Regulatory classification

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.

Of all concerns we have, probably the biggest one centers around something called paid prioritization. That’s where the broadband providers get to enter into special relationships with certain websites to get their websites into a “fast lane“ to get their content to users faster. There are a lot of problems with this idea. The first one is pretty obvious; a “fast lane” doesn’t exist. Fiber is fiber, and things travel across it at the same speed unless another force is acting on it. That means that in order to build the fast lane, you basically need to slow everything else down. Quite simply, we don’t think our users should be artificially slowed down. With extremely limited exception, the open Internet order bans paid prioritization. Walking back the order puts it back on the table, and that is dangerous. The same thing is true for blocking and throttling. These are not allowed by order of the open Internet order, except for network maintenance reasons. That is extremely important to the open Internet, and the customers we serve. It needs to persevere.

[Commentary] As progressive luminaries like Tim Wu and Susan Crawford continue fighting for utility-style regulations for broadband providers, prominent conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon have begun demanding similar utility-style regulations for other internet “gatekeepers,” including major websites and online platforms like Google and Facebook. Even if you accept the premise of that argument — and reasonable minds disagree over just how much control is too much for one corporation to have — it’s far from clear that utility-style regulation is the proper response.

Indeed, in the dynamic markets for internet services, imposing true utility-style regulations would be a huge mistake. By giving up on market forces and ceding dominance to a single firm, utility-style regulation makes future competition impossible. Fortunately, strong antitrust and consumer protection laws can save us from this downward spiral of utility-style regulation.

We’re seeing an unprecedented level of political engagement in this cultural moment. In the two months since the Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality, those efforts have crystallized into a decentralized grassroots movement to defend a free and open internet. Welcome to Team Internet.

Nearly half a million strong, we’re a group of people working together in direct response to threats to Net Neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission and in Congress. We organize alongside hundreds of other organizations and individuals who work on media and technology issues. A small and dedicated staff from three partner organizations — Demand Progress, Fight for the Future and Free Press Action Fund — supports the team.

Depending on what happens with the Obamacare repeal bill, a Senate vote on the re-confirmation of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai could come as soon as the week of Sept 25. Before the recess, Republicans Sens agreed to give Chairman Pai's vote up to 30 hours of debate on the floor, providing Democrats a chance to air their grievances about issues like net neutrality and the pending Sinclair-Tribune merger. And Democratic Sens stand ready to make some noise, despite Chairman Pai having the necessary Republican support to advance. “We’re going to be very loud about it,” Sen Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said. Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) added: “This debate on net neutrality, on privacy, is at a defining historical moment, and we have to ensure there is a full public debate so everyone can understand its importance.”