The Last Hope for Net Neutrality; Slate, October 1, 2019

April Glaser, Slate; The Last Hope for Net Neutrality

A federal appeals court upheld the FCC’s repeal of the open-internet rules. But it allowed for states to save them. 

 

"It’s confirmed: Net neutrality is legally dead. On Tuesday morning, a federal appeals court reaffirmed the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules that prohibited internet providers from blocking, slowing down, or speeding up access to websites. In a 200-page decision, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who in 2017 vowed to “fire up a weed whacker” and destroy the regulations, which had only been on the books for about two years at the time.

 

While it’s been legal for internet providers to block access to websites since June 2018, when the FCC’s net neutrality repeal hit the books, advocates and website owners who depend on unfettered consumer access to the web were hopeful that the court would invalidate the repeal. Now, internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T can do whatever they want with their customers’ connections and web access as long as they state that they reserve the right to do so in their terms of service. That doesn’t mean the internet is going to change tomorrow, or that Comcast will start throttling with abandon anytime soon. But by allowing telecom companies to sell faster speeds to the websites that can afford it, the deregulation threatens the ideal of the open web—a level playing field that allows anyone to build a website that can reach anyone. 

 

There is a significant silver lining in Tuesday’s ruling, however: The court struck down the part of the FCC’s 2017 rules that attempted to preempt state net neutrality rules. That reaffirms legislation and executive orders across the country that seek to preserve the pre-2017 status quo in which companies could not mess with websites’ and customers’ access to the internet. Nine states—Hawaii, Montana, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Rhode Island, California, Montana, and Vermont—have passed their own net neutrality rules. Another 27 states have seen legislation proposed to protect net neutrality. More than 100 mayors of cities across the country likewise have pledged not to sign contracts with internet providers that violate net-neutrality principles."

Verizon under fire for 'throttling' firefighters' data in California blaze; The Guardian, August 22, 2018

Olivia Solon, The Guardian; Verizon under fire for 'throttling' firefighters' data in California blaze

"Internet service providers (ISPs) are entitled to throttle people who use excessive amounts of data, depending on the terms of the individual plan. However, Verizon has a policy to remove restrictions if contacted in an emergency situations.

“We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake,” said the company in a statement published on Tuesday.

Harold Feld, from Public Knowledge, one of the organisations bringing the suit, said: “Companies need to be liable for their actions,” adding: “Verizon’s response of ‘I’m terribly sorry your state is burning down, let me sell you this new package’ is not good enough. We need rules to prevent it from happening in the first place.”"

Why states might win the net neutrality war against the FCC; Ars Technica, February 22, 2018

Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica; Why states might win the net neutrality war against the FCC

"Can states force Internet service providers to uphold net neutrality? That's one of the biggest unanswered questions raised by the Federal Communications Commission vote to repeal its net neutrality rules."

Microsoft Courts Rural America, And Politicians, With High-Speed Internet; NPR, All Tech Considered, July 11, 2017

Aarti Shahani, NPR, All Tech Considered; Microsoft Courts Rural America, And Politicians, With High-Speed Internet

"Millions of people in rural America don't have the Internet connectivity that those in cities take for granted. Microsoft is pledging to get 2 million rural Americans online, in a five-year plan; and the company is going to push phone companies and regulators to help get the whole 23.4 million connected."

Americans Want More Say in the Privacy of Personal Data; Consumer Reports, May 18, 2017

Bree Fowler, Consumer Reports; Americans Want More Say in the Privacy of Personal Data

[Kip Currier: Take a look at Consumer Reports' latest survey data on U.S. consumers' concerns about privacy and their personal data: significant majorities want more control over what data is collected and more transparency (not less!) regarding what Internet service providers can and can't do with that personal data.

Then consider this May 18, 2017 disconnect: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by chairman Ajit Pai, voted two to one to start the formal process of dismantling “net neutrality” rules put in place in 2015."]

"The latest CR Consumer Voices survey reveals that people have been increasingly worried about the issue in 2017. Seventy percent of Americans lack confidence that their personal data is private and safe from distribution without their knowledge, according to the nationally representative survey of 1,007 adults conducted in April.

That number climbed from 65 percent since we first asked about the topic in January.

