Seriously -- the release says that only "measured steps" to regulating wireless are necessary because "open operating systems like Android" have been released, and that it wants to see how Verizon and other 700MHz spectrum winners handle the hotly-contested openness requirement when building out 4G. Here's the full quote:
Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.

In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband.

Now, we obviously love Android, and there's no doubt that Google's OS has been part of some wonderfully furious competition in the mobile space recently. But we're not sure any of that has anything to do with net neutrality -- it doesn't matter how open your OS is when you're stuck with a filtered and throttled connection, and it's a pretty huge stretch to think Android's openness (however you want to define it) has anything to do with network access itself. And let's not forget that the primary proponent of the 700MHz open-access rules was Google, which promptly flip-flopped on the issue when it became Verizon's policy BFF after the Droid launch -- if we were slightly more paranoid, we'd be pretty sure there's a link between the FCC's Android mention and the combined furious lobbying of Google and Verizon.

Net neutrality going down in flames as FCC votes to kill Title II rules

GOP's 2-1 majority starts repeal process, with final vote coming later in 2017.

5/18/2017

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes eliminating the Title II classification and seeks comment on what, if anything, should replace the current net neutrality rules. But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content, or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Pai's proposal argues that throttling websites and applications might somehow help Internet users.

The FCC plans to take comments on its plan until August 16 and then make a final decision sometime after that.

The net neutrality rules were approved in February 2015 when Republicans were in the commission's minority. Today, Pai and fellow Republican Michael O'Rielly voted in favor of the plan to eliminate the rules while Democrat Mignon Clyburn voted to preserve them.

"The Internet was not broken in 2015" before the rules were imposed, Pai said today before the vote. "We were not living in a digital dystopia. Nonetheless, the FCC that year succumbed to partisan pressure from the White House and changed course." The rules imposed new regulatory burdens on ISPs both large and small, he said. The Title II rules also raised "the possibility of broadband rate regulation," making ISPs hesitate before building or expanding networks, he said.

The fear of rate regulation on consumer broadband services is based on hypotheticals, because the FCC has not imposed any rate regulation on home or mobile broadband.

O'Rielly today said that he dissented from the net neutrality vote in 2015 "because I was not persuaded based on the record before us that there was evidence of harm to businesses or consumers that warranted the adoption of the net neutrality rules, much less the imposition of heavy-handed Title II regulation on broadband providers."

Pro-net neutrality group Free Press recently published an updated list of alleged net neutrality violations by ISPs through the years."

This is the beginning of the process, not the end," Pai said. After taking public comment for 90 days, the FCC "will follow the facts and law where they take us," Pai said. He also said the FCC will conduct a "credible cost-benefit analysis" before making final policy decisions.

The FCC "will not rely on hyperbolic statements about the end of the Internet as we know it, and 140-character argle-bargle, but rather on the data," Pai said.

Besides overturning the Title II classification, the NPRM "proposes to eliminate the catch-all Internet conduct standard created by the Title II Order," the FCC's announcement of the vote said. "Because the Internet conduct standard is extremely vague and expansive, ISPs must guess at what they are permitted to do. Eliminating the Internet conduct standard is therefore expected to promote innovation and network investment by eliminating regulatory uncertainty."

That standard allows the FCC to judge on a case-by-case basis whether actions by ISPs harm consumers or competitors, by requiring rates and practices to be "just" and "reasonable."While Pai titled his plan, "Restoring Internet Freedom," Clyburn's dissenting statement gave it the alternate name, "Destroying Internet Freedom."

The plan "contains a hollow theory of trickle-down Internet economics, suggesting that if we just remove enough regulations from your broadband provider, they will automatically improve your service, pass along discounts from those speculative savings, deploy more infrastructure with haste, and treat edge providers fairly," Clyburn said. "It contains ideological interpretive whiplash, boldly proposing to gut the very same consumer and competition protections that have been twice-upheld by the courts... If you unequivocally trust that your broadband provider will always put the public interest, over their self-interest or the interest of their stockholders, then the Destroying Internet Freedom NPRM is for you."

Pai claims that net neutrality rules lower investment in broadband networks. Clyburn said that no "credible analysis" supports that argument, and said the FCC plan fails to consider "what entrepreneurs invest in their Internet business, what risk venture capitalists plow into the Internet and telecom market, and what consumers pay for, and how they use, all of these services to create economic value."

