733 karma · joined December 1, 2017
I have to respectfully disagree with a premise in your second question, that deregulation is what would allow for more market competition. The history clearly shows that when neutrality regulation was in place and enforced, it increased competition, for example: in 2005 it protected VoIP against discrimination by a phone company with a competing service; in 2008 it protected online video against discrimination by a cable company offering cable video on-demand. Moreover, ISPs invested in broadband infrastructure over the years because net neutrality was protecting edge providers, which led to huge innovations like online video, which in turn helped drive ever greater consumer demand for broadband that justified further infrastructure investment.
Going back to the early 2000s, the FCC has espoused broadband neutrality principles that prevented discrimination against certain types of traffic. In 2005, the FCC articulated these principles in what became known as the “four freedoms” and used them to stop network providers from discriminating against traffic that competed with their own services, for example: in 2005 the FCC stopped phone company Madison River’s blocking of Vonage VoIP calls that competed with Madison’s call service; and in 2008 the FCC stopped Comcast’s blocking of online video services that competed with its on-demand cable offering.
Comcast sued, and in 2010 a federal appellate court ruled that Title I didn’t authorize the FCC to make Comcast comply with the FCC’s net neutrality policies. So the FCC then issued a new regulation in 2010 that, among other things, banned blocking and other “unreasonable discrimination.” Verizon then sued, and in 2014 the same court ruled that anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules couldn’t be imposed under Title I. The court suggested, however, that the FCC could issue such rules if it reclassified broadband internet in a way that put them under Title II. In 2015, the FCC issued neutrality rules under Title II, and when ISPs again sued, the court this time upheld the rules and they are currently in effect.
Chairman Pai’s FCC wants to repeal those rules, even though the court held that they were valid in 2016, and even though the courts orders from 2010 and 2014 essentially preclude the FCC from issuing neutrality rules under Title I.
If you want to take a really deep dive into the history of neutrality, which goes back 50 years, I recommend reading this: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan...
I disagree with those people who call the comment period a mere “PR gimmick.” For approximately 70 years America has had laws requiring federal agencies to provide citizens with notice of certain policy changes and an opportunity to make their voices heard. The last time net neutrality was up for consideration, the FCC received an outpouring from the public in favor of Title II net neutrality protections, and the FCC ultimately adopted those rules.
As it turns out, Jill’s father wasn’t very happy about that submission because the real Jill is only 13 years old and never submitted any comment.
We also saw a woman in Albany who supposedly submitted a comment in July of 2017. Sadly, her son reached out to us to say that was impossible because she had died in June.
Even right here in my office, my assistant press secretary had a phony comment submitted under her name using the address of her childhood home.
These are just a few of the thousands of comments that have been reported to my office.
Generally speaking, I encourage anyone who wants to get involved in the fight to protect net neutrality to reach out to organizations they support that have been active and vocal here, and offer their support. Nonprofits and advocacy organizations are always in need of committed, talented people who are willing to help organize, including people with technical talent. Don’t be afraid to reach out.
As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize that net neutrality principles and protections in different forms have actually been around since 2005 and even earlier. So the flourishing of the internet and everything relying on it during that time occurred under the protections. A few years ago, however, the courts struck down one form of net neutrality protections (those that had relied on Title I of the Communications Act), so then in 2015 the FCC put net neutrality protections back in place under Title II instead (they also expanded the earlier protections, e.g., to include protections against abuses related to interconnection, which had not been the subject of net neutrality protections before 2015). Now, in 2017, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to repeal net neutrality protections altogether (and the courts’ earlier decisions effectively foreclose a return to net neutrality protections under Title I). So that would be entirely new territory for the internet.
Why do we think that’s bad? Well, as I explained in my own public comment in the current proceeding (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717583023587/FINAL%20RIF%20Co...), we’ve seen how companies behave in the absence of net neutrality protections, specifically in the area of interconnection before it was regulated in 2015, and their unregulated conduct harmed consumers. In essence, they made a deliberate business decision to let the quality of internet access degrade, knowing that it hurt consumers, to try to squeeze revenue out of edge providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. Plus, we know that many consumers have few ISPs to choose from, so competition isn’t as effective a check as in other markets. So I believe strong net neutrality regulations are needed to avoid harms to consumers.
On what you can do: I’ve called on the FCC to delay its vote. So has FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the leading champions of net neutrality. And so have at least 28 U.S. Senators. Americans absolutely have the right to make their preferences known to their elected representatives in Washington, and I encourage you to do so, especially if those officials haven’t already spoken publicly about net neutrality. If members of Congress – speaking on behalf of their constituents – speak out on any issue, their statements matter.
My interest in a pause in the process is to get to the bottom of the fake comments and misuse of New Yorkers’ identities, and to make sure real Americans are given the right to have their voices heard. At heart, what we're talking about aren't the merits of net neutrality -- it's the integrity of the democratic policymaking process and the rule of law. In that way, I believe such a delay would be very beneficial to any ultimate result.
You are right that a broad bipartisan coalition could make a big difference. Some other state AGs have reached out to us for more information about the problem and about my office’s investigation, and we’re providing information to any of them that want to investigate and act on behalf of their own states’ constituents whose identities were misused.
Right now, the most effective thing state and local government officials can do is to join the chorus of citizens calling on their state’s Senators and Representatives in DC, demanding that they oppose Chairman Pai’s proposed rollback of the existing Title II protections. If enough folks in Congress--from both parties--feel pressure to stand up and demand that the FCC preserve net neutrality, it'll be much harder for the FCC to disregard the will of the public.
Chairman Pai has not disputed that the fake comments we identify exist – both supporting and opposing net neutrality -- or that Americans’ identities were illegally misused. Instead, his office has tried to paint the issue as a partisan attack. As I’ve repeatedly made clear, this is not about the merits of net neutrality. It’s about the integrity of the process by which a hugely important policy decision is made, and that’s a matter everyone has a stake in, regardless of their view on a particular issue.