It looks like Trump-appointee Ajit Pai over at the FCC is setting his sights on unraveling regulations that guarantee net neutrality.

This radical change would mark a reversal of strong net-neutrality protections put into place during the Obama administration by former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. The history of how open Internet advocates won the first-round fight for net neutrality and defeated paid prioritization is revealing. After initial missteps in 2014, when Wheeler’s proposal to allow companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to create pay-to-play fast lanes caused massive online protests and pushback from the tech industry, the future of the open Internet seemed assured. At the time, open-Internet advocates cheered Wheeler on when he reversed course and decided to base net-neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act of 1939.

How times have changed. The Trump administration is engaged in a frenzied destruction of a host of Obama-era regulatory protections. It looks like net neutrality may be next on the list. It’s been reported that FCC Chairman Pai has been huddling with telecom lobbyists representing AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile. These meetings and Pai’s statements to the press seem to be signaling that the chairman is setting the stage for a policy shift that would favor the bottom line of the telecom giants over the interests of everyone else—meaning the interests of every other sector in the economy. In lock step with the broadband industry, Pai has consistently stated his dissatisfaction with the Title II designation, which classifies broadband companies as utilities and subjects them to utility-like regulation.

Reporting from Recode, an online tech blog, indicates that Pai may be considering voluntary compliance to ensure open access. Let’s be honest. That’s a joke by any objective standard. Pai needs to produce a single example of a corporate giant voluntarily deferring on potential profits as well as a commitment by the Trump administration to tough enforcement before voluntary compliance can be taken seriously. This is how Recode reports on the direction Pai may be considering:

“Under Pai’s early blueprint, Internet providers could be encouraged to commit in writing that they won’t slow down or block Internet traffic. If they break that promise, they could be penalized by another agency, the Federal Trade Commission, which can take action whenever companies deceive consumers.”

The issue of net neutrality is the fight that won’t go away. After all, we now live in a world where literally everything depends on affordable, open access to Internet service. The players and the stakes are high. The fight for open access pits the telecom giants in a struggle with the tech industry and the public at large.

What is net neutrality and why does it inspire such passion? Net neutrality is the principle that the Internet should remain a level playing field for all users. Net neutrality preserves the rights of all users to communicate freely online, and net neutrality has been the engine for fostering a new and robust online marketplace.

Who benefits from net neutrality? The answer is everyone and everything except the Internet service providers. Net neutrality fosters job growth, competition, and innovation. It’s essential for small-business owners, online retailers, entrepreneurs, and startups, for online job sites, streaming entertainment providers, free-speech advocates, students, and political, social, and arts groups that lack access to mainstream media.

When it passed rules to protect net neutrality, the Obama administration was hardly a radical outlier in understanding the economic, social, and political benefits of an open Internet. As you can see in the map below, the rest of the connected world understands as well—the exceptions being Russia and China where suppression of free speech is the norm, and net neutrality threatens government control of political dissent.

The American tech industry is another player that understands what’s at stake in this fight. This is how a spokesperson for the Internet Association, a lobbying group for Silicon Valley tech companies, summed up the industry’s battle readiness to fight for strong net neutrality protections and against paid prioritization:

“Internet companies are ready to fight to maintain strong net neutrality protections in any forum. ISPs [Internet service providers] must not be allowed to meddle with people’s right to access content and services online, and efforts to weaken net neutrality rules are bad for consumers and innovation.”

What happens if the service providers win this round and we lose net neutrality? Here’s a short list of what could happen, and it’s pretty grim.

Open access would disappear, and innovation would be stymied. Free speech could be curtailed. Cable and phone companies could create Internet fast and slow lanes and slow down or block Internet traffic as they choose. The fast- and slow-lane system would effectively create online winners and losers. Extra charges could be levied to content companies that could afford to pay for faster speeds and preferential access, thus limiting competition. Those extra charges would be passed on to all of us, and the cost of Internet service would increase for consumers and small businesses. Internet service providers could slow down competitors’ content and block political or social opinions the provider might disagree with.