Despite seeking public comment on whether to impose new net neutrality rules without the use of Title II, the Republican majority did not propose the use of any specific legal authority that could enforce such rules, she said.

Before the vote, net neutrality supporters protested outside the FCC's headquarters in Washington, DC. Joining the protest were members of advocacy groups including Free Press, the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition. Congressional Democrats have also objected to the anti-net neutrality plan, and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) joined the protest outside FCC headquarters this morning.

"Supporters have collected more than 1 million signatures and comments calling on the FCC to retain the net neutrality rules that the agency adopted in 2015," a Free Press announcement said.

“Today, President Trump’s FCC took the first step to dismantle net neutrality," US Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said. "This action will undermine the free and open Internet and hand its control over to a few powerful corporate interests."

The cable industry's top lobby group placed a full-page ad in The Washington Post this week pledging that its members will "not block, throttle, or otherwise impair your online activity." The ad did not include any promise to avoid charging websites for prioritized access to consumers, an activity that net neutrality supporters say would place online services into "fast lanes" and "slow lanes."

Even if the FCC were to impose new rules similar to the bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, getting rid of the Title II classification also eliminates several other consumer protection policies. For example, Title II was used to require greater disclosures about hidden fees and data caps, though Pai's new Republican majority already exempted ISPs with 250,000 or fewer subscribers from these rules.

Pai already halted a net neutrality investigation into AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which have been favoring their own video services by exempting them from mobile data caps while charging competitors for the same data cap exemptions.

As we've previously written, Title II was also crucial in ending disputes over interconnection payments in which network operators or content providers pay ISPs for direct connections to consumer broadband networks. Before the Title II reclassification, interconnection disputes were harming the quality of video streaming and other Internet services, but those disputes were quickly resolved once the rules were in place.

More generally, Title II allows either ISPs' customers or their competitors to file complaints about "unjust" or "unreasonable" conduct. All of that will go away once ISPs are no longer classified as common carriers. The FCC last year also used Title II to impose strict broadband privacy rules that were eliminated by Republicans in Congress and President Trump before they could be implemented.

On the plus side for consumers, eliminating the common carrier classification could give the Federal Trade Commission authority to regulate ISPs and enforce its rules against unfair or deceptive practices.

After taking over as chair following the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Pai announced his anti-net neutrality plan in a speech on April 26, saying the FCC should restore the "the light-touch regulatory framework" established under President Bill Clinton. In reality, the Clinton-era FCC established far stricter requirements than anything in the current net neutrality rules. At the time, line-sharing requirements allowed any company to offer Internet service over the same wires, giving consumers far more broadband choices.

Line-sharing requirements were eliminated in 2005, and today there is little competition in the home Internet service market. Net neutrality rules were put in place to prevent today's home and mobile ISPs from taking unfair advantage of their dominant market position, but Pai's plan would scrap the net neutrality rules without bringing back the Clinton-era line sharing requirements.

Pai claims that the Title II rules imposed in 2015 have caused severe declines in broadband network investment, but in reality ISPs have told investors that Title II has not hurt network investment.

After Pai announced his plan, the FCC was flooded with comments supporting strong net neutrality rules from individuals who use the Internet and companies that offer websites and applications over the Internet. Even the cable industry's top lobby group found widespread support for net neutrality rules when it polled registered voters.

But instead of addressing the serious opposition to his plan, Pai touted support from ISPs and made a video in which he read mean tweets directed at him.

Comcast and other ISPs, meanwhile, hailed Pai's plan, claiming they support net neutrality rules even though they oppose use of the FCC's Title II authority to enforce them. Verizon tried to convince the public that Pai's plan would do nothing to disrupt the current net neutrality rules, even though Pai's proposal would either eliminate the rules or make them weaker.

Verizon also claimed that no ISPs have asked the FCC to eliminate the net neutrality rules, and that Verizon merely wants the same rules placed in a "different legal footing" to make them "enforceable." In reality, Verizon long opposed net neutrality rules regardless of what legal footing they were on.

The FCC imposed similar net neutrality rules in 2010 without using its Title II authority, and Verizon successfully sued to overturn them. The federal appeals court decision in 2014 said the FCC erred by imposing the rules without first reclassifying ISPs; the FCC's then-Democratic leadership rectified that mistake in 2015 by reclassifying ISPs as common carriers.

