In a party line vote, the Republican-controlled House dealt a blow to internet privacy advocates on Wednesday, passing a bill that would roll back Obama-era protections on consumer data. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill, according to the White House. Undoing the rules, which were set to take effect at the end of the year, might signal a new path for the Federal Communications Commission, favoring unfettered industry growth over consumer-friendly protections.

Last October, the FCC enacted a new set of rules against internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, barring them from collecting consumer data such as browsing habits, app history, and location data. Personal information, like a customer’s social security number, was also safeguarded. Though internet companies like Google and Facebook use customers’ data as currency in selling targeted advertisements, the FCC decided ISPs should not be granted the same unregulated access.

Those protections will vanish with the new law, as would the ability for the FCC to draft similar rules in the future. “Today’s vote means that Americans will never be safe online from having their most personal details stealthily scrutinized and sold to the highest bidder,” Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy told The Washington Post.

Privacy advocates argue repealing the protections will grant ISPs access to customer data in a bid to boost profits. Instead of simply providing a channel for internet access, ISPs are now wading into territory dominated by billion-dollar mammoths like Google and Facebook: targeted advertising.

So while the protections would not have barred those companies from accessing user data to sell to advertising agencies and marketers, privacy advocates argue ISPs have access to a wider range of data than search engines and other websites, and thus should be more restricted. Some also worry that net neutrality–the policy that internet providers treat the web as a level playing field–could be next on the chopping block.

But opponents of the rules, and champions of the new path the FCC seems to be following, say that the rules would have stifled innovation. Industry advocates say the rules defined privacy too broadly (browsing and app history should not be private, they argue), and provided an unfair advantage to other data-collectors like Google, as the rules only targeted ISPs.

“There is no lawful, factual or sound policy basis to justify a discriminatory approach that treats ISPs differently from some of the largest companies in the Internet ecosystem that engage in similar practices,” The Internet & Television Association, an industry trade group, said last October when the rules were passed.

Ajit Pai, the newly-appointed FCC chairman, said the Federal Trade Commission, a consumer protection agency, will work together with the FCC to “ensure that consumers’ online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework.” He said “jurisdiction over broadband providers’ privacy practices” would be returned to the FTC. But Pai added the FCC could still bring privacy-related lawsuits against ISPs.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), who voted against the bill, said in a House committee hearing on Monday that he worries that in the absence of regulations, ISPs will abuse their data-collecting power. “One would hope — because consumers want their privacy protected — that they would be good actors, and they would ask permission and do these nice things,” said Doyle. “But there’s no law now that says they have to, and there’s no cop on the beat saying, ‘Hey, we caught you doing something.’”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress Passes Bill to Roll Back Internet Privacy Protections appeared first on Law Street.

After a lot of speculation and scrutiny, the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal is officially dead in the water. The proposed acquisition deal, which would have brought 30 million customers into the folds of a single company, had raised concerns for many about the potential of a monopoly. Now, however, those concerns are no longer relevant, as both companies have announced that they won’t be moving forward with the $45.2 billion deal.

The companies appear to have been scared off after moves by the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rumors indicated that DOJ wasn’t too happy with the proposed merger–Attorney General Eric Holder was allowing a lawsuit to move forward that could block the merger. The FCC was also leaning toward holding a hearing on it. Usually FCC hearings aren’t a great sign when it comes to these kinds of deals, after all, it was viewed as the proverbial nail in the coffin to the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger a few years ago.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler spoke after the companies announced their intentions to abandon the deal, saying:

Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including to the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.

Holder also applauded the decision the companies had made not to move forward.

Individuals and advocacy groups alike argued against the merger, claiming that it would hurt consumers. Advocacy group Common Cause’s President Miles Rapoport stated about the end to the merger:

As we saw in February when the FCC adopted strong rules to protect the free flow of information online, citizen voices can still make a difference in our government’s decision making. More than 800,000 Americans told the FCC that the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger would be bad for competition and innovation; their arguments were well-founded and have now carried the day. This is their victory.

So what’s next for the cable industry? Those in the know have speculated that Time Warner Cable may seek a merger with Charter Communications instead, under the assumption that two smaller companies combining would set off fewer red flags. That seems like a relatively likely outcome. John Malone who heads up the group that owns Charter Communications said last November, “Hell, yes” he’d buy Time Warner Cable if the Comcast deal fell through. If those two were to combine, Charter would become the second largest cable company in the United States–Comcast would still hold the number one seat. Conversely, others are speculating that Time Warner Cable will acquire a smaller company itself. Regardless of whether or not this particular deal has fallen through, we should probably still expect to see mergers between big cable and internet companies.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comcast, Time Warner Cable Merger is Off appeared first on Law Street.

