Network Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission's open internet docket, dubbed "Restoring Internet Freedom," has seen a huge wave of comments—or at least a major update of the number posted—since June 2, with over 4.9 million posted, up about 2 million from June 2's 2.9 million-plus. Sen Ed Markey (D-MA), an opponent of Republican FCC chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back Title II, said earlier in 2017 he thought the comments would dwarf those in the docket for the 2015 Open Internet order—over 4 million. With still more than two months left in the comment cycle, he could be right.

[Commentary] Reverting back to a voluntary approach to network neutrality potentially threatens the well-being of many people, particularly those at risk for health disparities due to low income or rural residency. Not only does this voluntary approach shift winners and losers to favor large telecommunication giants, we are specifically concerned with several areas of health care being negatively impacted, including innovative solutions for telemedicine, health enhancement, and cost effective scalable sharing of health care data.

In summary, the new FCC may be proceeding in directions that may make it harder to use telehealth, cloud-based EHRs, and remote sensing technologies that improve access to care and potentially lower costs for all. A thoughtless move toward free enterprise on the Internet could have a negative impact on the health of the most medically underserved Americans. We urge the FCC to investigate the unintended consequences of policy changes to insure that they do not amplify issues of health disparities in lower income and rural populations.

To make sure the network neutrality rollback survives court challenges, newly appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai must justify his decision to redefine broadband less than three years after the previous change. He argues that broadband isn't telecommunications because it isn't just a simple pipe to the Internet. Broadband is an information service because Internet service providers give customers the ability to visit social media websites, post blogs, read newspaper websites, and use search engines to find information, the FCC's new proposal states. Even if the ISPs don't host any of those websites themselves, broadband is still an information service under Pai's definition because Internet access allows consumers to reach those websites.

[Commentary] Amid the raucous political debate, there is a critical issue many are overlooking: the threat to network neutrality. Net neutrality is a critical component of the future of the Internet, but the real issue is the lack of fast, affordable Internet in America — directly caused by a lack of adequate competition. If consumers had more providers to choose from, the market would solve the issues of privacy protections, network neutrality and much more. People would not stand for poor privacy practices and content restrictions, usurious prices and poor quality. They would seek other options, forcing providers to change their practices.

So how can you get involved to keep the FCC from dismantling net neutrality? Spread the word — talk to your friends, family and neighbors. Educate them on the subject and encourage them to take a stand and engage the appropriate government representatives at the federal, state and local level. We must band together for the long journey ahead to effect change.

[Dane Jasper is the CEO and founder of Sonic, an Internet and telecommunications company in Santa Rosa (CA)]

As the Federal Communications Commission prepares to deregulate the telecommunication and cable industry by rolling back the agency's network neutrality rules, some people on both sides of the issue already say the battle is pretty much moot. On May 31, Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings signaled he thinks the current fight is unwinnable. "I think Trump's FCC is going to unwind the rules, no matter what anybody says," Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings said. "That's going to happen, and then we get to see what's going to come out of that."

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai officially released the agency’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) recently to begin a process intended to undo the 2015 Open Internet Order and roll back vital Network Neutrality protections. The NPRM summarizes Chairman Pai’s thinking and sets up questions the FCC intends to explore during the rulemaking process. Unfortunately, it’s as bad as we expected.

Not only does the NPRM propose to eliminate the FCC’s only viable way to enforce Net Neutrality under Title II of the Communications Act, it specifically suggests elimination of bright-line Net Neutrality rules that prevent ISPs from engaging in paid prioritization, blocking and throttling content and websites. Yet Chairman Pai and his supporters in the cable industry are pretending that they’re not gunning for the Net Neutrality rules themselves. This claim is front and center on the homepage of cable industry front group Broadband for America: “The FCC is not trying to repeal Net Neutrality; it is working on separate regulations called Title II or ‘utility’ regulation.” This doublespeak obscures two central pillars of Pai’s approach (scattering in a few extra falsehoods along the way, like the inaccurate reference to so-called utility rules, and the repetition of Pai’s constant lies about alleged harms from Title II). Pai wants to pretend that he’s preserving the open internet, but he’s made up his mind to dismantle the rules that protect it and the foundation on which those rules stand.

Internet service providers have been among the fiercest critics of the Federal Communications Commission’s two-year-old network neutrality rules aimed at preventing companies like Verizon and Comcast from dictating how fast — or slow — online content can be accessed. That doesn’t mean ISPs oppose network neutrality — they just have a different definition for it, Comcast Senior Executive Vice President David Cohen said during a panel discussion in Washington.

Cohen endorsed the recent FCC move that begins reversing Obama-era rules that classified the internet as a “utility” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. “Getting rid of Title II does not mean getting rid of net neutrality,” Cohen said at Free State Foundation’s telecommunications policy conference. “You can support net neutrality rules, but you don’t have to do that under all of the baggage that comes with Title II.”

[Commentary] On May 18, I had the privilege of joining a people’s protest outside Federal Communications Commission headquarters in Washington (DC). Inside on that same morning, two intransigent and backward-looking commissioners (they constitute the FCC majority) announced their intention to dismantle the good and court-approved network neutrality rules put in place by the previous FCC. Their intention is to close the open internet. Meanwhile more than 2,000,000 Americans had already contacted the Commission directly, the overwhelming majority seeking to keep the net neutrality rules and guarantee an internet that serves us all rather than kowtow to big cable and bloated telecom. In the May 18 match-up, 2 trumped 2,000,000, and the semi-final proposal was circulated, with final approval likely late this summer or early fall. Unless even more of us get involved.
[Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009.]

In order to understand what’s happening to the internet today and how we can keep it free and open in the future, we have to consult its past. It’s remarkably hard, however, to find that past in a single narrative thread, with a minimum of legal and technical jargon. That’s what I’ve tried to create with this series, Commission Impossible. Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin.

The National Legal and Policy Center, a political and policy lobbying group, has fired the latest shot in the battle over network neutrality comments filed with the Federal Communications Commmission, saying that if its analysis is correct, it will ask Congress to investigate. Countering pushback from Title II fans who have said net-neutrality foes are flooding the Title II docket with fake comments, the NLPC said it has found evidence of "massive deception" among the pro-Title II contingent and its own flood of questionable input. The group said it has concluded, based on its own analysis, that for up to 20% of all the pro-net neutrality comments filed so far, either the e-mail address and name don't match or the same email address was used to email multiple comments -- sometimes thousands of them -- including addresses "culled from spammer and hacker databases" and generated by a fake email address site. The NLPC said it plans to have a "professional data forensics expert" vet the comments.