2017 Net Neutrality

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3–2 Thursday to repeal net neutrality rules for internet use put in place by the Obama administration.

The move is widely viewed as a major victory for large internet service providers (ISP) like Verizon and Comcast, and a setback for internet content providers. But what it means for consumers leaves to be seen.

Aram Sinnreich, associate professor of communication at American University, expects to see higher costs for content, more advertising, less innovation, and less competition from poorly-funded startups.

"However, there are more far-reaching and consequential effects that we might not notice right away," Sinnreich told ConsumerAffairs. "ISPs now have an incentive to block or throttle traffic using encryption, such as VPNs and Tor, which could have negative effects ranging from silencing political dissidents to isolating culturally marginalized users and groups, from LGBT to the disabled."

In short, he says ISPs will have a lot more censorship power than in the past. Barbara Cherry, a communications law expert and Indiana University professor, says the internet was considered a common carrier–with built-in consumer protections–long before the FCC formalized that status two years ago.

Now that providers are no longer considered common carriers, Cherry says ISPs can pretty much do what they want.

No options

"The effect to consumers of this order is you cannot go to the FCC for help, you don't have any state jurisdiction to help you, and you can't go to court because you signed a contract with an arbitration clause," Cherry said in an interview.

The basic principle of net neutrality is that ISPs must treat all legal internet content the same. They can't favor one content provider with faster speeds just because it pays the ISP a premium price.

For example, AT&T is trying to purchase Time Warner, a content provider. Under net neutrality regulations, it would be illegal to favor its own content with faster speeds while slowing down the connection speed when an AT&T customer accessed a rival streaming service. 

Without net neutrality, it can do just that and more.

Prior to the FCC vote, ISPs were also barred from slowing down internet connections for consumers who visit particular websites or apps. In short, ISPs were blocked from prioritizing the content that moves across their networks -- although ISPs have been quick to point out that they own those networks.

Critics among tech companies and consumer groups have warned this move threatens competition. Start-up web companies might be at a disadvantage against their larger, legacy competitors if they can't pay the ISPs for faster, easier access.

Legal challenge

Free Press, a consumer group, has announced it plans to file a lawsuit against the FCC to reverse its action. It also joined other groups in petitioning Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to reverse the FCC's action.

“Net neutrality is the nondiscrimination law of the internet," Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood said in a statement. "It’ll be just as necessary tomorrow as it is today."

Cherry says she thinks a court challenge is the best hope for net neutrality supporters to reinstate the policy, and says there may be firm legal grounds for that.

After Thursday's vote, tech giants ranging from Facebook to Google issued statements expressing their disappointment. Business opposition was not limited to Silicon Valley, however, as top real estate officials warned the FCC action would hurt their industry, now heavily dependent on the internet.

Realtors concerned

"FCC's rollback of the Open Internet Order will mean higher costs and slower service for millions of American consumers and businesses," said National Association of Realtors President Elizabeth Mendenhall. "Realtors have strong concerns about what that might mean for the way consumers search for homes online and real estate is transacted."

Cherry says prior to 2002, access to the internet was considered common carriage service because it was accessed over telephone lines. The problem, she says, began when cable companies that provide internet services began to argue they weren't common carriers.

When the FCC ruled in 2015 that broadband providers are, in fact, common carriers, many thought the issue was settled. The FCC made clear Thursday it isn't.

"We are entering a new era in which, for the first time, there is no presumption of a regulatory mandate for net neutrality," Sinnreich said.

Early this morning, a group of about 100 people were gathered in the freezing weather outside FCC Chair Ajit Pai’s office, doing anything they could to lobby him before Thursday’s planned vote to gut net neutrality.

"I think it’s devastating that we have an FCC chair who is just willfully ignoring the facts, the law, the people, the companies, pretty much everyone except the phone and cable companies,” says Candace Clemente, a campaign director with the pro-net neutrality advocacy group Free Press.

Not taking net neutrality seriously

Clemente spoke to ConsumerAffairs shortly after returning back from the protest. She did not see Pai make any attempt to address the crowd, at least while she was there. His social media indicates that he may have other concerns at the moment.

“Restaurant patron arrested after causing ‘disturbance inside when she did not receive what she believed to be an adequate amount of #Sriracha sauce,” Pai wrote on Twitter this morning, sharing an article about a Sriracha-related arrest to his followers.

Clemente -- who points out that Pai most certainly used the open internet to find that story -- sounds unsurprised to learn of the tweet.

A video that leaked last week shows Pai, a former Verizon attorney, making jokes about being a shill for the company, seemingly making light of real concerns consumers and advocacy groups have shared. Advocates say that gutting net neutrality would benefit cable powerhouses at the expense of consumers and companies that do business on the internet.

"I feel like that tweet is really in line with that attitude, of not taking it seriously, treating it like a joke,” Clemente tells ConsumerAffairs.

Consumers urged to make their voices heard

Advocates warn that the issue is not a joke. Everyone from the ACLU to Tim Berners-Lee‏, the man credited with creating the World Wide Web, describes the FCC’s planned vote to kill the current rules as catastrophic to the state of the internet today.