So get ready everyone. Round two is about to begin.

The post Net Neutrality: Round Two appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Speed up. Slow down. Block.

Assuming that the above five words are nothing more than a description of Super Bowl tactics would be incorrect. That’s because the words also define tactics the largest Internet service providers (ISPs)—Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable—might soon be using to bolster their bottom line. This radical change to the way in which Internet service comes into our homes, schools, and businesses follows the recent decision by a federal-appeals court to strike down the FCC’s rules governing net neutrality.

To understand what was at stake that day in court, it’s important to understand what net neutrality means. It’s “the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.”

Now that we’ve got the definition cleared up, let’s rewind the action a bit. That means taking a look at what happened last month in the courtroom of Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Judge Tatel ruled against the FCC in a case brought by lawyers for Verizon. That decision effectively invalidated the FCC’s application of open-Internet, or net-neutrality, rules that historically have prevented Internet service providers from prioritizing speed and limiting access to content and user applications.

As of today, net neutrality is out. Preferential access is in. If the court’s decision is the final word, Internet users with money to spend will be treated to having their data moved to the head of the line. The rest of us will be sitting in front of our screens tapping our fingers (or worse) in frustration over slower access speeds and may even find ourselves blocked out of content one or more of the ISPs may deem objectionable.

So unless the FCC takes action, ISPs will now be free to cut exclusive deals with cable, television, online retailers, and streaming companies to prioritize Internet traffic. This could lead to a multi-tiered system of up charges and data tracks. There would be slow and fast lanes. Slow lanes would be for companies, organizations, and individuals that can’t afford to get in on the deals. Those poor cousins of the Internet might include schools, libraries, universities, nonprofits, artists posting creative content, researchers using Google and other search engines, activist organizations, small businesses, and start-ups. Fast lanes would be reserved for the largest corporations and the wealthy who could afford to ante up for the privilege.

The implications of Judge Tatel’s decision are broad. The decision threatens to destroy both the level playing field Internet users have enjoyed for more than a decade and open access to the explosion of information sharing. It threatens to increase everyone’s costs for using the Internet. As one writer at the Free Press put it, the disappearance of net neutrality will mean that “the Internet as we know it could be a relic of the past.”

As Michael Copps, former FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011 and now a public-interest advocate at Common Cause, explains, the loss of net neutrality will mean “playing fast and loose with the most opportunity-creating technology in all of communications history.”

But don’t despair just yet. There is an opening for the FCC that allows the agency to stay in the game. Fortunately, Judge Tatel’s decision actually affirmed two vital concepts: first, the decision upheld the concept of net neutrality as a matter of principle; and, second, it upheld the FCC’s ability to reclassify ISPs as common carriers (the same classification given to companies providing telephone service), which would allow the FCC to apply its rules of net neutrality.

Here’s former FCC commissioner Copps explaining how the FCC can reverse the “flawed decision” it made ten years ago when it classified broadband service as an information service rather than a common carrier and left itself open to the devastating decision in Judge Tatel’s courtroom.

The good news is that the solution is pretty simple. It doesn’t require a new telecommunications statute replete with time-consuming years of legislative horse-trading and special interest lobbying. All it requires is an FCC big enough to own up to its previous mistakes and courageous enough to put our communications future back on track.

Current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has not ruled out reclassification but hasn’t shown much enthusiasm for it in his public statements. His official statement following the court’s decision broadly reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to “consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans.”

If, however, the FCC and Chairman Wheeler fail to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, Copps warns that “we are guaranteeing an Internet future of toll-booths, gatekeepers and preferential carriage.”

