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.

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

Go deeper

FDA chief vows agency will not accept political pressure on coronavirus vaccine

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn promised that "science will guide our decision" for a coronavirus vaccine at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

Why it matters: More Americans are expressing doubt about a first-generation vaccine, despite President Trump's efforts to push an unrealistic timeline that conflicts with medical experts in his administration.

CEO confidence rises for the first time in over 2 years

Data: Business Roundtable; Chart: Naema Ahmed/Axios

A closely-watched CEO economic confidence index rose for the first time after declining for nine straight quarters, according to a survey of 150 chief executives of the biggest U.S. companies by trade group Business Roundtable.

Why it matters: The index, which still remains at a decade low, reflects corporate America's expectations for sales, hiring and spending — which plummeted amid uncertainty when the pandemic hit.

Official says White House political appointees "commandeered" Bolton book review

John Bolton's book "The Room Where it Happened." Photo: Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images

A former career official at the National Security Council claims her pre-publication review of former national security adviser John Bolton's explosive book on President Trump was "commandeered by political appointees for a seemingly political purpose," according to a letter from her lawyers filed in court on Tuesday.

Why it matters: The White House fought against the publication of Bolton's book for most of the year on the grounds that it contained harmful and "significant amounts of classified information."

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!