Clemente says the most effective way for consumers to make their voice heard right now is to contact their representatives, because Congress could potentially overturn the FCC vote under the Congressional Review Act.

As it stands, if the FCC goes ahead with gutting net neutrality Thursday, immediate aftermath is uncertain. Many pundits predict the FCC will move forward, despite some commissioners who promise to vote against the consensus.

Implementing the new regulations could take anywhere from one day to one year -- it all depends on how long it takes the FCC to update the Federal Register, Clemente says. Advocacy groups also plan on suing the FCC to overturn the ruling should it not go in their favor.

Meanwhile, Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the FCC commissioners who plans to vote against killing net neutrality, tweeted from her office this morning that the internet at the FCC was temporarily down. “I think we can call this some fierce irony,” she wrote.

On December 14, 2017, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and chairman Ajit Pai vote on the controversial move to repeal net neutrality rules that have been in place since 2015. 

As we detailed in an earlier article, existing net neutrality rules ensure that your internet service provider (ISP) cannot manipulate your pipeline to the internet by gating off legal content or interfering with your Internet speed.   

The reason ISPs cannot control that pipeline is the Internet’s classification under Title II in the Communications Act of 1934, making it a “common carrier” for communication purposes.

Pai and the FCC’s vote on the “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal will likely weaken these net neutrality laws to deregulate much of the Internet. 

The hope, at least for Pai, is that this will give smaller ISPs more of a chance to compete with larger companies.

However, consumers and small business owners are skeptical of this prospect. Many people feel that this move will invest more authority in already powerful ISPs to charge more money for access to legal content or throttle Internet speed if you use certain search engines. 

How do small businesses feel about net neutrality?

Back in June, 40 smaller ISPs sent a letter to the FCC voicing their support for the current laws protecting neutrality. “Without a legal foundation to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market, the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability,” they write.

On Monday, November 27, 2017, another group of Internet companies wrote a similar letter urging Pai to reconsider his position. Companies behind the letter include not only small Internet companies but also companies like Twitter, Pinterest and Reddit.

This decision could further impact smaller businesses that depend on Internet visibility for customers. Even small analog businesses depend on an open Internet to access or sell their services or products. Without net neutrality, larger competitors could easily buy faster lanes from ISPs to get more consumer traffic than smaller businesses.

What to expect if net neutrality ends?

If the vote this December repeals net neutrality laws, ISPs will be able to change how they do business. They could gate off content and services like Netflix, Facebook and Spotify by charging these companies additional internet access fees, which could make consumer prices rise.

There’s no guarantee ISPs would do this, of course, and many have released statements saying they won’t gate off legal content. 

Comcast, for example, has written numerous times that the company will not discriminate against lawful content, though recent changes to this pledge suggest that the company may create paid “fast lanes” for their service.

While predictions of a post-vote internet are purely speculative, we can be sure that the repeal of net neutrality will be a long process. 

Companies in favor of net neutrality can petition to review the FCC’s decision. If companies file lawsuits to review the decision, we could see a long legal battle before any final law is instated. 

It’s hard to tell where the fate of net neutrality will ultimately be decided. Conceivably, the issue could be debated in the Court of Appeals or even the Supreme court if the fight lasts long enough.

So what can you do now?

The vote on December 14 may be one step among many to get rid of current net neutrality laws, but that does not mean it’s a trivial one. 

In fact, Pai recently said that the number of comments the FCC received about net neutrality was so vast that he had to dismiss them outright, largely because some comments were likely the products of spambots and automated messages.

If you have strong feelings about net neutrality, let the FCC know how you feel about net neutrality by contacting your senators and representatives. Tell them that you support or don’t support net neutrality so that your voice can be heard.  

You can contact the FCC directly by following this link. In the “Proceedings” box, type Restoring Internet Freedom (17-108). Then, you can make your comments below. They will be part of FCC’s records of this proceeding.

Net Neutrality can be something of a complex subject, but another poll shows consumers not only understand what it is, they want to keep it.

In short, Net Neutrality holds that internet service providers (ISP) have to treat all web content the same. That means they can't charge extra to sites that use more bandwidth, and they can't favor the content of one site over another.

Some ISPs have protested, saying they've spent millions of dollars building out their networks and should be allowed to manage them as they see fit.

In the latter years of the Obama Administration, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established Net Neutrality as policy, over the protests of some ISPs.

Change in policy

President Trump's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a long-time critic of Net Neutrality, and under his leadership the FCC has taken steps to reverse the policy. But it might not be either good business or good politics.

A new poll of U.S. consumers has found 74% supporting legislation that enshrines the principals of Net Neutrality -- namely a law enabling consumers to use the internet free from government or corporate censorship, while setting up one set of rules that applies to all internet companies.

The poll suggests consumers are comfortable with Congress taking the issue out of the hands of the FCC and setting the policy in stone.

Permanent Net Neutrality law

"Americans overwhelmingly favor a permanent net neutrality law over FCC regulations that can be changed from administration to administration," said Mike Montgomery, Executive Director of CALinnovates, a non-partisan tech advocacy group based in San Francisco, which conducted the survey.