After a long period of back and forth, political debate, and frustration, the proponents of net neutrality have won–for now, at least. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) solidified net neutrality this week.

For those of you who have been ignoring the net neutrality debate for the past year or so–and I don’t blame you, it sounds way more boring than it is–net neutrality is essentially the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to dictate the prioritization of pages on the internet. The FCC, in a 3-2 vote, just confirmed that status quo with its decision, which don’t allow ISPs to dictate who gets to be in a “fast lane”–essentially have their pages load faster than others for a fee paid to the ISP, or block pages. The FCC ruling also allows the government to step in if it’s believed that the principles of net neutrality are being broken. As PC World summed it up, the decision will:

Reclassify fixed broadband lines under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. This turns ISPs and mobile broadband providers into public utilities.

This is truly great news, especially for the vast majority of Americans who rely on the equal treatment of internet sites for work, education, and just plain old fun. That being said, not everyone is happy. This is bad news for ISPs, which now don’t get to capitalize on the ability to charge different sites for the pleasure of fast lanes, as well as the politicians who receive money from those ISPs.

Verizon, for example, responded to the news with sarcasm akin to a particularly angsty teenage girl. The company put out a press release in typewriter font, made to look like a memo straight from a typewriter, and dated it 1934. This was an apparent reference to the fact that Verizon thought the FCC’s ruling seemed a bit outdated. The release opened with this classic line:

Today (Feb. 26) the Federal Communications Commission approved an order urged by President Obama that imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph.

Verizon didn’t just pout via typewriter font though–it also released the memo in Morse Code.

While Verizon was wandering around with its panties (I’m sorry, it’s 1934, so knickers) in a twist, other ISPs were gearing up for a fight as well. David Cohen, Comcast’s Executive Vice President, stated, “After today, the only ‘certainty’… is that we all face inevitable litigation and years of regulatory uncertainty,” clearly hinting at some sort of an impending lawsuit from the tech giant. AT&T had hinted at a similar future a few weeks ago when its lawyer Hank Hultquist wrote letters saying that the FCC’s rulings, if they were to protect net neutrality, wouldn’t hold up in court. The letters appeared to cite heavily from Supreme Court decisions on similar topics.

The rules will become official this summer, so if you’re following this whole mess, anticipate some interesting court battles at that point.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Net Neutrality Wins: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Reverend Al Sharpton is having a rough week. The controversial civil rights activist, along with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, has just been hit with a huge $20 billion racial discrimination lawsuit. This news came among amidst rumors he’s next on the MSNBC show canceling chopping block.

The lawsuit was filed last week in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are the National Association for African-American Owned Media (NAAAOM) and Entertainment Studios Network, which was founded by comedian Byron Allen. They argue that Comcast and Time Warner paid activists like Sharpton large amounts of money to “whitewash” their practices by making it appear like the companies were promoting diversity when in actuality they weren’t. According to the plaintiffs, Sharpton and his fellow defendants helped facilitate Comcast and Time Warner’s “racist practices” by refusing to contract with 100 percent African-American owned businesses. The two media giants are currently being reviewed by U.S. regulators for a $45 billion merger.

The lawsuit states:

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay-television channels and advertising of their products and services ($20 billion licensing and $5 billion advertising), yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year.

The plaintiff goes on to argue that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, which is owned by Paula Madison, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer of Comcast/NBC-Universal. The lawsuit alleges Madison is part of the supposed scam stating:

[Madison] was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest. In other words, aside from a channel that is owned and operated by the former Comcast/NBC-Universal executive who authored the MOUs, Comcast has not launched a single 100% African American–owned channel—by way of the MOUs or otherwise.

NAAAOM also claims Comcast used other black channels with black celebrities as “fronts” to “window dress” the truth that those channels are majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses. Sharpton wasn’t the only one accused of receiving “whitewash” money. The lawsuit also alleges that the NAACP, National Urban League, and National Action Network had a hand in the supposed scam, signing phony diversity agreements with Comcast in exchange for donations.

In an interview with Variety, Comcast rebutted NAAAOM’s claims calling them “frivolous” while Sharpton called the lawsuit a “bogus statement from a person [Allen] who has no credibility”.

