Save Net Neutrality

An Ohio congressman is seeking to strip the FCC of its biggest weapon in the battle over net-neutrality protections.

Republican representative Bob Latta says that his HR 4752 would amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to remove the portion of the act which would allow the FCC to reclassify broadband services.



That portion of the bill, dubbed Title II, grants the FCC the power to name broadband a "common carrier" platform, which would make them subject to strict non-discrimination rules that could prevent service providers from prioritizing the delivery of certain types of traffic.

The ability to invoke Title II has been seen as a "nuclear option" for the FCC in its efforts to put net neutrality regulations in place.

Opponents and critics of the FCC's Open Internet campaign have suggested that the threat of Title II be taken off the table or removed outright from the FCC's toolkit. Arguing that the commission is trying to impose regulation on the internet, Latta is looking to remove the option from the discussion.

"The Internet has remained open and continues to be a powerful engine fueling private enterprise, economic growth and innovation absent government interference and obstruction," the congressman said.

"My legislation will provide all participants in the internet ecosystem the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services that have been fundamental for job creation, productivity and consumer choice."

Not surprisingly, the bill is being championed by telecommunications industry groups. The Telecommunications Industry Association and other lobbying groups have already offered endorsements for Latta's proposed act.

Meanwhile, net neutrality backers such as Free Press claim that Latta is looking to handcuff the FCC in order to let ISPs dictate how the internet will operate.

"Without that authority — provided under Title II of the Communications Act — the FCC lacks any effective means to stop internet discrimination," the group writes in a blog post.

"Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable could forge ahead with their plans to create a two-tiered internet, striking special fast-lane deals with websites and services that they like, while relegating the rest of us to slower and congested ones," they write.

Legislative bids to block net neutrality efforts are likely to pick up in the coming weeks and months as the FCC continues to work on passing its proposed Open Internet rules. A report from the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation found that lobbying groups opposing net neutrality outspent backers by a margin of roughly three to one.

The commission angered groups on both sides of the argument when it introduced a set of proposals which would allow for limited implementation of internet "fast lanes" while still maintaining control by the FCC to limit anti-competitive deals. The proposal remains open for public comment. ®

John Oliver Helps Rally 45,000 Net Neutrality Comments To FCC
by ELISE HU
June 03, 201411:56 AM ET
Things are running smoothly now, but the Federal Communications Commission's public commenting system was so waylaid by people writing in on Monday that the agency had to send out a few tweets saying "technical difficulties" due to heavy traffic affected its servers.


Blame former Daily Show fake-newscaster and comedian John Oliver, who now helms his own show on HBO, Last Week Tonight.


YouTube
On Sunday night, he went on a 13-minute rant about net neutrality, ending with a plea to Internet commenters of the troll variety to "for once in your lives, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls!"

It appears they have. The FCC has received more than 45,000 comments on the net neutrality proposals since May 15.

Those just account for the comments filed to the official electronic commenting system. Separately, the FCC says it's received 300,000 emails in a special inbox it set up in late April for the public to weigh in on its open Internet proposal. For context, the next highest number of formal comments on an FCC measure is just under 2,000.

How did we get here? Well, the FCC opened up its initial open commenting period on how it should enforce net neutrality, or the principle that data on the Internet should be served on a level playing field, without prejudice for certain companies who can pay to get content to you faster.

On the table is a proposal that opens the door for Internet service providers like Comcast and Time Warner to charge for "fast lanes" to the Internet, which, critics argue, could leave out startups who can't afford to pay for a fast lane. Not just startups but major tech companies like Google, Facebook and others have spoken out against this proposal, arguing for more protections for the free Internet. More from Oliver:

"What's being proposed is so egregious that activists and corporations have been forced onto the same side. And you might wonder, if everyone is against this, how is it even possibly happening? ... The guy who used to run with the cable industry's lobbying arm is now tasked with the agency tasked with regulating it. That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo."

Got a form letter email last night that I read this morning. Not sure if its hot air trying to appear to appease the letter writing campaign or actually something to trust at face value:

I got the same reply. Nothing from the president, about being a liar. I got one from my senator, too. The senator didn't voice an opinion.

Verizon lobbyists are canvassing Capitol Hill with a curious new argument against net neutrality—it hurts disabled people.

The odd pitch comes as the Obama administration is mulling a plan to scrap net neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers should treat all websites equally—and instead allow ISPs to create Internet "fast lanes" for companies that can afford to pay for speedier service. The proposal, which is under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission, has sparked a massive public outcry, including an "Occupy the FCC" protest and a letter signed by 150 tech companies, including Google, Amazon, and Netflix, opposing the plan.

Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea. But groups representing disabled Americans, including the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, and the American Association of People with Disabilities are not advocating for this plan. Mark Perriello, the president and CEO of the AAPD, says that this is the "first time" he has heard "these specific talking points."