The FCC's 2015 reclassification decision has been upheld in court twice after lawsuits filed by ISPs and broadband lobby groups. Pai argued back in 2014 that the FCC should avoid making any decisions that embroil the FCC, industry, and Americans "in yet another years-long legal waiting game." But Pai may be starting another years-long legal waiting game by eliminating or changing rules that were upheld in court. Pai's office recently acknowledged that the commission is highly likely to be sued.

One thing that could end the net neutrality debate is congressional action. One proposal from Senate Republicans called the "Restoring Internet Freedom Act" would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from ever again using the Title II authority that allowed the commission to impose net neutrality rules. Other Republicans in Congress support net neutrality legislation that would ban blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of Internet traffic without using Title II.

"We need a statute offering clear and enduring rules that balance innovation and investment throughout the entire Internet ecosystem," Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said in a speech on the Senate floor today. "In crafting rules, we need to listen to the concerns of all Americans who support an open internet but who may have differing opinions about the greatest threats to online freedom. For some Americans, the greatest concern is meddling by Internet service providers, and for others it is unelected bureaucrats attempting to overprotect Americans from products and services they actually like."

3 ISPs Have Spent $572 Million to Kill Net Neutrality Since 2008

Wednesday Jul 12 2017

A study by Maplight indicates that for every one comment submitted to the FCC on net neutrality (and there have been roughly 5 million so far), the telecom industry has spent $100 in lobbying to crush the open internet. The group found that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.

And, with a former Verizon lawyer leading the FCC's assault on popular net neutrality protections, it's obvious these efforts have clearly paid off after a rocky start.

"The FCC’s decision, slated to be announced later this summer, will be a clear indicator of the power of corporate cash in a Trump administration," notes the report. "Public sentiment is on the side of keeping the Obama administration’s net neutrality policies, which prevented internet companies from blocking, slowing or giving priority to different websites."

Congressional lobbying forms indicate that Comcast alone has spent nearly $4 million on lobbying Congress on net neutrality issues from the end of 2014 through the first quarter of 2017. Comcast was, of course, an early player in the conversation after it was caught repeatedly lying about throttling all upstream BitTorrent connections back in 2008.

Writer Andrew Jerell Jones also points out how Comcast-owned NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC can rarely be bothered to reveal their parent company's lobbying on this subject, or in fact cover net neutrality in their news reporting much at all. Even purportedly "progressive" MSNBC has been frequently criticized for rarely talking about the subject.

"NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC haven’t disclosed their company’s lobbyist spending on Capitol Hill during that time period," he notes. "And outside of a few news segments on CNBC - with either big tech figures expressing their support for net neutrality or telecom giants railing against it - Comcast networks have rarely featured or even mentioned the online topic on their shows at all, despite their gigantic Capitol Hill lobbyist spending on net neutrality."

Again, Comcast and other major ISPs' attacks on net neutrality come despite broad, bipartisan support for the rules. All of this spending and willful omission comes to a head tomorrow as net neutrality supporters intend to launch a online day of action to protest the FCC's plan to kill the current rules -- which protect consumers from duopolist ISPs looking to use the lack of broadband competition to additional anti-competitive advantage.

FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources

November 15, 2017

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.

FCC Outlines Plan to Roll Back Internet Rules

Ajit Pai: ‘Government Will Stop Micromanaging Internet’

Nov. 21, 2017

WASHINGTON–Federal regulators outlined their plans for dismantling Obama-era open-internet rules, setting up a major win for cable and wireless firms that provide most internet service.

The changes are expected to be approved at a Federal Communications Commission meeting in mid-December. They would create a range of new opportunities for internet providers, enabling them to form alliances with media and other online firms to offer web services at higher speeds and quality. They also would help clear the way for creative pricing and bundling of services to attract more customers.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement.

The rules had required internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally, effectively keeping all corners of the internet accessible to consumers. The rules also limited the providers’ ability to favor content, including their own.

Internet companies and many consumer groups view the current rules as crucial for sustaining competition and preventing broadband providers from unfairly dominating the online environment through their control over its pipes.

But critics–including Mr. Pai–argue that the 2015 rules have stifled investment and innovation in the still-developing broadband industry. Providers also worried the rules could open the door to rate regulation and other new oversight.

