Regulatory classification

Attorney General Lisa Madigan led a coalition of 13 other attorneys general to oppose the rollback of critical net neutrality protections by the Federal Communications Commission. In comments submitted to the FCC, Madigan and the other attorneys general argue that the FCC must ensure open access to the internet and the continued equal access to all content providers. "The current Open Internet rules were based on the premise that consumers expect and deserve an open and transparent Internet and that their right to access their chosen content without interference from their service provider should be protected.

The existing rules recognize that the Internet has become an essential service in our society, and that role could be compromised by allowing private companies, many of which have conflicts of interest, to dictate the terms of consumers’ access to and use of the Internet. Consumers expect transparency and fairness from their Internet service when they go online, and those expectations should be reflected in the FCC’s rules,” the attorneys general stated in their comments. Joining IL AG Madigan in submitting comments were the attorneys general from: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, as well as Hawaii’s Office of Consumer Protection.

On July 17, Free Press submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission, demonstrating once again that the 2015 decision to base Net Neutrality rules on Title II got it exactly right. The 2015 Open Internet Order ushered in an era of broadband investment and internet innovation while giving users assurances that their service providers will not block, throttle or discriminate against their online communications.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood said, “Chairman Ajit Pai’s allegiance to the broadband industry is so great that he has continued to ignore the overwhelming evidence and political forces arrayed against him. The Net Neutrality rules and their Title II framework are working beautifully. Proof of that is everywhere, from the ISPs’ increases in investment and profits to the astounding levels of innovation from companies that use the internet to reach their customers. Phone and cable ISP profits are not the only thing at stake here, though they seem foremost in Pai’s mind. But the fact is that along with their finances, these broadband providers’ service speeds are also on the rise. Companies like AT&T, which industry lobbyists falsely paint as a victim of Title II’s fictional harms, have taken advantage of technological upgrades to deploy faster speeds while spending less than they used to. But don’t take our word for it: AT&T’s own CEO has bragged repeatedly about how it continues to get cheaper-to-deploy fiber and build out the company’s wireless networks."

Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, once again urged the Federal Communications Commission to abandon efforts to unravel popular network neutrality rules. In comments filed with the agency, the consumer group outlined why the 2015 Open Internet Order should remain intact to ensure consumers have unfettered access to the internet.

Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “We do not support the goals of the FCC’s proposal to undermine the legal authority or repeal the net neutrality rules necessary to ensure an open internet. Moreover, the proposal’s arguments in favor of their repeal are simply unpersuasive, especially when considering ISPs have been caught doing the very things these rules now prohibit, including throttling and exploring paid prioritization. Treating ISPs as common carriers under Title II provides the proper legal foundation on which to for the Commission to base the net neutrality rules—rules essential to protecting consumers’ ability to access an open internet without anti-competitive interference from their ISP. These rules are working and serve consumers well, which is why the Commission needs to abandon its efforts to rollback both the net neutrality rules contained in the Open Internet Order.”

[Commentary] In the weeks leading up to July 12's day of protest over network neutrality in the US, big tech names signed on to join the fight to keep it. Among them were some of the biggest names on the internet, including Amazon, Google, and Facebook, all of which have a vested business interest in all Americans being able to access their sites quickly and frequently. But those sites did not go dark July 12. They didn’t slow down in an effort to mimic what life might be like for some were net neutrality to end.

Instead, they mostly pointed users to other, pro-net neutrality pages. Ultimately, the fight over net neutrality is about who controls the internet: users or major corporations. In that regard, there is only a degree of difference between the 20th century giants of the telecommunications sector and the those of 21st century Silicon Valley. It’s not too difficult a leap to make from wondering why your online access shouldn’t be free from walls erected by your cable company, to wondering equally why your online access shouldn’t also be free from limitations created by a social media platform, search engine, or e-commerce behemoth.

Sen Al Franken (D-MN) joined the millions of Americans who have weighed in with the Federal Communications Commission to protect network neutrality, the long-standing principle that what you read, see, or watch on the internet shouldn't be favored, blocked, or slowed down based on where that content comes from.

"Allowing giant corporations to pick and choose the content available to everyday Americans would threaten the basic principles of our democracy,"wrote Sen Franken in his public comment to the FCC. "While the FCC's vote to implement strong net neutrality rules was an important victory for American consumers and business, it also demonstrated the overwhelming power of grassroots activism and civic participation. In 2014, millions of Americans from across the political spectrum organized to ensure that their voices were heard, and-in the process-they redefined civic engagement in our country. But that kind of participation requires an open internet. Because of net neutrality, people from across the nation can connect with each other, share their ideas on the internet, and organize a community effort."