Even with the setback of the court’s decision, it’s certainly not time to throw in the towel. After all, Internet users are potentially the largest interest group in the country. A few weeks ago a petition sponsored by eighty-six organizations, including the ACLU, Common Cause, Reddit, Avaaz, the Free Press, The Writers Guild of America, Ms. Foundation for Women, and Daily Kos, collected more than one million signatures and was delivered to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. The petition declared:

Right now there is no one protecting Internet users from ISPs that block or discriminate against online content. Companies like AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will be able to block or slow down any website, application or service they like. And they’ll be able to create tiered pricing structures with fast lanes for content providers and speakers who can afford the tolls—and slow lanes for everyone else.

I’m here to remind you, fellow Internet users, that those one million signatures were a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 207 million of us. If every one of us would step away from the screen for a few minutes and get in the game by calling the people who were elected to represent us and demanding they and the FCC protect net neutrality and stop catering to the narrow interests of the corporate world, we could win this one.

Here’s Internet blogger Mark Fiore’s satirical take on the Internet’s future if we allow the court’s decision to stand.

Goodbye Net Neutrality, Hello Gilded Age Internet from MarkFiore on Vimeo.

The post Net neutrality: Will you be in the slow lane or the express lane? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How much does it actually cost to run a political ad on television? We’re about to find out. Until Friday [April 27, 2012], the only way to learn how much a candidate was spending on tv ads was to go to a local television station and request to see something known as the “public files.”  But a new ruling by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] is changing that process and making the information more accessible to everyone. Under the new ruling, local television stations will be required to post detailed information about political advertising, including the cost of specific commercials, on their websites.

The rule will go into effect 30 days after it’s approved by the Office of Management and Budget, meaning that the public will get at least some information before the November 2012 election. This year, the rule applies only to local affiliates of the top four tv networks–ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC–in the top 50 markets. That’s about 200 stations. Other stations–of which there are about 1,800–will have to comply in two years.

According to Ad Age, the new rule covers about 60% of all expected 2012 political advertising purchased locally or regionally.  Ad buys for 45% of presidential campaign ads would have been disclosed online if the FCC’s new requirement had gone into effect in April 2008.

The ruling is a first,  representing a significant step toward transparency in political campaigns. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been pushing hard for it since his appointment by President Obama in 2009. Genachowski has been quoted as saying: “The question in front of us is whether, in the 21st century, ‘available for public inspection means stuck in office filing cabinets or available online.”

Love it, somewhat

Campaign finance watchdogs and open-government organizations like the principle behind the new rule, but also point out its limitations.

Think Progress says:”While this additional transparency will not allow citizens to know who is funding shady independent ads, it will at least allow them to track where the spending is going and how much is being spent for each airtime purchase.

The Sunlight Foundation says that the new rule “could provide a crucial source of information about the shadowy groups that can now spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against political candidates without having to register with the FEC.”

But, Sunlight continues,

The proposed rule would also exempt 160 of the country’s 210 television markets, including some in battleground states larley to be targeted for major political ad blitzes…No Spanish language stations would be included in a year when the Hispanic vote is a key demographic likely to be targeted by both parties. …Large areas of some swing states, like Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan, could see an influx of advertising in markets outside of the top 50. One state that’s likely to be a key battleground–Iowa–doesn’t have any media that would make the reporting cut.

Hate it, a lot

TV stations don’t like the rule at all. Lobbyists for the broadcasting industry–as well as executives from heavy hitters like Disney, NBC, ABC, Fox News, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and dozens of local TV news outlets–applied intense pressure on FCC commissioners to vote against the new rule.  They argued that posting ad-buy information would allow “competitors in the market and commercials advertisers to anonymously glean highly sensitive pricing data.”

They lost that argument: The FCC commissioners voted 2-1 in favor of the new rule.

But, having lost that argument–at least for now–broadcasters also tried to water down the reporting mechanism, arguing that ad-buy data should be posted only on local affiliates’ websites, not on a centralized FCC database–and only in PDF form, so that the information cannot be aggregated.

There’s no shortage of irony here. ProPublica puts it this way:

News organizations cultivate a reputation for demanding transparency, whether by suing for access to government documents, dispatching camera crews to the doorsteps of recalcitrant politicians, or editorializing in favor of open government.

