Major internet companies are joining a day of action to protest the Federal Communication Commission and its planned decision to eliminate Obama-era net neutrality regulations.

Amazon, Etsy, and Kickstarter are just some of the 52 companies and organizations that are participating in this internet-wide event on July 12. It’s being hosted by advocacy groups Fight for the Future, Freepress Action Fund, and Demand Progress. Other notable participants include Vimeo, Reddit, and Mozilla, creator of the Firefox Web Browser.

Not much information is available on what will exactly happen on the day of the protest on the event’s site, only that more details will be sent out to participants who join the mailing list as the day approaches. However, the website does promise to “make it easy for your followers / visitors to take action” in the protest.

Net neutrality is the idea that internet providers should treat all online traffic equally. Current FCC policy (Title II of the Telecommunications Act) regulates broadband providers to ensure that indiscriminate services are being provided to the public at large. In other words, the FCC is currently making sure that your Netflix streams are not being slowed down because your provider has a deal with Hulu.

President Donald Trump’s newly appointed FCC chair, Ajit Pai, promised last year to take a “weed whacker” to the internet regulations set up during Obama Administration. Pai, along with the rest of the FCC’s Republican majority, said in the agency’s open meeting that the current rules stifle creativity and prevent internet providers from trying innovative ways to make money in a digital world.

Member companies of the Internet and Television Association have stated that they support the idea of net neutrality, but would  prefer the federal government not be the body that enforces it. But companies that are actually based online have a much different opinion on the matter.

“Net neutrality made it possible for Vimeo, along with countless other startups, to innovate and thrive,” said Michael Cheah, general counsel of Vimeo, in a statement. “The FCC’s proposed rollback of the 2015 open internet rules threatens to impede that innovation and allow a handful of incumbent ISPs to determine winners and losers.”

This is not the first time internet companies have chosen to stand up to threats against net neutrality. Google, Netflix, and Twitter protested in similar fashion back in 2014 in support of reclassifying broadband services under Title II regulations. Since then, the rules have faced many challenges in court but have yet to be overturned.

As for Pai, this will be the second large-scale act of protest his commission will face this year. Comedian, and host of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver encouraged his viewers in May to comment on the FCC proposal that would dismantle Title II regulations. The resulting traffic crashed the commission’s site.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amazon, Etsy, and Kickstarter Headline Net Neutrality Protest appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration continues its efforts to undo much of the regulation put in place during President Barack Obama’s term in office, the FCC’s efforts to peel back net neutrality rules will be particularly controversial, as the issue has sparked fierce debate for several years. While much of the regulatory rollback happened quickly using the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows for expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president, the net neutrality rules will take quite a bit more time. In fact, this is just the latest development in a regulatory dispute that has been going on for nearly 10 years. Read on to see why this is such a contentious issue, what the proposed regulations would do, and what we can expect in the weeks and years ahead.

Quick Refresher: What is Net Neutrality?

While many people have heard the term network neutrality, understanding of it tends to vary widely. That may be because net neutrality is more of a general concept than a set of clear rules. The principle behind it is the idea that all online content should be treated equally and that no internet provider should be able to discriminate or block content regardless of the source or type. Most people support net neutrality, or at least the general concept behind it, but disagree on what needs to be done to ensure that networks are designed in a way that lives up to that principle. That disagreement is what brings us to the current debate over internet regulations. Some advocates argue that regulations blocking internet providers from discriminating against or privileging certain content or sources are necessary to protect a free and open internet. Opponents argue that absent these regulations we still wouldn’t have a problem with content discrimination and we should have as few regulations as possible to allow for internet investment and innovation.

The two major categories of groups involved in these debates are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content companies. Internet service providers are the companies that sell access to the internet, like Timer Warner Cable, Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T. Content companies are the businesses that create and distribute the things you find online–notable examples of these include Netflix, Google, and Facebook, but every website or online service is essentially a content company. The three core priorities for net neutrality regulation have been to prohibit blocking, slowing, and the paid prioritization of a source or type of content as it makes its way through the network to consumers.

While many agree that blocking and slowing shouldn’t be allowed, the issue of paid prioritization is one that tends to have more gray areas. This debate manifests itself in the context of internet fast lanes, where companies can pay up to ensure that consumers can download their services as quickly as possible, giving them a potential edge over the competition. For more on the fast lane debate, check out this explainer.

What Were the Old Rules?

Before we can get into the FCC’s proposal to peel back net neutrality rules, let’s take a quick look at how we got here. While Columbia Law professor Tim Wu coined the phrase in a journal article published in 2003, the regulatory debate didn’t really come into play until 2008, when it was revealed that Comcast was blocking or slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. After that dispute, the FCC tried to intervene to prohibit companies from slowing or blocking traffic, but a federal appeals court ruled against the commission, concluding that it had limited authority over internet traffic. Two years later, the FCC issued an Open Internet Order establishing rules that sought to ensure neutrality with a focus on blocking, discrimination, and transparency. However, Verizon sued the commission, and in 2014, a federal appeals court struck down the bulk of those rules and concluded that under the internet’s current classification, the FCC didn’t have the authority to prevent ISPs from slowing or blocking web traffic.

