Network Neutrality

In his ongoing push to get rid of network neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai claimed in Sept that the rules caused capital investment in wireless networks to drop in 2016. But in doing so, Chairman Pai hasn't addressed data from earlier years that doesn't fit his anti-net neutrality narrative.

Chairman Pai beat the drum again this week in the FCC's annual report on wireless competition, which emphasizes the investment drop in 2016. The current net neutrality rules were voted in by the FCC in February 2015 and took effect in June 2015. But investment also dropped between 2013 and 2015, before the current rules were in place, Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn pointed out. "The discussion of investment in the mobile wireless services industry is fundamentally flawed. By highlighting a decrease in investment between 2015 and 2016, this section was clearly written to support the false narrative that the 2015 Open Internet Order deterred wireless carriers from investing in their networks," Commissioner Clyburn said.

AT&T is trying to take the fight over the Obama-era net neutrality rules to the US Supreme Court. On Sept 29, AT&T, the cable industry group NCTA, and CenturyLink filed separate appeals asking the court to overturn the controversial 2015 rules. A federal appeals court last year upheld the rules, which were passed by a Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission and supported by President Barack Obama. The broadband industry says it has no problem with the idea of an open internet, but it argues the new classification applies outdated regulations that have stifled investment.

Republicans, who now control the FCC, have already begun the process of dismantling the rules. In May FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump, opened a proceeding to rewrite the rules. The FCC could vote to repeal the rules as early as December. Legal experts say this makes it less likely the Court will take the case. "The Supreme Court isn't likely to play a starring role on net neutrality now," said Matt Schettenhelm, a litigation and government analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. "The court's likely to take a back seat, letting the FCC move ahead with its work to undo the 2015 order." This means the fight for net neutrality is likely to go on for several years as Democrats, consumer advocates and internet companies like Mozilla, which support the rules, have vowed to continue to fight.

This report describes “Phish For The Future,” an advanced persistent spearphishing campaign targeting digital civil liberties activists at Free Press and Fight For the Future. Between July 7th and August 8th of 2017 we observed almost 70 spearphishing attempts against employees of internet freedom NGOs Fight for the Future and Free Press, all coming from the same attackers.

AT&T met with staff from the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus and the Office of General Counsel on September 25, 2017 to discuss arguments made in the open internet proceeding regarding the Administrative Procedure Act. AT&T discussed its white paper it says addresses arguments by Title II proponents that the APA imposes various substantive and procedural obstacles to restoration of a Title I regime for broadband internet access.

AT&T claimed nothing in the APA requires the FCC to identify any post-2015 change in factual circumstances as a basis for restoring a Title I regime, to issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking to specify the metrics to be used in a cost-benefit analysis of Title II regulation, or to stall this proceeding pending a new round of comments on the significance or not of informal complaints made public in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Senate majority is charging forward with plans to vote to reconfirm Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai for another five years. Rehiring Pai to head the agency that oversees US communications policies would be a boon for the phone and cable companies he eagerly serves. But it would hurt everyone else who needs this agency to put our communications rights before the profits of monopoly-minded media giants. In the coming days, senators have the opportunity to intervene on the public’s behalf and fire Pai. Here are five reasons they should do so:
1. Net Neutrality Lies
2. Widening the Digital Divide
3. Sinclair Quid Pro Quo
4. First Amendment Fail
5. Assault on Online Privacy

On the floor of the Senate, Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) said, "At every turn, [Federal Communications Commission] Chairman Pai choses corporate interests over consumers." He told his colleagues that the FCC now stands for "Forgetting Consumers and Competition" under Chairman Ajit Pai. He also said he would outline who is getting a big piece of the FCC pie under Pai. He even used a visual aide, an FCC logo divided into Pai wedges he moved from the "consumer" side of his chart to the "corporation" side.

Sen Markey tied his opposition to Pai's proposal to roll back Title II classification of broadband internet access service and repealing network neutrality rules. Markey said Pai was in the thrall of big media to the detriment of consumers. But he also pointed to Pai’s actions on Lifeline, broadband privacy, the Sinclair-Tribune merger, E-rate and more as reasons to deny him a seat on the commission, which were other pieces of the pie he moved to the "corporation" side in his own version of a Senate Ted Talk.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) took to the Senate floor to oppose the nomination of Ajit Pai for a new five-year term on the Federal Communications Commission. His remarks came just before a planned cloture vote on debate on the nomination.

Sen Wyden’s opposition is rooted in Pai's proposal to roll back Title II classification of broadband internet access service and eliminating network neutrality rules. Sen Wyden has been one of the Hill's most vociferous critics of that proposal. Sen Wyden said Chairman Pai had worked long and hard to undermine net neutrality, which he said was folks getting a "fair shake" online. Sen Wyden also took aim at broadband providers, saying their commitment to "voluntary" net neutrality was bogus. He said there was as much likelihood that they would do so voluntarily as that his nine-year-old son would voluntary limit himself to one desert. "It just isn't going to happen." He said Chairman Pai sides with the big cable companies over small businesses and consumers. The senator said Chairman Pai had signaled he was blowing up the internet's level playing field by saying he would take a weed whacker to regulations. He said the debate was not over Google and Oracle, but about start-ups and small businesses wanting to grow.

[Commentary] If you believe communications networks should be fast, fair, open, and affordable, you need ask your senator to vote against Ajit Pai’s reconfirmation. Now. The Senate vote on Pai is imminent. When it happens, it will be a stark referendum on the kind of communications networks and consumer protections we want to see in this country.

Senators can choose a toothless Federal Communications Commission that will protect huge companies, allow them to further consolidate, charge higher prices with worsening service, and a create bigger disconnect between broadband haves and have-nots. Or, they can vote for what the FCC is supposed to do: protect consumers, promote competition, and ensure access for all Americans, including the most vulnerable. It shouldn’t be a hard decision, and what we’ve seen over the past eight months makes the stakes clear.

[Gigi Sohn served as counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from November 2013 to December 2016. She is currently a fellow at the Open Society Foundations]

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) took to the Senate floor to oppose the nomination of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai for a new term on the commission, citing network neutrality. Sen Cantwell said Chairman Pai had moved the FCC away from its key public service mission, including net neutrality, which she called one of the most important issues of our time. She told her colleagues that in the information age, making sure the internet remains open is key. She also said that the vote on Pai's nomination would happen on Oct. 2. She said Chairman Pai was trying to clog the arteries of one of the fastest growing economic opportunities in America. "I am not going to vote for someone who is going to clog the internet."

A new Consumer Reports survey shows that a majority of Americans favor net neutrality rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking lawful online content.

One main finding was that the majority of Americans—57 percent—support the current network neutrality regulations that ban ISPs from blocking or discriminating against lawful content on the internet. Sixteen percent said they opposed these regulations, while about a quarter didn't express an opinion on the topic. An even larger majority—67 percent—said that ISPs shouldn't be allowed to choose which websites, apps, or streaming services their customers can access. Almost as many—63 percent—don't think an ISP should be allowed to modify or edit content consumers try to access on the internet. When it comes to paid prioritization deals, in which ISPs can provide faster delivery of content to companies that pay a fee for it, roughly half the respondents—48 percent—said they didn't believe such practices should be permitted, while 26 percent said they should be permitted, and 26 percent expressed no opinion.