Previous research has suggested consumers are growing more concerned about Net Neutrality issues, such as potential throttling, blocking, and the creation of so-called fast lanes.

Younger consumers appear to feel more strongly about the legislative route than their older counterparts. In fact, 18 to 29 year-olds were almost twice as likely to support making Net Neutrality the law of the land than continuing to leave the issue up to the FCC.

An analysis of internet rules by the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas concludes that rolling back Net Neutrality rules would not just hurt consumers, but small businesses as well.

In 2015 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a set of guidelines that bars Internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast from speeding up, slowing down, or blocking any content, applications, or websites. In other words, all content must be treated equally.

The reasoning behind Net Neutrality is one company's content shouldn't get preferential treatment, just because the company pays a big fee to the ISP.

ISPs have argued that they spend a lot of money building and maintaining their networks, and it's only fair that companies like Netflix, which requires huge amounts of bandwidth, pay extra for the use of that capacity.

Pre-Net Neutrality actions

Challenger, Gray & Christmas said it reviewed internet policies prior to 2015 and found many ISPs, both domestic and foreign, engaged in actions that unfairly affected smaller companies.

It points to the period of 2011 to 2013, when it says AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, which happened to compete with a service in which the ISPs held a stake.

In 2012, it says AT&T announced plans to disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers' iPhones unless they subscribed to more bandwidth, at a higher price.

Internet Privacy Bill

The 2015 Net Neutrality Rule prevents those kinds of actions, but from the start the new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has targeted Net Neutrality for reversal. John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, notes that President Trump recently signed the "Internet privacy bill," which he says will repeal vital internet-related consumer protections. In the end, he says that hurts businesses.

"The slicing up and selling of the Internet will make it vastly more difficult for companies to remain innovative,” Challenger said. “Not to mention the cost to small businesses and entrepreneurs to have access to the Internet."

Challenger also maintains there is no demand, except from big ISPs, to rollback Net Neutrality. He says polls consistently show that a large majority of people, both Republicans and Democrats, support the concept of Net Neutrality.

When you want to call attention to an issue, you normally assign a day to it.

Yesterday was Net Neutrality Day in America, when the tech world -- or most of it -- tried to mobilize public support against rolling back the previous administration's internet policy.

The problem with these issue days is there seems to be one every other week. Often the public's collective eyes glaze over.

But the message from big internet users like Netflix, Reddit, and GoDaddy was this: a free and open internet, established by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy under the Obama Administration, is in danger of being reversed under the Trump Administration.

Can't play favorites

Net Neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISP) cannot favor one company's content over another. For example, it can't allocate faster speeds to an internet company if it pays an extra fee, giving that company an advantage over a competitor who doesn't pay the fee.

The large ISPs, like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, have always maintained that they own their networks and have taken issue with the current policy that treats them like utilities.

According to Daily Variety, the organizers of Net Neutrality Day, which warned consumers the internet was about to get a lot slower and urged them to protest to the FCC and lawmakers, are optimistic. At the very least, they say the FCC will have to respond to all the protests.

Net Neutrality broke into the public consciousness -- sort of -- three years ago when comedian John Oliver did a whole segment on it during his HBO show, a segment that went viral. Take a look, but be warned, it's a premium cable show that doesn't bleep out expletives.

Within a year of that broadcast, the FCC adopted its Net Neutrality policy. Tech companies are hoping their one-day blitz can have a similar effect, and save it.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai, with the support of Republican commissioner Michael O'Rielly, has moved to suspend the agency's probe of what are known as “zero rating” programs offered by wireless providers.

Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T had been under investigation due to charges that their individual streaming packages violated the Net Neutrality Rule. All three carriers have programs under which subscribers may stream data from certain sources without it counting against their data allowances.

“The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is closing its investigation into wireless carriers' free-data offerings,” Pai said in a statement. “These free-data plans have proven to be popular among consumers, particularly low-income Americans, and have enhanced competition in the wireless marketplace. Going forward, the Federal Communications Commission will not focus on denying Americans free data.”

GOP commissioner Michael O'Rielly backed the move, saying the FCC should be supporting wireless providers in what he called “permissionless innovation.”

Just the first step

“While this is just a first step, these companies, and others, can now safely invest in and introduce highly popular products and services without fear of Commission intervention based on newly invented legal theories,” O'Rielly said.

But Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, currently the lone Democrat on the Commission, objected – not just to the speedy reversal of a pillar of Obama administration communication policy, but the manner in which it was done.

“It is a basic principle of administrative procedure that actions must be accompanied by reasons for that action, else that action is unlawful,” Clyburn said. “Yet that is exactly what multiple Bureaus have done today.”

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality holds that internet service providers may not favor one type of content over another. The FCC was investigating all three companies to determine if their zero rating plans violated that principal.

The agency Friday sent letters to all three companies, informing them that the inquiry has been closed.

Amid a flurry of action Friday, the FCC also reversed another Obama administration move to allow nine internet providers to participate in a federal program to provide subsidized service to low-income households.

The consumer group Free Press joined Clyburn in criticizing both the action and the way it was carried out. Policy Director Matt Wood characterized Pai's initiatives as “strong-armed tactics.”