This lawsuit couldn’t have come at a worse time for Sharpton, whose MSNBC show appears on the verge of cancellation. According to the Daily Beast, low ratings have forced MSNBC to give up on trying to be the Dr. Jekyll to FOX News’ Mr. Hyde, veering away from ultra liberal commentary in favor of a more traditional type of news. As a result they’re planning to nix left-wing programming and liberal commentators, possibly including the famed Reverend’s lackluster show “PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.” Neither MSNBC nor Sharpton have confirmed these rumors but the Daily Beast credits “knowledgeable sources at the Comcast-owned cable network” with the information leak. These same sources according to the Daily Beast speculate:

[Sharpton] could eventually be moved from his weeknight 6 p.m. slot to a weekend time period, as MNSBC President Phil Griffin attempts to reverse significant viewership slides by accentuating straight news over left-leaning opinion.

As a whole, it’s not looking too good for Sharpton, even though the outspoken reverend has weathered several controversies in the past. It will be interesting to see what evidence NAAAOM has to support their claims. If found guilty of racial discrimination, Sharpton’s career as a civil rights activist may be unable to survive the irony.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Civil Rights Activist Al Sharpton Sued For Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Net Neutrality has been the center of an important political and technological debate for a while now. Law Street has covered the different developments extensively. This week, President Obama released a statement affirming the need for net neutrality, and it was a strong one.

If you don’t want to watch the entire statement, here are the sparknotes. Obama affirmed the concept of net neutrality and stated his plan moving forward: he wants the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) to reclassify the internet and protect net neutrality. As he put it in his statement:

To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Essentially, Obama wants to prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from changing or altering the speeds at which they provide service to various sites or users. He wants to prevent what’s called “internet fast lanes,” because they mean that ISPs would have control over how fast particular sites load. Fast lanes stifle creativity, equality, and would give a ton of power and money to ISPs such as the much-maligned Comcast.

Of course, Obama can’t support anything without there being a very good chance that the other side of the aisle will get up in arms about it, and that’s exactly what happened here. Rising Republican star Ted Cruz tweeted the following:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I’m not even entirely sure where to start. It’s almost like Cruz created this tweet during a game of petty political Mad Libs–the prompt would have been “fill in a controversial program that will make people angry with the President without explaining the context, giving a comparison, or even trying to justify it.”

First of all, this shows that Cruz fundamentally does not understand what net neutrality is. Luckily, the very denizens of the internet whom net neutrality would hurt had a nice response for Ted Cruz–my favorite was the one by the Oatmeal, a humorous web comic. In addition to being a great take down of Cruz, it is also a pretty good explanation of net neutrality for the uninitiated. Take a look:

Dear @SenTedCruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works http://t.co/rQWMlmJTmY pic.twitter.com/dvxQGDZMBF

— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) November 10, 2014

The Oatmeal’s point is simple–Cruz takes money from the very same ISPs that want to be able to charge people more for their services. And then he turns around and posts something on Twitter that’s not just horribly inaccurate but clearly inflammatory. Because he most likely does not understand net neutrality.

But Cruz and the people who work for him know how to score political points. And comparing anything to Obamacare is going to be a winning metaphor among those who have decided that Obamacare is the devil incarnate.

The fact that Cruz is against net neutrality is a bit upsetting though. It stands directly in contrast to the principles he purports to support. Cruz’s website focuses heavily on the idea of small business success, and working hard to achieve your goals.

Those principles–economic success through small business growth, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps–of Republican theory have been made so much easier by the advent of the internet. Now an entrepreneur can start a small business and use the resources provided by global connectivity to reach customers all over the world. A student who doesn’t have access to very good educational resources can use the internet to learn, for free.

But Ted Cruz would rather compare the internet to Obamacare because it’s easy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Doesn’t Know or Care What Net Neutrality Is appeared first on Law Street.

Net neutrality has been an incredibly important and controversial topic in recent months. So many of us use the internet for many important things on a daily basis–whether it be paying bills, completing work, or engaging in much needed Netflix-binging at the end of a long week. One of the great things about the internet is that in a lot of ways it’s a great equalizer–it doesn’t matter if you’re sitting in a mansion or a library, using a brand new Ipad or a desktop that’s past its prime–we all have access. But an end to net neutrality threatens that implicit equality. Which is why a lot of people, including President Barack Obama, have said that they support net neutrality.