Respondents to the April survey also said they want more control over what data is collected. Ninety-two percent said that internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, should be required to secure permission from users before selling or sharing their data. [Bold and larger font added for emphasis]

The same proportion thinks consumers should have the right to request a complete list of the data an internet service provider or website has collected about them.

Finally, respondents spoke out about how such data may be used to charge online shoppers different prices for the same goods and services—without consumers knowing about it. This kind of dynamic pricing can be based on factors from age to browsing history to home address. Sixty-five percent of respondents oppose the practice.

Though consumers say they want stronger privacy protections, federal actions are moving the rules in the opposite direction."

Tim Berners-Lee: selling private citizens' browsing data is 'disgusting'; Guardian, April 4, 2017

Sam Thielman, Guardian; 

Tim Berners-Lee: selling private citizens' browsing data is 'disgusting'

"What did you think of the congressional repeal of Federal Communications Commission’s privacy rules?

It’s not the case that an ISP can just spy on people and monetize the data; if they do, they will get taken to court. Obviously the worry is the attitude and the direction. The attitude is really appalling. That bill was a disgusting bill, because when we use the web, we are so vulnerable.

When the internet was new, when people didn’t realize to what extent it would be important to people’s lives, I gave talks pointing out that, actually, when people use the web what they do is really, really intimate. They go to their doctor for a second opinion; they’ve gone to the web for the first opinion on whether it’s cancer. They communicate very intimately with family members that they love. There are things that people do on the web that reveal absolutely everything, more about them than they know themselves sometimes. Because so much of what we do in our lives that actually goes through those left-clicks, it can be ridiculously revealing. You have the right to go to a doctor in privacy where it’s just between you and the doctor. And similarly, you have to be able to go to the web.

Privacy, a core American value, is not a partisan thing. Democrats fight for it and Republicans fight for it too, maybe even more. So I am very shocked that the Republican party has managed to suggest that it should be trashed; if anyone follows up on this direction, there will be a massive pushback – and there must be a massive pushback!

If they take away net neutrality, there will have to be a tremendous amount of public debate as well. You can bet there will be public demonstrations if they do try to take it away."

Public interest groups urge officials to protect net neutrality; The Hill, March 7, 2017

Harper Neidig, The Hill; 

Public interest groups urge officials to protect net neutrality

"A coalition of 171 public interest groups sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission and Senate leaders on Tuesday urging them not to dismantle the net neutrality rules from 2015.

The ACLU, Greenpeace, MoveOn.org and Public Knowledge were among the groups signing on to the letter favoring the regulations, which prohibit internet service providers from discriminating against traffic to certain sites.

“Protecting net neutrality is crucial to ensuring that the internet remains a central driver of economic growth and opportunity, job creation, education, free expression, and civic organizing for everyone,” the letter reads.

The message was addressed to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ranking Member Bill Nelson(D-Fla.)."

Protecting the Privacy of Internet Users; New York Times, 3/11/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Protecting the Privacy of Internet Users:

"The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission proposed common-sense privacy rules this week that would limit what broadband companies are allowed to do with the Internet browsing history and other personal information of consumers...

Under the proposal by the chairman, Tom Wheeler, cable and phone companies would be allowed to use personal data for things like billing and pitching more expensive versions of services that customers are already using. Customers could opt out of marketing for other services provided by their broadband companies. And the companies would have to get permission from their customers before they could do more with the data, like selling it to advertisers. Another rule would require companies to protect the data and notify customers, the commission and law enforcement agencies if the information was stolen."

Facebook ‘colonialism' row stokes distrust in Zuckerberg; BBC News, 2/11/16

Dave Lee, BBC News; Facebook ‘colonialism' row stokes distrust in Zuckerberg:

"The suggestion by Andreessen that India, with its history, should somehow be pro-colonialism was treated by many as absurd.

In centuries gone by, colonialism was about exploitation of resources. In the modern world, it's digital - moving in, setting up companies and building insurmountable user bases before any other company can.

That's arguably an extreme interpretation of the purpose of Free Basics - but it's the argument made by local businesses to India's telecoms regulator. An Indian social network wouldn't stand a chance against free Facebook, they said, and websites that are not part of the Free Basics scheme would lose out. The regulator agreed when it ruled in favour of net neutrality.

As did many Western onlookers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which campaigns for an open internet, said Facebook was doing what it could to open up the Free Basics scheme to local companies, the inherent flaw of the program was that Facebook remained the sole gatekeeper."

