Regulatory classification

AT&T’s CFO John Stephens said that FirstNet’s pre-emption requirements for public safety users present “a challenge with the net neutrality process because you are giving prioritized service to police, firefighters.” “But quite frankly I think everyone would agree that that’s probably a good thing,” explained Stephens. "It’s just one of the uniquenesses of some of the other arguments that we have to deal with.”

When questioned about the topic further, Stephens said that net neutrality proponents didn’t really take FirstNet’s public-safety pre-emption requirements into account when drafting net neutrality guidelines. “We have the ability today to give [FirstNet public-safety users] preferential treatment. What we’ll have by the end of the year is what we call ‘relentless pre-emption,’ such that if there’s capacity for 10 calls and 10 calls are being used, and a firefighter gets on, one of the 10 people gets booted off and the firefighter gets in,” he said. “Quite frankly, I don’t think they thought about it [when crafting net neutrality guidelines]. The FirstNet process has been around since 9/11. It came out of the 9/11 events, and so that had been out there for a long time, and so I don’t even think it was even considered.”

House Commerce Committee staff, as expected, met with interested parties on network neutrality legislation, but they wouldn't say which companies or groups showed up. Remember, the committee originally invited the CEOs of Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon and Netflix to testify at a hearing along with chief executives of the major telecoms, but later extended (apparently indefinitely) the deadline for them to respond.

"We are pleased that so many stakeholders in the internet and tech communities have provided substantive feedback in our efforts to protect a free and open internet," said committee spokesman Zach Hunter, declining to name attendees. "We look forward to continued progress and providing certainty for both businesses and consumers alike with a permanent, legislative solution." It's all part of a Republican effort to push forward a net neutrality bill, which has been stalled amid opposition from Democrats intent on keeping the fight focused on the Federal Communications Commission. According to the committee, Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) still plans to hold a Sept. 7 hearing on the topic.

[Commentary] Big Cable’s #DitchTheBox proposal is one of the most recent examples of an industry’s inability to self-regulate in the absence of federal regulation, and many of the same companies offering pay-TV services are the same companies providing broadband internet. Big Cable’s past history of discrediting its own promises via its behavior epitomizes why it cannot be left to self-regulate. Big Cable said it would do one thing for consumers when faced with federal regulation, then did nothing when that threat evaporated. Replacing the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules with a voluntary system where broadband providers dictate their own rules (or lack of them) will likely result in the same scenario. In the end, we’d be exchanging strong, court-tested net neutrality rules with a series of ISP-designed loopholes that would serve as a catalyst for market abuse -- and more consumer ripoffs.

[Commentary] The network neutrality issue has reignited a debate that is as old as the Internet. Once limited to tech-savvy users with access to networked computers at academic institutions, laboratories and government agencies, the Internet has become a fundamental part of nearly everybody’s life. Billions of new users have come online over the past two decades. But the commercial interests that have enabled their entry have also threatened the core values of openness, freedom of expression and access that were so critical to the Internet’s early pioneers.

During the 1990s, public policies dramatically transformed the Internet by encouraging its privatization. As is true today, these changes sparked activism as individuals grappled with the tension between the technology’s commercial potential and its democratic ideals. The net neutrality debate is not just a reiteration of the same debate, however. It has forced Internet companies and users to confront the consequences — both positive and negative — that two decades of privatization have wrought on our digital public sphere. Commercialization has brought the digital world to the masses. But as a result, a handful of companies wield great influence over what we see online, and we are bombarded by spam, ads, and other costs of a profit-driven space.

[Carly Goodman is a historian of immigration and American foreign relations. She is a Mellon/ACLS Public Fellow and communications analyst at the American Friends Service Committee.]

Eleven House Commerce Committee Democratic Reps submitted public comments on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to roll back network neutrality regulations stating that the proposal fundamentally and profoundly run counter to the law. The lawmakers wrote that the FCC’s proposal misstates the distinction Congress made in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 between telecommunications services and information services.

The Committee Democrats also wrote that the proposal ignores the most critical issues affecting our country today—priorities such as free speech and democracy, small businesses, jobs and economic development, and privacy. Instead, the Commission narrowly focused on a single ill-conceived measure of broadband investment to the exclusion of all others. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to undo the rules "impermissibly ignores the Commission’s core mandate to fully consider the public interest before taking action," violating the commission's obligations under the Communications Act, the Democrats wrote in an FCC filing opposing Pai's plan. The lawmakers also questioned Pai's independence from President Donald Trump.

