Network Neutrality

Network carriers are exploring nascent technology that would allow them to better and more quickly deliver certain apps and services on their network—but this technology, known as network slicing, could potentially run afoul of net-neutrality regulations. In the current model, all data traffic from phones is typically funneled through the same network. Carriers are able to prioritize the voice calls that they handle on that network, but they rarely have visibility into what else users are doing through other apps.

Charles Dickens opened A Tale of Two Cities writing that “It was the best of times, it was worst of times”. Therein may lie some helpful context for understanding where our country finds itself today. I don’t propose to cover the entire issues waterfront in this brief piece, but will instead focus on a few of the things I see dragging our country and our government down today. For the purposes of this essay, I will include telecommunications and media, Congress, and the courts. To start off on the positive, there’s some really good news at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to demand answers regarding the FCC’s partisan Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reinstate failed Title II net neutrality rules. “As a member of the U.S.

Fans of Title II-based network neutrality rules are once again flooding the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality comment docket with identical calls for restoration of the rules, as the Democrat-controlled agency has proposed. The docket already has almost 20,000 comments and, as such, is the commission’s most active proceeding, far outstripping the second-place docket for rules on international communications and spectrum issues, which has less than 3,000.

On October 19, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reinstate the agency’s 2015 decision that brought internet service providers (ISPs) under the agency’s jurisdiction as Telecommunications Carriers. This action is necessary because the Trump FCC repealed the previous rule in 2018 at the request of the ISPs.

The commissioners sitting on the Federal Communications Commission should issue a joint statement reminding the public that “the comment process is not a vote.” To my mind, inviting commenters to make some noise and raise a ruckus is not the proper way to encourage public participation most conducive to creating a rulemaking record consistent with the agency’s supposed expertise. To the extent that making noise and raising a ruckus is understood as gearing up the mass comment machines, the notion is devalued that the FCC will be applying its expertise in deciding complex issues—say, what co

Net neutrality has become the Washington equivalent of a Hollywood franchise: As if the sequel to the sequel weren’t enough, another installment of the debate over rules for the internet’s roads arrived this month. This time, however, there’s a plot twist. What, exactly, net neutrality rules look like matters less than that there are meaningful rules for broadband more generally.

The United Kingdom's current net neutrality rules are set out in legislation. Any changes to the rules in future would be a matter for Government and Parliament. Ofcom is responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the rules and providing guidance on how ISPs should follow them. In 2021 Ofcom started a review of net neutrality. The review has found that, in general, it has worked well and supported consumer choice as well as enabling content providers to deliver their content and services to consumers.

There is an easy way to simplify the upcoming battle between the Federal Communications Commission and big internet service providers (ISPs) over Title II regulation and net neutrality. The public expects the government to regulate industries that are essential. That’s the reason we regulate electric companies and drinking water quality. It’s the reason we regulate meat and drug safety.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on petitions for reconsideration of the Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) Remand Order filed by Common Cause, INCOMPAS, Public Knowledge, and the County of Santa Clara. The petitioners request that the FCC reconsider its decision in the RIF Remand Order, reverse or vacate that Order, and initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address the concerns raised by the DC Court of Appeals pertaining to the 2018 RIF Order. In addition to the issues raised in the petitions, the FCC invites comment on how the issues under con