The Trump administration’s attempt to scrap and replace network neutrality rules could open the door for internet providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon to charge some companies for faster delivery of their web content or services. It’s not their stated goal, but these so-called online “fast lanes” can’t be completely outlawed under the more lenient approaches to net neutrality advocated by broadband providers at the Federal Communications Commission. Some telecom companies even questioned whether the FCC should play the primary role in enforcing net neutrality at all.

One of the proposals: Telecom giants asked the FCC to consider relying on a different part of federal telecom law to safeguard the open internet. That might sound simple enough, but the portion of law they cite could open the legal door for ISPs to start charging companies like Google or Netflix for faster delivery of their content, a practice known as paid prioritization. They argue that fears of online fast and slow lanes are “baseless,” in the words of AT&T, which further explained that a full-on ban against paid prioritization actually makes it hard for them “to support autonomous cars, remote surgery, and a growing array of other unusually latency-sensitive applications.” Comcast similarly raised self-driving cars in its comment to the FCC.

[Commentary] Recently a small group of economists (I was one) summarized the economic research on network neutrality and Title II. Limiting ourselves to economics articles in the top 300 journals and that used explicit economic models, we reviewed the answers to four basic questions:

• How would regulations restricting ISPs from offering enhanced network features, such as fast lanes, to content providers affect (a) total welfare, (b) network investment, and (c) the variety of content on the internet and content provider investment? (Note: “Total welfare” is value that consumers receive from what they purchase minus the cost of providing the products.)
• How would prohibitions on network termination fees affect total welfare?
• How would prohibiting ISPs from blocking content affect total welfare?
• Are ISPs like the telecom companies for which Congress wrote Title II?

Here is what we found, but in my own words. 1) The effects of restricting enhanced network features on welfare, ISP investment, and content depend on market conditions. 2) It appears that termination fees could be harmful when ISPs compete for providing access to content providers and an ISP would charge content providers that do not directly connect with the ISP. Otherwise, termination fees are helpful. 3) Blocking is harmful. 4) Economic research today supports the idea that internet services are quite important but has not found that ISPs have the monopoly power contemplated when Title II was created.

On July 7, 2017, the National Hispanic Media Coalition filed a Motion for Extension of Time in the above captioned proceeding. Petitioner asks us to extend the initial comment deadline until “60 days after the Commission complies with [NHMC’s] outstanding” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Motion.

NHMC contends that an extension is warranted to “ensure that all evidence relevant to this proceeding is available to the public, and that the public has adequate time to analyze the evidence and comment accordingly. Specifically, the Commission must produce the approximately 47,000 open Internet complaints that it has received, and documents related to the open internet ombudsperson’s interactions with internet users, all of which are the subject of an unfulfilled [FOIA] request filed by NHMC.” We find that that NHMC’s stated request does not justify the requested lengthy delay in the comment cycle in this proceeding. Under Section 1.46 of the Commission’s rules, it is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that NHMC has not shown that an extension is warranted here.

As the period for filing public comments on the Federal Communications Commission's plans to roll back network neutrality regulations comes to a close, telecommunications companies are submitting their final arguments. On July 17, the last day to submit comments, firms such as Comcast, AT&T and trade associations representing the telecommunications industry filed statements in support of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal to scrap the net neutrality rules the agency approved in 2015.

In their comments, telecommunications companies reiterated their claim that they don’t do the things net neutrality rules were designed to protect against — blocking or slowing down certain types of content and websites — and that public utility style regulations aren’t necessary.

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission filed an official comment to the Federal Communications Commission in favor of Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to scrap network neutrality regulations. In their filing, staff at the agency said that they favor Chairman Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” plan, which would give regulatory authority over broadband providers back to the FTC. Under the Open Internet Order approved in 2015, the FCC currently has the jurisdiction to regulate broadband providers instead of the FTC.

The FTC is currently split with one Democrat, Commissioner Terrell McSweeny, and one Republican, acting Director Maureen Ohlhausen. In their joint comment, FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition and Bureau of Economics argued that, prior to the Open Internet Order, when the FTC still regulated broadband providers it “consistently protected broadband consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, including in the privacy and data security area.”