The FCC comment was submitted by House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA), and Reps Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Kathy Castor (D-FL), John Sarbanes (D-MD), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Joe Kennedy III (D-MA).

House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA) wrote to Republican Committee leaders with a list of eight additional witnesses that they say should be added for the full committee hearing on the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality hearing. The two Democratic Committee leaders wrote that it is the responsibility of the Minority to balance the panel of witnesses at hearings before the committee. Reps Pallone and Doyle have selected the following individuals to be invited to testify:

Jonathan Jackson is a co-founder and the Head of Corporate Branding for Blavity.
Ruth Livier is an actress, writer, and doctoral student who is a pioneer in the fight for equal representation in media.
Jesse Vollmar is co-founder and CEO of FarmLogs,
Myrna Morales is an expert in library science in Boston.
Johari Farrar is a performer with the Truthworker Theater Company.
Brandi Collins is the Senior Campaign Director for Media and Economic Justice at Color of Change.
Steven Renderos is the Organizing Director at the Center for Media Justice.
Bryan Mercer is the Executive Director of Media Mobilizing Project.

Democrat Sens are urging the Federal Communications Commission to extend the public comment period on its proposal to scrap the network neutrality rules. Fifteen Democrats, led by Sen Ed Markey (D-MA), wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. They asked that he provide more time for comments, citing the unprecedented number of comments on the rules.

To date, Pai's “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal to roll back Obama-era net neutrality measures aimed at creating a level playing field for internet companies has received more than 16 million comments, more than any other FCC item in history. The previous record happened during the FCC’s last net neutrality proceedings in 2014, in which the public filed about 4 million comments on the matter. The lawmakers also noted that the comment period for approving net neutrality in 2014 was 60 days. Chairman Pai has only allowed a 30-day comment period for his plan to rollback the rules. “This proceeding has the potential to impact all Americans and as the expert agency, you should ensure that the Commission provides ample time to ensure all voices are heard,” the senators wrote.

[Commentary] To keep things straight, “open internet” is synonymous with network neutrality, and “paid prioritization” is another way of saying “fast lane” for the internet. Foes of paid prioritization say it follows that if someone pays for a fast lane, then all who don’t pay are relegated to a slow lane — or worse. For two days during the week before the end of the comment period, news reports surfaced that Verizon Wireless — Verizon is one of the United States’ largest internet service providers — was intentionally slowing down video streaming services on its customers’ data plans. Open-internet advocates call that throttling. Verizon’s definition: optimization, adding it was just a network test that should not have disrupted their customers’ internet experience.

Trade group INCOMPAS wants the Federal Communications Commission to include redacted materials from recent mergers involving Comcast, Charter and AT&T in its review of Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to roll back the agency’s network neutrality rules. The group, which counts Netflix and Sprint among its members, said economic studies, internal company presentations and other data submitted as part of the commission’s merger review process shows that internet service providers have incentive to curb competition. The information would be vital in a court review of final rules, said INCOMPAS CEO Chip Pickering. “The FCC has taken a position that the ISPs do not have the means and the motive to act against online competitors,” Pickering said. “And if that’s the question, you have to look at all the evidence. And a refusal to consider the evidence, I think any court would find unreasonable.”

INCOMPAS noted that its request would not make the information available to the general public. Instead, only certain parties would be able to see the documents — the same confidentiality the FCC used in the merger reviews. Comcast, Charter and AT&T opposed the request, arguing that sharing the information in the net neutrality proceeding risks disclosure of sensitive documents. Charter said the “unprecedented request is a harmful fishing expedition, which, if granted, would violate federal law.” Pickering finds the companies’ opposition suspect: “Their nuclear reaction for simply asking for the evidence to be included continues to beg the question, ‘What do they have to hide?’” INCOMPAS asks the FCC to act by July 31. Agency representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

Amazon, Facebook, Google and Netflix — along with their telecommunication industry foes —have not committed to sending their chief executives to testify before the US Congress in September on the future of network neutrality. Not a single one of those companies told the House Commerce Committee, which is convening the hearing, that they would dispatch their leaders to Washington (DC) in the coming weeks, even at a time when the Trump administration is preparing to kill the open internet rules currently on the government’s books.

The panel initially asked those four tech giants, as well as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon, to indicate their plans for the hearing by July 31. For now, though, the committee said it isn’t giving up and would extend its deadline, as it continues its quest to engage the country’s tech and telecom business leaders on net neutrality. “The committee has been engaging in productive conversations with all parties and will extend the deadline for response in order to allow for those discussions to continue,” a spokesman said.