The debate over net neutrality revolves around another newly popular term–“internet fast lanes.” Essentially, internet fast lanes are when Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast, for example, allow various companies to have faster “lanes” of bandwidth. To make it very simple, imagine you’re driving down a five lane highway. Anyone can get all the way into the left lane, the fastest lane, if they like. But then imagine you show up one day and there’s a toll you have to pay to get into that lane. Net neutrality prevents that from happening, and makes sure that a page from, say, Lawstreetmedia.com is able to load just as quickly as any other page. That’s an incredibly simplified version of what internet fast lanes would do, but for a great in depth explanation on net neutrality and internet fast lanes, make sure to check out fellow Law Streeter Eric Essagof’s piece.

A lot of people have argued against fast lanes, arguing that they’re predatory. Due to a series of court decisions, the Federal Communication Commission’s standing rules forbidding ISPs from making fast lanes no longer stand. So the FCC is writing new rules, and no one is entirely sure what they’ll do. Some think they’ll allow fast lanes, others thing that they’ll reclassify certain definitions to make sure that fast lanes aren’t able to become reality.

President Obama weighed in on the debate yesterday, saying:

My appointee, [FCC Chairman] Tom Wheeler, knows my position. Now that he’s there, I can’t just call him up and tell him exactly what to do. But what I’ve been clear about, what the White House has been clear about, is that we expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we’re not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet.

Obama is echoing the sentiment that many people feel, that allowing internet fast lanes is unfair and will really just lead to more money in the pockets of ISPs. It also slows the amazing things that the internet has been able to do. The internet can connect people from all over the globe, and result in innovation and collaboration that would otherwise be near impossible. It can provide a ray of light for a kid somewhere that thinks that he or she is the only one with their particular interests or hobbies. It can provide sources of free education in places where good teachers are hard to come by. As Reed Hastings, a Netflix chief executive, so perfectly put it, “Why are so many people attracted to the concept of net neutrality? Because they fear the loss of the digital commons.” He’s absolutely right–those digital commons bring us closer to an equal playing field, and like Obama, I hope that the FCC remains devoted to net neutrality.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Free Press via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama: Not a Fan of Internet Fast Lanes appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC proposed new rules last week that would allow companies to pay Internet service providers (ISPs) additional money in return for faster web access to customers, creating a so called “Internet fast lane.” If implemented these changes would have significant consequences for the future of neutrality online.

The concept of net neutrality has been under attack recently after the court struck down a 2010 FCC order that supported the equal treatment of online content by ISPs. In addition to the neutrality debate, there have also been several issues with bandwidth, as content-like video have caused traffic burdens for ISPs. The emerging debate hinges on the question of whether or not Internet service providers should be able to control Internet speeds for certain websites.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality, a term coined by Columbia University professor Tim WU, refers to the idea that content on the Internet should be treated equally without the interference of ISPs. Advocates argue that a level playing field is essential for the Internet to remain free of commercial control.

In 2010, the FCC implemented the Open Internet Order, which prohibited content blocking and unreasonable discrimination in addition to requiring transparency regarding network management. These rules were struck down in January 2014, when the court ruled that although the FCC had the authority to regulate the internet, its existing rules overreached its authority. Since then the commission has been tasked with finding new ways to promote net neutrality, of which the first steps were taken with the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) last week.

Back to the New Rules

So what does the FCC’s new proposal mean for the Internet and its consumers? The new rules would allow ISPs to charge for faster Internet access. Advocates of net neutrality argue that these rules mark the abandonment of Internet freedom, as ISPs may now be able to control what websites will reach consumers faster.

The creation of an Internet ‘fast lane’ has far reaching implications for the equality of Internet content. Companies with more money will be able to pay additional sums to Internet service providers in exchange for more bandwidth. As a result, videos from services like Netflix, Youtube, or Hulu (to name a few) would be able to load much faster, given that they are willing to pay the price. Many view this as a serious threat to start-ups and emerging websites, which typically do not have the funds to pay for such services.

Although many may see these new rules as the end of Internet neutrality, current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote a defense of the new rules in a blog post shortly after their release. Wheeler argues that the new regulations would lead to “the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010.” He further emphasized the FCC’s ability, under the proposed rules, to prevent “commercially unreasonable” activity.

