decisions or micromanaging their businesses. Continuing down the Title II path isn’t necessary for achieving effective and strong net neutrality. We can have net neutrality protections – no blocking, throttling or unfair traffic prioritization – without regulations that stifle future network investments.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal is an important first step. But ultimately Congress should step in to ensure that we have permanent, enforceable net neutrality rules that provide certainty for everyone – consumers, innovators and ISPs.

[Jonathan Spalter is president of chief executive officer of USTelecom]

July 12, AT&T will join the “Day of Action” for preserving and advancing an open internet. This may seem like an anomaly to many people who might question why AT&T is joining with those who have differing viewpoints on how to ensure an open and free internet. But that’s exactly the point – we all agree that an open internet is critical for ensuring freedom of expression and a free flow of ideas and commerce in the United States and around the world.

We agree that no company should be allowed to block content or throttle the download speeds of content in a discriminatory manner. So, we are joining this effort because it’s consistent with AT&T’s proud history of championing our customers’ right to an open internet and access to the internet content, applications and devices of their choosing.

[Commentary] The current Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, understands the dangerous nature of this government overreach [Title II] and is working to reverse these regulations, but I fear that those trying to invest in South Dakota’s broadband will have to slog through new regulations imposed by each new administration unless Congress protects the Internet with enforceable net neutrality legislation.

I ask Sen John Thune (R-SD) to help secure net neutrality protections by supporting legislation that protects consumer rights to an open internet, stabilizes oscillating Internet policy and encourages Internet companies to reinvest in the future of their networks and next-generation products and services. Legislation on net neutrality is needed to end the constant regulatory upheaval and help put this issue beyond the political bickering and agency turnover. Securing an open Internet will help broadband providers to deliver new breakthroughs and services to consumers – a goal shared by both parties. It is my hope that Sen Thune and all members of Congress will act by working with their colleagues to pass legislation that will lift these misapplied utility regulations and bring much needed security and stability to the Internet.

[Dave Roetman currently serves as the Minnehaha County GOP chairman and the South Dakota Republican Party finance director.]

[Commentary] House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has tried to argue that ending network neutrality is good for Nashville’s musicians, but she’s flat wrong. She says that musicians would have the opportunity to negotiate “paid prioritization deals,” but this is just payola with a new name and the same ugly consequences for music.

Working musicians want to spend their time making and distributing music to their fans, not cutting special deals with big media conglomerates; allowing paid prioritization and other forms of discrimination is only good for big media companies that can afford to cut big checks. That’s why organizations like the Future of Music Coalition oppose what the Federal Communications Commission is trying to do. It’s critical that musicians stand up for net neutrality and oppose the FCC’s plan.

[E. Michael Harrington is a composer, musician, consultant, Music Business Program Faculty Chair at SAE Institute Nashville, course author and faculty at Berklee College of Music]

An interview with Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future. Fast Company asked her about the state of network neutrality and the prospects for resisting President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s policy effort.

Asked, "Beyond the day of action, is there an ongoing way that the campaign will continue?" Greer replied, "This is just the beginning. Even if the FCC moves ahead as quickly as possible, we’re not talking about a vote on this until at least the fall. And I think a lot of this will pivot to Congress. The FCC makes the decision on this specific proposal, but they answer to Congress, and every lawmaker should be paying attention to the fact that this is incredibly unpopular with constituents." Asked, "If the FCC does take away Title II designation, is the next move up to Congress?" Greer said, "After that, it would go to the courts. The FCC will have a tall order to prove in court that they have any good reason to do this. But I’m optimistic that we will never get there, because I do think this is going to be a tremendous mobilization on July 12th, that it’s going to change the conversation in a big way."