Along with the ads themselves, this new FCC ruling bears watching.

The post How much does a political ad cost? New FCC ruling will help us figure it out appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Federal Communications Commission voted a partisan 3-2 on network neutrality on December 21st, in what proponents consider an upset. The rules, a flimsy copy of rules written by Verizon and Google in October, are worse than nothing. So they say.

Net neutrality is a hot topic, but only [it seems] for people who understand what net neutrality is and what it means for the future of free speech and online innovation. The rules, which the FCC hopes to enforce and Republicans vow to block in their first 2011 session, are a boon to the telecommunications industry.

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is what internet users are accustomed to. Simply put, it means that providers must give all network traffic the same priority. It means that we have equal access to Google and Bing, YouTube and Hulu, Fox News and CBS. They cannot collect fees from a company, for example, in order to grant that company network priority over others. In essence, showing bias towards one website or application can mean a certain level of control over what you, the consumer, have access to. Without net neutrality, providers could choke bandwidth or even block certain websites from being accessed by you.

Why the FCC’s net neutrality rules are worse than nothing

The FCC could reclassify internet providers as telecommunications companies, and ISP’s would be subject to the same rules and regulations that phone and cable companies are. Reclassification would also grant the FCC regulatory oversight. That could be the end of it. The FCC, however, chose to take the hard road and adopt separate rules and regulations for the internet; rules and regulations which may or may not hold up to inspection by the Supreme Court.

The “rules” [as proposed by Verizon and Google and approved by the FCC] prevent fixed-line broadband providers [e.g. DSL, cable] from blocking access to websites and/or applications but wireless providers would be able to put limits on access. Under the new “rules”, wireless providers like AT&T would be able to block applications that compete with their own products and services.

This is exactly what happened late last year with Comcast and the popular video service, Netflix. Netflix is direct competition to Comcast’s on-demand video service, so Comcast gave Netflix an ultimatum: pay us a fee or we block your service from being accessed by Comcast customers. Netflix paid, though under duress. Unfortunately, we can’t expect companies like Netflix to eat the cost of the imposed fees and that cost is passed on to Netflix customers. One company’s greed is another man’s cost.

We should be outraged at such underhanded stifling of competition, and consumers should be outraged that these costs are passed on to them. But at the heart of this issue is freedom. We should all be outraged that certain telecommunications companies seek to undermine freedom of speech, internet freedom, and innovation. Internet giants like Google should remember how they came to be the largest and most popular search engine around the world [net neutrality] and once again take the lead; this time in fighting to keep our free and open internet just the way it is.

Image credit: thenextweb.com

The post Don’t fix net neutrality. It isn’t broken. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Your blood pressure is normal, and your cholesterol levels are okay, too, but have you checked your internet download speed lately? A new service offered by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] can help you make that diagnosis, while helping the government improve our national broadband status.

Launched just days before the federal government announced its ambitious commitment to bringing America up to speed in the on-line world, the Consumer Broadband Test is now available on Broadband.gov.  You enter your address, city and zip code, and the website launches a speed test that measures download speed, upload speed, latency ( the time it takes for data to be sent from your computer to the testing server and back–the “round trip time”), and jitter (the variability in the delay between your computer and the testing server.)

Another feature of the website is its Broadband Dead Zone Report, which lets users submit a street address where broadband can’t be purchased.

The new tests are part of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, which was unveiled on March 16. According to Government Technology:

“Broadband speed and broadband coverage are two issues that the FCC is tackling. According to numerous studies, the nation’s average broadband speed lags well behind several other industrialized nations. Through the federal stimulus, millions of dollars in grants have been awarded to states for mapping broadband coverage…FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski says that the FCC [is] setting a goal of putting 100 Mbps broadband service in 100 million U.S. homes by the end of this decade.”

The post My download speed is 5129 kbps. What’s yours? appeared first on Occasional Planet.