If passed, the new regulations would again promote transparency, prohibit the blocking of legal content, and prevent ISPs from acting in a commercially unreasonable way. In a second blog post published on April 29, Wheeler further defended the new NPRM, arguing that people still misunderstand the rules and the FCC’s commitment to an open internet. In the blog post, he provides further explanation as to what would be considered not “commercially reasonable.” Such practices include anything that may harm consumers or competition, provide favorable traffic to a company affiliated with the provider, and curbing free speech or civic engagement.

Wheeler contends that the transparency rule will allow the FCC to monitor any abuse, and openly stated that “degrading service in order to create a new ‘fast lane’ would be shut down.” He went on to say that he and the FCC is keeping all options open and may even be willing to regulate using its Title II authority to ensure openness. However, his reasoning to not do so initially because he wanted the rules to be put in place as soon as possible rather than start a legal battle.

These rules would not allow slowing down speed to one website while speeding it up for another, but it will still give broadband providers the ability to negotiate contracts with companies to provide faster services. While this may not slow down the competition, the mere act of allowing certain websites to load faster may still have significant consequences.

What this Means for the Internet

Speed is clearly an important part of the Internet for consumers, and emerging data may suggest that it is essential for businesses as well. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that the Internet usage has already started to become concentrated around established websites. A paper published in 2010 by Professor Matthew Hindman of George Washington University, found that “the top 300 media sites account for 80 percent of traffic on a typical day, with the top 10 sites receiving 30 percent of all news visits.” The new FCC rules, may further contribute to this phenomena, as wealthier companies are able to pay for a better customer experience. Leaving new websites and those without large sums of money stuck with standard loading times.

To understand just how important loading speed is to a website’s success, check out this infographic created by KISS Metrics.

Before these new rules are put in place, they must go through internal FCC debate, receive a majority vote from the commissioners, and then go through a comment period where companies and individuals can provide their opinions. If approved by the FCC, the full text of the rules will be released after the FCC’s next meeting on May 15.

The exact implications of the new proposal have yet to be seen, but if approved they would mark a notable deviation from the concept that all web traffic must be treated equally. The rules do provide the FCC with the authority to prevent unfair blocking and slowing of content, but understanding the extent to which enforcement will occur is not yet possible.

While several potential implications of these new rules remains to be seen, one thing is for sure: ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon stand to make a lot more money.

[The Washington Post] [Wired] [FCC]

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Weigold Ferguson via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Future of the Internet: What the FCC’s Latest Rules Mean For You appeared first on Law Street.

When news of a deal between Netflix and Comcast initially broke, I was stuck clicking the refresh button, waiting impatiently for – ironically enough – my Comcast Internet service to return after a 3-hour hiatus.

While I had the misfortune of having to deal with slow to nonexistent Internet service, that will no longer be the case for Comcast subscribers streaming movies and TV shows from Netflix.

Addressing recent reports of declining streaming quality and performance, Netflix, whose content makes up 32 percent of evening Internet traffic in North America, has agreed to pay Comcast, the nation’s largest Internet provider, for direct access to its systems. Although specific terms of the deal were not disclosed, Netflix is essentially paying the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to ensure faster streaming.

In previous years, Cogent, a multinational third party content distributor, played the role of middle-man between Comcast and Netflix. With this new deal, Cogent has been removed from the equation, effectively simplifying the digital route from Netflix’s servers to our laptop screens and allowing for faster and higher quality streaming of popular shows like House of Cards.

Although Netflix has called the agreement “mutually beneficial,” there has been controversy regarding potential implications of such a deal.

One concern, according to Elise Hu of NPR, is that “paying for access could become a norm that could stifle opportunities for startup Internet services.” While more established companies could probably afford to pay access fees, such an environment could be prohibitive to newer businesses looking to make a name for themselves.

“We now have an Internet service provider telling content providers that the only way its service can work is if you pay an extra fee,” Michael Weinberg, vice president of the digital advocacy group Public Knowledge, told USA Today. “The Internet service provider is injecting itself into the relationship between Netflix and its customers,” he added.

While some believe this deal is yet another example of the insatiable greed of corporate giants like Comcast, others suggest intentions are far less sinister.

Mashable writer Lance Ulanoff insists the Comcast-Netflix deal is just business as usual. According to Ulanoff, the deal is far from the first of its kind. “Comcast has an entire business devoted to ‘wholesale dedicated IP transit,’ which means it will sell this kind of access to anyone that wants to purchase it,” he said. “Netflix’s deal with Comcast is simply the first completed one we’ve heard about. Verizon and T-Mobile are also working on similar non-transit or interconnect deals. It’s standard operating procedure, but not one that consumers know much about, which is one of the reasons there’s so much confusion,” he continued.