There's no doubt that blind and deaf people, who use special online services to communicate, need access to zippy Internet. Similarly, smartphone-based medical devices that are popular with disabled people require fast Internet service. Telecom industry lobbyists have argued that, without a fast lane, disabled Americans could get stuck with subpar service as Internet traffic increases. AAPD's Perriello says this rationale could be genuine but seems "convenient."

Defenders of net neutrality are more cynical. The Verizon lobbyists' argument is "disingenuous," says Matt Wood, a policy director at Free Press, an Internet freedom advocacy group. The FCC says that even if the agency doesn't go through with its fast lane proposal, companies that serve disabled people would still be able to pay internet service providers for faster service.

A spokesman for Verizon wouldn't confirm that Verizon lobbyists have used the disabled access pitch, but he says the company's position on the FCC's proposal is "not disingenuous." (Verizon has not taken a public stance on the FCC's proposed fast lane rule.) An FCC spokesman says the agency is evaluating the industry's disability argument.

The roots of the net neutrality fight go back more than a decade. In 2002, the George W. Bush-era FCC decided to classify the internet as an "information service" instead of a public utility, protecting internet services from the stringent regulations that land line phones fall under. For years, free Internet advocates urged the FCC to reclassify the internet, but the commission resisted.

Last month, the FCC dealt a major blow to net neutrality by proposing new rules that would allow Internet service providers to charge online content providers such as Facebook and Netflix higher rates for faster service. The move caused a national outcry. Last week, the FCC's website crashed after comedian John Oliver urged Internet "trolls" to comment at the agency's website. In response to public ire, the FCC has said it will reconsider classifying the Internet as a common utility.

The telecom industry is striving to ensure that the agency doesn't do that. In 2014 alone, Internet service providers have spent close to $19 million lobbying on net neutrality, according to Senate lobbying records:


Overall, ISP lobbying has exploded over the past decade:


This is not the first time the industry has cited the needs of disabled people as it sought to influence FCC rules. Verizon made this argument five years ago when the commission was drafting new regulations for ISPs. In a 2009 speech, former Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg said that if his company was not allowed to prioritize certain medical data over internet traffic like email and spam, then people with health conditions might not benefit from life-saving technological advances.

The decision the FCC makes in the coming months could "change the course of the Internet for a long time to come," says Michael Copps, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011, "perhaps in ways that will be impossible to reverse."

http://jointhefastlane.com/
What the Internet will look like if Net neutrality goes away. It's not pretty. h/t reddit

A Democratic bill to ban "fast lanes" on the Internet isn't going to become law.

Republicans have long opposed net-neutrality regulations, and as long as they control the House, they'll block legislation that would restrict the business choices of Internet service providers.

But the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, introduced Tuesday by Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. Doris Matsui, isn't really about changing the law. It's about sending a message to the Federal Communications Commission.

"We put forth the bill to put increased pressure on the FCC to ban paid-prioritization agreements," an aide to a bill supporter explained.

Net neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. The FCC first enacted net-neutrality rules in 2010 that barred Internet service providers from blocking any websites or from "unreasonably" discriminating against any traffic.

A federal court struck those rules down earlier this year, and now FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is trying to rewrite them in a way that can survive future court challenges. His proposal would still bar Internet providers from blocking websites but would allow providers to charge sites for faster service as long as the agreements are "commercially reasonable."

Internet activists, major Web companies such as Google, and many Democrats on Capitol Hill fear that change could create a two-tiered Internet that benefits the richest corporations and limits free speech.

"Americans are speaking loud and clear—they want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider," Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

The FCC has been flooded by thousands of outraged comments in recent weeks opposing the "fast lane" proposal.

Christopher Lewis, a lobbyist for the consumer-advocacy group Public Knowledge, said the bill is significant because it shows there is a growing consensus around the idea that net neutrality means companies shouldn't be allowed to pay for faster service.

"I think this is a legislative statement," Lewis said, arguing that Wheeler will have to "take notice" of the outpouring of opposition from lawmakers, investors, and Internet companies.

Wheeler expected to take criticism from Republicans, who are skeptical of the government telling broadband providers how to manage their networks. But the growing opposition to his proposal from Democrats could leave the FCC chief in a tenuous political position. Even the White House has offered little support, noting that the FCC is an "independent agency."

Wheeler needs the votes of both Democrats on the five-member commission to enact his proposed regulations. But those commissioners, Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn, might not be eager to help the chairman if he's all alone on the issue.

A spokesman for the FCC chairman declined to comment on the bill.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which also has the support of Sen. Al Franken and Reps. Henry Waxman and Anna Eshoo, would instruct the FCC to enact rules banning paid prioritization within 90 days of the bill becoming law. The bill would also call for rules banning Internet providers from favoring content they own or are affiliated with.

The bill avoids the contentious debate over the FCC's authority. Many net-neutrality supporters argue that the only way to enact rules that can survive in court is to reclassify Internet providers as "common carrier" utilities under Title II of the Communications Act. But Republicans and Internet providers argue that utility-style regulation of the Internet would discourage investment and stifle economic growth.