At the center of the issue was the FCC’s initial decision to classify the internet as an information service and not a telecommunication service. The Communications Act of 1934–which created the FCC and was most recently overhauled in 1996–gives the commission varying authority when regulating these different services. The courts ruled that under the initial classification of the internet, the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit the blocking or slowing of web traffic. Following those decisions, the FCC decided in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, which gave it much greater authority to regulate. It then imposed regulations that were similar in principle to the original rules, but were upheld initially by the courts due to the new classification. This change, classifying the internet as a public utility, allowed the FCC to regulate providers as common carriers to block any form of traffic discrimination.

The FCC’s New Plan

Although the Obama-era FCC, led by former Chairman Tom Wheeler, went through the process of reclassifying the internet to allow for stricter regulation, that effort will likely be reversed under President Trump. The 2015 rules were adopted after a 3-2 vote by the FCC and one of the commissioners voting against the measure, Ajit Pai, now holds the reins as the commission’s chairman and has since vowed to undo those regulations.

Re-Reclassification

The FCC recently took the first step in its efforts to remove the utility-style regulations placed on the internet. While the whole process will likely take some time and face several lawsuits along the way, much like the original reclassification process, most expect Commissioner Pai to be successful. The process for creating new regulations is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a notice and comment period for all proposed changes. This means that the FCC is required to notify the public that a rule change is coming, then seek public comments and take those into consideration as it develops the final rule. The FCC issued its notice of proposed rulemaking on May 18 to begin that process. While we do not know exactly what the new rule will involve–after the comment period, the final rule will be drafted, debated, and then adopted–the public notice outlined the commission’s goals going forward.

First, the rule would reclassify the internet to remove Title II regulations from internet service providers, moving back to what proponents call a light-touch framework under Title I. It would also reclassify mobile broadband, provided companies like AT&T and Verizon, as a private mobile service, which currently faces the same common carrier regulations after the 2015 rule change. Finally, the notice also asks for comments on what are known as the FCC’s bright-line rules, which are the central components of past net neutrality regulations. Specifically, these rules prevent providers from blocking, slowing, and creating paid prioritization deals with content companies. Finally, the proposal would remove a conduct standard created under the Title II regulations that applied to all ISPs.

While blocking and slowing have been important issues in the past, the possibility for paid prioritization, or internet fast lanes, under the new rules could have the biggest effect on the direction of the internet. This form of prioritization would allow large content companies like Netflix and YouTube to negotiate deals with ISPs to ensure that their content is delivered to consumers faster than other services. While competitors may be able to strike up their own deals in an effort to level the playing field, new companies may not have sufficient money in the early stages of development to secure these deals, making established companies more difficult to challenge.

In the video below, Chairman Pai outlines his goals for the new regulation:

FCC Chairman Pai argues that these rules will spur investment, leading ISPs to expand and improve upon their networks. He says that the utility-style regulation under the current rules places too much of a regulatory burden on internet companies making additional investment less attractive. In Pai’s view, investing in innovation and infrastructure is one of the most important issues facing the internet today, so he prefers fewer regulations in an effort to spur that investment.

Opponents argue that net neutrality is core to the innovative nature of the internet, and note that several companies have said that such rules would have little impact on investment decisions. Moreover, they note that given the ubiquity of the internet in our personal and professional lives, we should start to look at it like another utility company. Instead of loosening regulations to allow companies to innovate, we should view these networks like we do the electrical grid–as essential to our daily lives–and regulate them as such. The video below outlines the rationale for viewing ISPs as utilities:

Conclusion

Internet rules have been one of the most controversial regulatory issues in the last several years and the FCC’s recent efforts to change them once again mean that they will continue to be a hot-button issue in years to come. While the concept of net neutrality is quite broad, most of the current discussion focuses on whether we need rules to prevent blocking, slowing, and paid prioritization of online content–the so-called bright-line rules.

Amidst these larger debates are more technocratic ones relating to the extent of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority to regulate the internet. When previous attempts to enact bright-line rules to prevent discrimination against any kind of traffic have failed when challenged in the courts, the FCC under President Obama decided to reclassify the internet in order to make those rules with the necessary authority. While the Title II, utility-style regulations were initially upheld by the court, it’s unclear whether that question will be answered now that the new chairman is already working to undo past efforts. Given the level of interest across the political spectrum and from private citizens and large corporations alike, more court cases are likely to follow. But many still expect these changes, once they have worked their way through they regulatory process, to be upheld in the courts. Given the number of changes to internet regulation in the past several years, many observers have called on Congress to settle the issue once and for all. While the future of net neutrality remains uncertain, we can expect the ensuing regulatory debates to continue to ignite the vigorous public debate.

