After a January court ruling on net neutrality that raised fears about radical changes to the internet, the Federal Communications Commission is floating new rules that are being attacked as insufficient.
The Federal Communications Commission is circulating a proposal for net neutrality rules that would replace rules thrown out by a federal appeals court in January. The commission will not officially vote on proposing the rules until next month, but FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is already falling under heavy criticism in the media.
Initial reports in The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets indicated that the new rules would gut a crucial net neutrality protection by allowing some big Internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T and Verizon to charge websites like Netflix premium fees to deliver content to consumers faster, and these fees could be passed on to consumers. Small web firms and startups that could not afford the fees would be put at a competitive disadvantage.
Open Internet advocates issued scathing statements in response to the reports.
“With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to destroy the open Internet,” said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, a pro-net neutrality watchdog group. “Giving ISPs the green light to implement pay-for-priority schemes will be a disaster for startups, nonprofits and everyday Internet users who cannot afford these unnecessary tolls.”
Wheeler, however, said the initial news reports on the proposed rules were “flat out wrong.” In a blog post posted Thursday, Wheeler said the proposed rules would reinstate the same Open Internet concepts adopted by the commission in 2010 under legal authority outlined by the court that threw them out earlier this year. He indicated that the FCC would be able to intervene on a case-by-case basis and stop ISPs from harming the Internet with pay-to-play fast lanes for wealthy companies seeking to reach consumers faster.
Wheeler wrote that, like the old rules brought down by legal challenges, the new net neutrality proposal would require ISPs to keep their network policies transparent, prevent them from blocking legal content, and prevent them from acting “in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.”
Wheeler is hanging his regulatory hat on a legal “roadmap” for reinstating the rules included in same court decision that threw them out in January. The court, Wheeler wrote, made it clear that the FCC did have the authority to stop ISPs from harming the Internet if there conduct was found not to be “commercially reasonable.”
Wheeler said the proposed rules would set a “high bar for what is ‘commercially reasonable,'” allowing the FCC to step in when ISPs display anti-competitive behavior, such as selling priority fast lanes to web firms that can afford premium fees.
“The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded,” Wheeler wrote. “That is exactly what the ‘commercially unreasonable’ test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity.”
Free Press and other net neutrality proponents, however, worry that Wheeler’s plan is bound to fail.
“This approach is almost certain to be rejected by the courts,” Aaron said. “Contrary to statements by Chairman Wheeler, the court did not invite the FCC to pursue this path.”
Free Press argues that the FCC will not have the authority to implement strong net neutrality rules until it reclassifies the Internet as a telecom service that can be regulated more like a public utility like telephone lines. The FCC changed this classification during the Bush administration, providing the foundation for the legal challenges that thwarted the FCC’s attempts to establish the authority to enforce net neutrality.
An unnamed FCC official told PC World that the FCC is not taking the reclassification route because the court’s roadmap that Wheeler is relying on would allow the commission to restore net neutrality faster.
Timothy Karr, a spokesperson for Free Press, said he did not understand the FCC’s legal calculus, but with midterm elections looming on the horizon, there may be political elements at play. Wheeler is a former industry insider who was appointed by President Obama last year. The Obama administration supports net neutrality regulation in theory, but has not directed the FCC on how to implement it. Karr said that Democrats might be wary of losing campaign donations from the powerful telecom lobby.
“If we truly support net neutrality, as Obama has said on several occasions, then we have to find the right remedy to make net neutrality enforceable,” Karr said.
Whether Wheeler’s remedy will work remains to be seen, but Wheeler said it his intention to establish net neutrality rules by the end of the year. The FCC is expected to vote on introducing the proposed rules for public comment on May 15.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We are presently looking for 231 new monthly donors in the next 2 days.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy