National

Two years ago this week, the FCC adopted net neutrality rules that protect an open and unfettered Internet. Net neutrality is the principle that the big media companies that provide internet access should not be able to pick winners and losers.

Most importantly, after two previous attempts to enforce net neutrality failed in court, the FCC grounded its rules in the strongest legal authority. It did so by ruling that broadband is a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II is the portion of the law that gives the FCC power to protect consumers from, among other things, fraudulent billing, privacy violations and price gouging. Last June, a federal court upheld those rules, making net neutrality the law of the land.

Unfortunately, current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced his intention to take a "weed whacker" to the rules and to the legal authority on which they are based. More recently, he said, "I favor net neutrality, but I oppose Title II." This should fool no one — there's no net neutrality without clear FCC authority to protect consumers and competition in the broadband market. Right now, that authority is vested in Title II.

What's next? Currently, Congress and the FCC are playing a game of chicken — each wants the other to go first. My guess is that the FCC will start the process to reclassify broadband as a deregulated "information service." That will give Congress leverage to try and pass legislation that would nominally protect net neutrality, but would strip the FCC of all authority to oversee the broadband market.

Wouldn't legislation be a good thing? Net Neutrality legislation could be a good thing if it put into place the three bright line net neutrality rules — no blocking of content, applications and services; no throttling of the same; and no paid prioritization — and also gave the FCC unambiguous authority and flexibility to protect consumers and competition in the broadband market.

But I don't expect congressional Republicans to offer such a deal. In 2015, Sen. John Thune floated a bill that would have put in place the three bright line rules, but would have stripped the FCC not only of its authority under Title II, but also under another provision of the Communications Act (known as Section 706).

The goal then, as it is now, is to defang the FCC, leaving the FTC to oversee the broadband market. As much as the FTC has been a great partner to the FCC, it's not an expert on communications networks, and its toolkit for protecting consumers is far more limited.

What all this means: Net neutrality is under assault. But repeal of the rules is by no means a done deal. Like the Affordable Care Act, Americans won't sit by and allow rules that have protected their ability to use the most important communications network in history to be taken from them. Whether the fight is at the FCC, Congress, or both, policymakers should brace for an enormous battle over the future of the internet.

Gigi Sohn is an Open Society Foundations Leadership in Government Fellow and served as counselor to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Real net neutrality is rooted in Title II

Sohn: There's no net neutrality without clear FCC authority to protect consumers.

Technology

Net neutrality

Expert Voices

Two years ago this week, the FCC adopted net neutrality rules that protect an open and unfettered Internet. Net neutrality is the principle that the big media companies that provide internet access should not be able to pick winners and losers.Most importantly, after two previous attempts to enforce net neutrality failed in court, the FCC grounded its rules in the strongest legal authority. It did so by ruling that broadband is a &quot;telecommunications service&quot; under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II is the portion of the law that gives the FCC power to protect consumers from, among other things, fraudulent billing, privacy violations and price gouging. Last June, a federal court upheld those rules, making net neutrality the law of the land.Unfortunately, current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced his intention to take a &quot;weed whacker&quot; to the rules and to the legal authority on which they are based. More recently, he said, &quot;I favor net neutrality, but I oppose Title II.&quot; This should fool no one — there&#x27;s no net neutrality without clear FCC authority to protect consumers and competition in the broadband market. Right now, that authority is vested in Title II.

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

There was little new in yesterday's speech by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announcing his plan to undo the 2015 network neutrality rules, which prohibit cable and Internet companies like AT&T and Comcast from favoring or discriminating against online content and services. Pai spouted the usual ISP-funded investment statistics (accurate numbers here) and again took statements made by Democrats in the 1990's out of context. Even so, there was much that should alarm every American with a broadband internet connection.

Why consumers should care: In reviewing the 2010 net neutrality rules, the DC Circuit found that because ISPs have bottleneck control over your Internet access, they have both the incentive and the ability to discriminate. In a world where these companies are consolidating, buying content and providing their own over-the-top services, that incentive has increased. Which makes preservation of the current rules all the more necessary and Pai's plan all the more dangerous.

Not surprisingly, Pai announced that he would reverse the decision to classify broadband ISPs as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision allowed the current rules to pass scrutiny by a federal court after two previous failures. Its reversal would leave the agency tasked with overseeing communications networks with virtually no role when it comes to the most important network in history. The FCC would be powerless to prohibit anti-consumer practices by ISPs like fraudulent billing, price gouging and practices that violate consumer privacy. While I agree with Pai that Title II is not the only route to real net neutrality, he didn't endorse the best alternative— Congressional action giving the FCC flexible authority to protect consumers and competition in the broadband market.

Equally disturbing is what Pai didn't say. He talked a lot about "repeal," but not about "replace." Perhaps this is because whatever "replacements" Pai might propose will be wholly inadequate to protect consumers and innovators. The much-maligned idea of voluntary commitments from ISPs would result in unenforceable, empty promises that could be changed at anytime. New rules grounded in Title I would have to permit discrimination, paid prioritization and individual negotiations between online providers and ISPs to survive court scrutiny. Maybe that's not so bad if you are Google or Facebook, but it would be death to small start-ups like the 800+ who signed this letter asking Pai to keep the rules in place.

The other thing Pai didn't say were the words "net neutrality." That's for a simple reason — he has never, and does not today, support the core principle of non-discrimination. His replacement, be they voluntary commitments, Title I regulations or nothing at all, may be something, but they are not net neutrality.

Repealing net neutrality hurts innovators, consumers

Every consumer with an internet connection should be alarmed

Opinion

T<a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="here" data-vars-click-url="https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/capital_expenditures_by_publicly_traded_ISPs.pdf" data-vars-content-id="ef93f071-4af1-441b-a43c-369deee9bc57" data-vars-headline="Repealing net neutrality hurts innovators, consumers" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/capital_expenditures_by_publicly_traded_ISPs.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> was little new in yesterday&#x27;s <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="speech" data-vars-click-url="https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-regulation" data-vars-content-id="ef93f071-4af1-441b-a43c-369deee9bc57" data-vars-headline="Repealing net neutrality hurts innovators, consumers" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-speech-future-internet-regulation" target="_blank">speech</a> by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announcing his plan to undo the 2015 network neutrality rules, which prohibit cable and Internet companies like AT&amp;T and Comcast from favoring or discriminating against online content and services. Pai spouted the usual ISP-funded investment statistics (accurate numbers here) and again took statements made by Democrats in the 1990&#x27;s out of context. Even so, there was much that should alarm every American with a broadband internet connection.Why consumers should care: In reviewing the 2010 net neutrality rules, the DC Circuit found that because ISPs have bottleneck control over your Internet access, they have both the incentive and the ability to discriminate. In a world where these companies are consolidating, buying content and providing their own over-the-top services, that incentive has increased. Which makes preservation of the current rules all the more necessary and Pai&#x27;s plan all the more dangerous.

Gigi Sohn, Open Society Foundations Leadership in Government Fellow

Stories

Repealing net neutrality hurts innovators, consumers

Real net neutrality is rooted in Title II