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 Behind the FCC’s New Plan to Peel Back the Net Neutrality Rules appeared first on Law Street.

“Hi this is Sara, I’m calling with important information about your credit card. Nothing is wrong, but you are eligible for a great opportunity. Stay on the line or press one for more information.”

If you have a working telephone, you have probably received a call just like this or one of a similar nature. Assuming you didn’t hang up immediately, you pressed one to try and speak with a human to get your number taken off their list. And you most likely were met with a “click” signaling that they had hung up on you, rather than taken you off their list.

Free cruises, important information about your credit card, debt collection, calls from the IRS, warnings about a computer virus, and a whole litany of other enticing robocalls are increasing–despite their illegality. In April alone there were 2.5 billion robocalls placed in the U.S.

The FCC defines robocalls as unsolicited, pre-recorded messages that are placed without written or verbal consent. Exceptions are information about flight changes and school closings.

So, if they’re illegal, why are they still happening? The first reason is the ease with which they can be placed. According to the FCC, new technology allows these scammers to use inexpensive autodial technology to call hundreds of numbers a minute, whether they are on the Do Not Call list or not.

Do you want to know how to stop unwanted calls? Read these #FCCtips to #StopRobocalls: https://t.co/kkwwqxlOVK #ProtectingConsumers

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

Even though robocalls are difficult to stop, a new string of lawsuits are aiming to curb this problem.

In January, the FTC filed two suits, FTC v. Justin Ramsey, et al. and FTC v. Aaron Michael Jones, et al., against two of the biggest perpetrators of robocalling. Many of the defendants have agreed to a settlement that includes a permanent ban on robocalling in the future, an agreement to never help others to place robocalls, a promise to stop calling numbers listed on the Do Not Call list, and paying a settlement to the FTC of over $500,000. 

In 2012 Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes filed a class-action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, claiming that the company illegally contacted them and others on multiple occasions. The settlement resulted in Caribbean Cruise Line agreeing to pay up to $500 a call to those who received calls between August 2011 to August 2012.

Unfortunately, these fines and lawsuits are hardly threatening. One scam that pretended to be the IRS, was able to swindle $26.5 million from about 5,000 people, according to the (real) IRS. Telephone companies are working on new technology to block robocalls. But while those are still experiencing some hiccups, there are some preventative measures you can take.

First, don’t answer unfamiliar calls. If someone really wants to get in contact with you, they can leave a message. Most robocallers are testing your number to see if there is a real person at the other end. Not answering prevents them from getting that knowledge. Once they do know there is someone there, that number gets passed around to more and more robocall centers.

If you get any calls like this, submit the suspicious numbers to the FTC at this link: https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx. Furthermore, you should put yourself on the Do Not Call list. Being on this list won’t prevent all calls from scammers, but it will cut down on some. Here is the link: https://www.donotcall.gov/

You can register for the National Do-Not-Call list at https://t.co/ZeZdjVjejK, by phone 1-888-382-1222 or TTY 1-866-290-4236. #FCC101

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

 Finally, never give your bank account information or credit card information over the phone to a stranger. No matter what scare tactics they use (telling you you’re being sued for fraud, telling you your computer has a virus, etc.) do not give them your personal information. It’s always best to hang up and verify that what they are saying is true.

For the near future, it looks like we will be plagued by robocalls. But if you follow these steps, you’re on the way to stopping them.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem with Robocalling–And How to Stop It appeared first on Law Street.

Could a glitch in T-Mobile service be responsible for the death of an infant? A new lawsuit places blame on the mobile company after a babysitter was unable to reach 911 due to a glitch in T-Mobile technology in Dallas.

The lawsuit, obtained by CNN, alleges that Brandon Alex, a 6-month-old infant, passed away in March after he rolled off the bed. It also claims that his babysitter, Michelle Cohen, was placed on hold multiple times after calling 911. The location of the apartment also allegedly did not appear in Dallas’ 911 call center, leaving Cohen without EMT support and no ability to transport the child to a hospital.

The glitch that caused the call center to be unreachable related to an ongoing problem with “ghost calls“: illegitimate calls that can clog up 911 call centers and force actual callers to remain on hold. In Dallas, this occurred when T-Mobile users placed a 911 call and their phone sent multiple calls to the center, clogging the line while they were unable to reach an operator.

The issue, which is still somewhat of a mystery to officials, has also been blamed for another death in the Dallas area. “Ghost calls” are not a problem unique to Dallas or to T-Mobile, but the company has been under FCC investigation in the past for 911 service outages that plagued its customers. In that case, the company reached a $17.5 million settlement provided that it worked to “strengthen its 911 service procedures” and ensure that it was complying with federal regulations.