Dear xxxxxxx:

Thank you for writing. The Internet is the most transformational communications breakthrough of our time, and it has become an essential part of our daily lives. More and more, it is how we get news, information, and entertainment; how we stay in touch with our friends and family; how we work and start new businesses; and how people across the globe learn about one another and express their points of view.

Since I first ran for this Office, I have been a strong supporter of net neutrality. An open Internet enables the free flow of information and ideas. It is also vital to promoting innovation and economic productivity. Its equality—of data, content, and access to the consumer—has powered extraordinary economic growth and the most diverse and successful entrepreneurial activity the world has ever seen. The Internet is the ultimate level playing field, and openness is key to its success. Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high‑priced private toll road inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries.

A wide range of stakeholders and policymakers recognize the importance of these principles, including those whom I appointed to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC’s efforts face serious challenges as a result of recent legal determinations, but the FCC Chairman has said it is his goal to preserve an open Internet. I support that goal and will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that we stay true to the spirit of net neutrality. My Administration will consider any option that makes sense.

Thank you, again, for writing. As technology and the market continue to evolve, I will remain vigilant in the fight to allow innovation to flourish, to protect consumers from abuse, and to safeguard the democratic spirit of the Internet.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Also add to the roar here:
https://www.dearfcc.org

They make their decisions on this today or at least this week, don't they?

Net Neutrality is gone. Once again corporations rein supreme.

The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday it is extending the deadline for initial public comments on new net neutrality proposals as a heavy volume of comments swamped its servers.

The deadline was set for for midnight Tuesday, but the agency will continue to receive comments online or via e-mail -- to [email protected] -- until midnight Friday. After Friday, the public can continue to respond to already-filed comments until Sept. 10.

"Not surprisingly, we have seen an overwhelming surge in traffic on our website that is making it difficult for many people to file comments through our Electronic Comment Filing System," said FCC press secretary Kim Hart. "Please be assured that the commission is aware of these issues and is committed to making sure that everyone trying to submit comments will have their views entered into the record."

The net neutrality, or "open Internet," proposals that were pitched by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler have been controversial from the start, and the agency had expected heavy interest and a massive inflow of comments. As of Tuesday afternoon, the agency received more than 780,000 comments.

In the proposals, Wheeler has said he wants new rules that would require Internet service providers to treat equally all legal content. The agency also is seeking public comments on "paid prioritization" of traffic, in which Internet service providers can seek payment from content providers for faster transmission. Net neutrality proponents oppose such deals for Internet "fast-lanes."

The agency is seeking to recast new net neutrality rules because the previous set of rules were tossed out by a federal court in January. The court gave the FCC an opportunity to redraft them, and the commission voted 3-2 to begin a rule-making process.

All the heavy hitters from Silicon Valley have had their say. The Internet Association, a lobbying group representing Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter and other Internet companies, filed its comment Monday and called for "strong" rules that would ensure net neutrality. "Segregation of the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes will distort the market, discourage innovation and harm Internet users," said The Internet Association President Michael Beckerman in a statement. "The FCC must act to create strong, enforceable net neutrality rules and apply them equally to both wireless and wire-line providers."

Internet service providers say new rules would hamper innovation and the development of faster Internet. "Policymakers' light-touch approach has allowed flexibility and competition to spur incredible innovation and investment in broadband and wireless," wrote Verizon Senior Vice President for Federal Regulatory Affairs Kathleen Grillo in a letter filed among the public comments to the FCC.

Contributing: Mike Snider

What could go wrong?

I saw an article that said they're pushing (extending) the public comment period from today (Tuesday) to Friday.

I clicked on the link you provided and sent the following message:

Net Neutrality is necessary for freedom.

The preamble of the Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Dismantling Net Neutrality threatens the very essence upon which this nation was founded. In the absence of Net Neutrality, you will be placing control of the information highway into the hands of a few powerful corporations. We the people are growing angry with corporations that purchase politicians who then work for the corporations rather than the people who elected them.

As things exist right now, it appears that we no longer live in a democratic republic, but rather in the land of a corporate oligopoly. See, e.g., the following: "Report by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities suggests that US political system serves special interest organisations, instead of voters."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html#disqus_thread

WE THE PEOPLE are objecting to the corporate oligopoly that has a strangle-hold on our government--we want our democratic republic restored--we want that NOW.

Very well said.

Yes. Very well said. But the SC's corporate money will silence her completely.

I don't believe that for a moment. I believe my voice will be heard. (I am embracing the power of positive thinking.)

Deb, I have been thinking positively for 79 years and still big money and crooked politicians control government even with a supposedly liberal president.

Sure. We have the corporate congress. We live in an oligopolistic society. The rich control our economic policies that allow them to grow richer through divide and conquer tactics. They are the rabble rousers and we are the rabble. When enough people figure that out, then we cross the first hurdle necessary to reclaim our government for "we the people".