Not Another Net-Neutrality Story; The Atlantic, 2/9/16

Adrienne LaFrance, The Atlantic; Not Another Net-Neutrality Story:

"There are implications for other countries, too. Part of Facebook’s strategy for global expansion just failed, or at least suffered a serious blow, in a key country. Here’s how Kevin Roose, a writer at Fusion, puts it: “If a group of activists could successfully reframe Free Basics as an insidious land grab, rather than an act of corporate largesse, and mobilize a country against it, what’s to stop them from resisting elsewhere?” And as Ingrid Burrington wrote for The Atlantic in December, various mobile carriers in the United States offer “free” video streaming as a way to attract customers—free, in that data use doesn’t count toward a person’s monthly allotment.

“It really seems too obviously out of line to be true,” Burrington wrote, “Mobile carriers are literally partnering with large media companies to subsidize data-devouring streaming services, while what might be considered the ‘open Internet’ remains a paid service.”

In a Facebook post on Monday, Zuckerberg wrote that he is “disappointed” but committed to keep working toward connectivity goals in India. In his earlier essay, for the Times of India, he was less restrained: “Who could possibly be against this?”"

Facebook's Internet.org Isn't Going Over Well in India; Fortune, 1/22/16

Claire Groden, Fortune; Facebook's Internet.org Isn't Going Over Well in India:

"Mark Zuckerberg is learning the hard way that philanthropy is never as straight-forward as it seems.

Facebook’s crusade to bring basic free Internet to people in lower-income countries without web access reached India in February 2015. In a triumphant Facebook post, Zuckerberg announced that the initiative, Internet.org, had launched in India, “giving people in six Indian states access to free basic internet services for health, education, jobs and communication.”

Less than a year later, Internet.org hasn’t gone over as well as Zuckerberg had hoped. On Thursday, hundreds of people gathered at a Telecom Regulatory Authority of India forum in India’s capital to discuss whether the initiative should be shut down, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Advocates for net neutrality argue that the free service, which offers access to only some websites, is “poor internet for poor people,” forcing users to only access parts of the web that are in Facebook’s best interest."

Once Comcast’s Deal Shifted to a Focus on Broadband, Its Ambitions Were Sunk; New York Times, 4/23/15

Jonathan Mahler, New York Times; Once Comcast’s Deal Shifted to a Focus on Broadband, Its Ambitions Were Sunk:

"If there was a single moment when the winds seemed to shift against Comcast, it came in November, when President Obama released a video on the White House website in which he spoke about the future of the Internet. For the first time, Mr. Obama, who had long offered support for the idea of net neutrality but had always stopped short of suggesting how it might be achieved, was unambiguously clear about what he wanted. He called on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt “the strongest possible rules” to regulate the Internet.

“For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access into and out of your home or business,” he said. “It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call or a packet of data.”...

It meant that a lot of Americans living in rural areas no longer had what qualified as high-speed Internet access — making Comcast’s already large share of the broadband market considerably larger."

Obama faces digital divide growing wider on heels of FCC court ruling; FoxNews.com, 1/27/14

Barnini Chakraborty, FoxNews.com; Obama faces digital divide growing wider on heels of FCC court ruling:

"The great digital divide that President Obama repeatedly has pledged to fix could grow even wider, after a recent federal court ruling put the president's promise of leveling the tech playing field in jeopardy...

Last year, the president pitched a plan aimed at making sure "99 percent of students across the country" would receive access to high-speed broadband and wireless Internet at their schools within the next five years. During his 2011 State of the Union address, he stressed the need to upgrade all Americans.

"This isn't just about faster Internet or fewer dropped calls," Obama said at the time. "It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age."

But on Jan. 14, a federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order pertaining to so-called "net neutrality." The decision paves the way for Internet service providers to potentially block any website or app of their choosing...

Barbara Stripling, president of the American Library Association, argues that by allowing ISPs to preferentially charge for a tiered access, not only will public libraries suffer, but so will the communities that rely on them. She believe the hardest hit would be school children in grades K-12.

"Schools, public and college universities rely upon public availability of government services, licensed databases, job-training videos, medical and scientific research, and many other essential services," she wrote in a Jan. 16 opinion piece on Wired.com."