After facing mounting pressure from consumer groups, grassroots activists and even President Obama, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) top regulator has suggested that he would support a regulatory framework that advocates say is the strongest proposal for protecting net neutrality – the idea that all internet content should be treated equally.
Speaking before a packed house at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Wednesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler hinted that he would support reclassifying the internet as a “common carrier” under Title II of the Communications Act, allowing the internet to be regulated as an essential public utility like landline telephone service.
Consumer groups and internet freedom activists have fiercely advocated for Title II reclassification, which they claim is the only way to ensure that internet service providers don’t strike so-called “paid prioritization” deals that would create “fast lanes” for content providers that can afford to pay extra fees and “slow lanes” for the rest.
The debate over the FCC’s latest proposals to protect net neutrality has raged for nearly a year. Net neutrality activists have regularly held loud protests at FCC meetings and flooded the FCC’s public comment inbox with millions of letters and comments. At one point, the sheer number of comments overloaded and shut down the agency’s server.
Wheeler’s position on net neutrality regulation has taken some twists and turns. He was originally skeptical of Title II reclassification and proposed classifying the internet under a different section of federal law while using the FCC’s regulatory authority to intervene if broadband providers struck “paid prioritization” deals that are not “commercially reasonable.” After significant public outcry, Wheeler agreed to keep the Title II proposal on the table.
Broadband companies generally supported Wheeler’s original approach, but now Wheeler has suggested that he is moving away from the proposal because the “commercially reasonable” standard could be interpreted as what is reasonable for internet service providers, not what is reasonable for consumers and innovators, according to reports. Instead, the “just and reasonable” standard under Title II would be better.
“We’re going to propose rules that say that no blocking, no throttling, [no] paid prioritization, all that list of issues, and that there is a yardstick against which behavior should be measured. And that yardstick is ‘just and reasonable,’ ” said Wheeler, who was quoted in the Los Angeles Times.
While Wheeler did not endorse reclassification outright and suggested that internet providers may be exempt from some Title II requirements originally drawn up for telephone companies, net neutrality advocates are cautiously celebrating the news.
“Chairman Wheeler appears to have heard the demands of the millions of internet users who have called for real net neutrality protections,” said Craig Aaron, CEO of the nonpartisan, pro-net neutrality group Free Press. “Wheeler now realizes that it’s best to simply follow the law Congress wrote and ignore the bogus claims of the biggest phone and cable companies and their well-financed front groups.”
Wheeler came under further pressure in November, when President Obama publically announced his support for Title II reclassification. Obama appointed Wheeler last year, but the FCC is an independent federal agency.
The broadband industry, fearing cumbersome regulations that it claims would stifle investment and innovation, has pushed back against the Title II proposal with its own media campaign and lobbying efforts.
“The president’s call for public utility regulation of the internet, a shift that will redefine the internet, insert the government deeply into its management and invite other countries to do the same, is contrary to the best interests of the nation and America’s technology future,” said USTelecom President Walter McCormick, in response to Obama’s announcement in November. USTelecom is a trade group representing broadband providers.
Broadband companies are reportedly working with their allies in the Republican-controlled Congress to write bipartisan legislation that would preempt an FCC effort to regulate the internet under Title II.
The FCC is also expected to face legal challenges from the broadband industry if it takes the Title II route. Federal courts blocked the FCC’s previous attempts at implementing net neutrality rules after internet providers filed lawsuits, but net neutrality advocates have long argued that Title II reclassification would give the FCC the legal authority it needs to win in court.
“Of course the devil will be in the details, and we await publication of the agency’s final decision,” Aaron said. “But it’s refreshing to see the chairman firmly reject the industry’s lies and scare tactics.”
Wheeler is expected to circulate a final net neutrality proposal among his fellow commissioners in early February, and the FCC is scheduled to vote on the rules on February 26.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.