Under the FCC move, oversight responsibility for internet providers would again include the Federal Trade Commission as well as the FCC, Mr. Pai said in his statement. The Obama-era rules effectively exempted internet providers from FTC regulation.

“As a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police [internet providers], protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015,” Mr. Pai wrote. “Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.”

The FCC would retain a version of its transparency rule, requiring providers to disclose their net-neutrality practices to consumers.

Many conservatives view the FTC’s case-by-case regulatory approach as more appropriate for the internet economy, to encourage more innovation.

Progressives prefer the FCC’s rule-based approach for the online environment to prevent unfair and anticompetitive practices by internet providers from ever taking root.

The FCC’s official announcement is surfacing just a day after the Justice Department filed suit to block broadband provider AT&T Inc.’s planned merger with media giant Time Warner Inc. on antitrust grounds, suggesting that the Trump administration’s support for big telecommunications combinations has limits.

FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws

11/21/17

In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service.

This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the US government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting.

It isn't clear yet exactly how extensive the preemption will be. Preemption would clearly prevent states from imposing net neutrality laws similar to the ones being repealed by the FCC, but it could also prevent state laws related to the privacy of Internet users or other consumer protections. Pai's staff said that states and other localities do not have jurisdiction over broadband because it is an interstate service and that it would subvert federal policy for states and localities to impose their own rules.

The arguments made by Pai's staff echoed those made previously by Internet service providers. Comcast, Verizon, and mobile industry lobby group CTIA had all urged the FCC to preempt state laws in the weeks leading up to today's announcement by Pai.

CTIA argued last week that broadband Internet access shouldn't be regulated by states because it is an interstate service "within the sole jurisdiction of the FCC, and Congress has advanced a national policy of non-regulation for information services." That's the exact position the FCC chairman's office is now taking.

Legislators in numerous states have tried to impose state-level versions of the FCC privacy rules that were eliminated by Congress earlier this year. With the FCC about to take its net neutrality rules off the books, ISPs said they worry that states will try to enforce net neutrality on their own.

The FCC's preemption authority does have limits. A previous FCC decision to preempt state laws that restrict the expansion of municipal broadband was struck down by a federal appeals court. The FCC will almost certainly face lawsuits challenging the net neutrality repeal order, and the preemption of state laws could play a big role in litigation.

It's not clear whether the FCC provided adequate notice to the public about the preemption plan. Today's proposal stems from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the FCC issued in May, but that proposal did not ask the public for input on preempting state net neutrality laws.

Pai argued in 2015 that the FCC violated federal administrative procedure rules by reclassifying ISPs as common carriers without providing adequate notice to the public beforehand. But in that case, the FCC did ask the public for input on whether it should impose common carrier regulations in an NPRM months before it voted. In the present case, the FCC did not ask for input on preempting state net neutrality laws at all.

Senior FCC officials also provided some more details on the rollback of federal net neutrality rules. For the most part, all consumer protections in the 2015 net neutrality order are being eliminated. That goes beyond the core net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

For example, rules requiring disclosure of hidden fees and data caps will be overturned. The FCC will relinquish its role in evaluating whether ISPs can charge competitors for data cap exemptions and will no longer oversee interconnection disputes that harm Internet service quality. For a longer list of what's being eliminated, check out this previous article from July. As we wrote then, numerous consumer protections rely on the FCC's Title II common carrier authority to regulate broadband providers, and those rules will go away as a consequence of Pai's plan to eliminate the Title II classification.

Pai's proposal does add one new requirement -- ISPs will have to make public disclosures if they engage in blocking or throttling of Internet content, and they will have to disclose deals that prioritize content from affiliates or content from companies that pay ISPs for priority access.

There won't be any specific FCC rules preventing Internet providers from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. It would be up to the Federal Trade Commission or other consumer protection agencies to determine whether specific conduct should be allowed, FCC officials said. The new disclosure requirements will help the FTC and other agencies decide whether to take action against ISPs, the officials said.

FCC officials also said they plan to scale back their regulatory authority with a new interpretation of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. The section requires the FCC to promote competition in local telecommunications markets and to remove barriers that impede infrastructure investment.

Ajit Pai is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was designated Chairman by President Donald J. Trump in January 2017.