As Ulanoff points outs, direct access to Comcast’s systems is not exclusively available to Netflix. Any business can purchase it – for the right price, of course. In fact, Ulanoff suggests other companies are likely already following suit and buying direct access to Comcast’s networks. If so, then why haven’t we heard of any more deals? Ulanoff says such deals are seldom publicized; the deal with Netflix seems to be a rare exception. Although faster Comcast service is, in theory, fair game for all, the scales are clearly tipping against less established companies who simply cannot afford the price tag.

The Comcast-Netflix deal comes only a few months after the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Verizon, which owns Comcast, and effectively struck down the FCC’s net-neutrality rules. In essence, net-neutrality regulations “would have required Internet service providers to treat all online traffic equally, rather than giving preference to companies willing to pay extra fees for faster service.”

With net-neutrality defeated for the time being (the FCC is drafting new proposals), ISPs like Verizon/Comcast, and AT&T could potentially be free to charge higher rates for “preferred treatment.” When all is said and done, those expenses for online companies like Netflix and Google’s Youtube could ultimately come out of our pockets.

Although future implications remain unclear, the absence of net-neutrality and the partnership of content and service providers set a potentially dangerous precedent. Still, as paying Comcast customers, we really don’t have a whole lot to complain about at this point. Sure, this deal could make things more complicated in the long-term. But on the bright side, customers shouldn’t see any price increases for their service, at least for the time being. So kick back, grab an adult beverage, and drown out any worries about the absence of net-neutrality regulations with a five-hour Netflix binge session.

[Mashable] [USA Today] [NPR] [Bloomberg]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [rachellynnae via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Comcast-Netflix Deal: Should We Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, Aereo requested that a federal court in Manhattan rule that its business offers legal services. The gist of Aereo, founded in New York, is to transmit local TV broadcasting to pai subscribers of the service over the internet. As a Comcast customer who’s consistently unsatisfied with my service features to monthly payment ratio, I can envision the untapped market that Aereo is attempting to reach. Consumers still want their daily intake of local news, and occasionally some Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal, but don’t want to be obligated to pay $80 a month for additional channels that their schedule doesn’t permit them to enjoy.

The service is $8 per month and enables customers who don’t want to pay ridiculous amounts for cable television to access local broadcasting.  Broadcasters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to chime in and voice their perspective on Aereo’s services. This is long overdue as Aereo has already been subjected to suits in New York, Boston, and now Utah by major broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Broadcasters argue that their copyrights are being violated because Aereo is taking their signals without their permission and showcasing them to online viewers. Conversely, Aereo points out that it is already legal for viewers to use their own antennas and pick up local tv broadcasts. Additionally, viewers can legally record these broadcasts and replay them at a later time. The Aereo method is to rent out tiny antennas, capture free content in the public airwaves, and stream the content to your internet-enabled devices. So essentially, Aereo only utilizes tools that are legal, making broadcasters throughout the nation cause an uproar in our judicial system because the service has found a way to circumvent their licensing fees.

Federal courts in New York and Boston have allowed Aereo to continue to operate throughout the pending lawsuits, noting that broadcasters have not shown a high probability of winning their cases to warrant an injunction. The service launched a year ago, and there are already (approximately) 90,000-135,000 subscribers of the Aereo service in New York alone.

There is no copyright infringement here, ABC. That’s why injunctions have been denied, and the service has been upheld in different locales for over a year now. The real reason that the broadcasters are experiencing mood-changing-panty-bunching is because Aereo is threatening to interrupt the television system that brings them billions of dollars each year. Cable companies, such as Comcast  (I HATE YOU, COMCAST!), charge us a shit-ton to view local broadcasting, such as NBC and ABC, because they pay these broadcasters billions in retransmission fees to include their shows in subscriptions. And what does Aereo pay? Nothing.

Perhaps this is why Comcast was so eager to haggle with me when I threatened to cancel my service a few weeks ago. Makes sense.  If cable companies don’t begin offering better prices, sooner rather than later Netflix, Apple TV, and now Aereo will replace them faster than DVD players won over VCR owners. And I’ll be the first to go.

I either need to cancel my service, get a hanger and try to reel in some news stations for myself or practice what I preach and join Aereo when it arrives in D.C.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Pablo Menezo via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kicking Broadcast and Taking Names: The Aereo Method appeared first on Law Street.