Regulatory classification

Gov Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed a network neutrality bill into law.  A hefty thank you to the Golden State for your effort to get right what the Federal Communications Commission got wrong when it wiped out our open internet protections late in 2017. The FCC's misguided decision to roll back net neutrality gave broadband providers the green light to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content. That’s why the CA law is a welcome development—it’s good for consumers, good for businesses, and good for anyone who connects and creates online.

After Gov Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed California's net neutrality legislation into law AND the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of California, a number of policymakers and advocates responded:

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): “The enactment of California’s net neutrality law is a huge victory for the free and open internet. California has shown Washington and the rest of the country that the internet warriors fighting to save net neutrality will not be stopped."

While not surprising, California’s net neutrality effort reaffirms its leaders’ total lack of understanding of how technology or our economy actually works, particularly its ban on paid prioritization. If allowed to stand, the law would be incredibly detrimental to American consumers and the continued growth of the Internet.

I’m pleased the Department of Justice has filed this suit. The Internet is inherently an interstate information service. As such, only the federal government can set policy in this area. And the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently reaffirmed that state regulation of information services is preempted by federal law. Not only is California’s Internet regulation law illegal, it also hurts consumers. The law prohibits many free-data plans, which allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits.

In March of 2017, Congress had just voted to allow internet service providers to sell the browser histories of consumers, a move that was greeted by an overwhelming backlash online. At the time, it seemed the browser history vote was politically poisonous for the Republican Reps who pushed it through. Yet House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who became more identified than most lawmakers with the rollback, has not only survived politically, but is reaching higher.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai defended the recent repeal of network neutrality rules, saying that the move was necessary to increase competition among internet service providers. “The effects of these regulations were holding back investment and innovation,” Chairman Pai said.

The New York Times is suing the Federal Communications Commission for records the newspaper alleges may reveal possible Russian government interference in a public comment period before the commission rolled back Obama-era network neutrality rules. The plaintiffs, including Times reporter Nicholas Confessore and investigations editor Gabriel Dance, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York Sept 20 under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking to compel the commission to hand over data.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said that the controversy over the dismantling of federal network neutrality rules is distracting from "the issue of our time" - universal internet access. Chairman Pai dubbed criticism of the administration's position on net neutrality as politically charged "apocalyptic rhetoric." "That kind of misinformation is very pernicious and damaging to a core understanding of what's actually going on here," Chairman Pai said. "It's a complete distraction from the issue of our time."

At the dawn of the commercial Internet, policymakers faced a fundamental choice. Should we regulate this new thing called the Internet like a lumbering utility? Do we want it to be as innovative as a water company? Do we want it to work as fast as the DMV? Or do we want the free market to guide its development and allow it to scale? In a historic and bipartisan decision in 1996, President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress went the latter route.

John Kruzel at PolitiFact recently rated as “Half True” the claim that Verizon’s throttling of the data service it provided to the Santa Clara County Fire Prevention District (FPD) during the Mendocino (CA) fires demonstrated the danger of repealing the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality regulations. The claim should have been rated “Mostly False” to “Pants on Fire,” because the experts on whom Kruzel relied ignored critical facts and analysis.