After the death of Alex, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings demanded that action be taken by the cell phone company to ensure that the problem was fixed in a swift manner. The company immediately sent executives and engineers to the city to begin investigating the issue.

Public safety of our citizens is my most important priority. I will not be satisfied until this T-Mobile 911 challenge is completely fixed. pic.twitter.com/7LDKYdmRQ1

— Mayor Mike Rawlings (@Mike_Rawlings) March 15, 2017

The lawsuit alleges gross negligence on the part of T-Mobile for ignoring warnings and continuing to use technology apparently incompatible with Dallas’ 911 system.

While the source of the problem continues to remain a mystery, the company has reportedly taken a number of actions to resolve the issue since the March incident.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post T-Mobile is Facing a Lawsuit for the Death of a Child appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, he signed a directive that said for each new regulation, two Obama-era regulations would be revoked; a reverse two-for-one. In his first month and a half as president, Trump and his cabinet have worked at an unprecedented clip to reverse the Obama Administration’s rules. Trump has frozen, suspended, or terminated roughly 90 regulations put in place under Obama, many as a response to opposition from industry leaders and advocates. Here are five rules that Trump has worked to scrap. 

Lead on Federal Lands

As President Barack Obama was leaving office, he issued an order to ban hunters from using lead bullets and anglers from using lead tackle when hunting and fishing on federal lands. The order was designed to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. Days after Trump’s swearing in, the National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a press release, which said the lead ammunition ban imposed a “considerable financial hardship” on hunters and anglers “by forcing them to use more expensive alternatives.” On March 2, Ryan Zinke, the freshly confirmed Secretary of the Interior, revoked Obama’s order.

Consumer Protection

In January, major communications companies–Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and others–signed a petition against an Obama-era rule that required “reasonable measures” to protect consumers’ personal information–Social Security numbers, browsing history, and more– from being stolen by hackers or other actors. The rule would have a “potentially deleterious impact on consumers, competition, and innovation,” the companies wrote. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission issued a stay on the rule.

Clean Water Rule

In the waning days of Obama’s tenure, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers broadened the scope of water sources in the U.S. that are to be protected and regulated. The California Farm Bureau Federation responded that the rule would prove “economically harmful for California agriculture.” The group wrote: “In order to comply with the regulation, farmers and ranchers will become increasingly reliant on attorneys and consultants, making farming the land more difficult and costly.” Last week, Trump issued an executive order to review the law, and to begin the process of rolling it back.

Gun Control

Under an Obama-era regulation, people on disability insurance and Supplementary Security Income would be barred from purchasing guns. The Social Security Administration would be forced to give the personal information of people who qualified as “mentally disabled” to the Department of Justice. This rule was equally opposed by two wildly different groups: the NRA and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both groups said that it broadly paints all people with mental disorders as potentially violent, and therefore unfit to own a gun.

In December, soon after Obama enacted the rule, the NRA issued a statement that said the rule “would stigmatize the entire category of beneficiaries subject to reporting.” Last week, Congress repealed the rule, and Trump signed the repeal.

Emissions Standards

On January 12, the Obama Administration issued an order dictating emissions standards and miles per gallon requirements for automobiles by 2025. Two dozen of the world’s largest automakers–from Toyota to Aston Martin–sent a letter to Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator. The letter said the rule was rushed, and needs a more thorough evaluation to determine if “the future standards are feasible” and “cost-effective.” While the rule has yet to be revoked, the Trump Administration has signaled it would likely reverse the rule as early as this week.

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 Here Are Five Obama-era Regulations Trump Has Worked to Scrap appeared first on Law Street.

Ajit Pai is not a fan of net neutrality. Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump on Monday to chair the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), once said net neutrality would mean “permission-less innovation is a thing of the past.” Net neutrality supporters now worry that Trump’s latest appointee could spell the end for a level playing field on the web.

In February 2015, the FCC enacted new rules to “protect and maintain open, uninhibited access to legal online content without broadband Internet access providers being allowed to block, impair, or establish fast/slow lanes to lawful content.” In essence, internet providers–Comcast and Verizon, for example–could not put a speed limit on certain websites, while fast-tracking others.

Trump is coming for net neutrality. He wants his buddies in big cable and telecom to put the screws to content. This affects us all.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 24, 2017

But Pai, a current FCC commissioner and former lawyer for Verizon, is a vocal and sometimes colorful, opponent of net neutrality. “On the day that the [rules were] adopted, I said that ‘I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,'” Pai said in a speech last month. “Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true.”

Trump has not come down strongly on the issue, though he has criticized President Obama’s regulatory agenda as a whole. The closest Trump has come to voicing his opinion on net neutrality came from this 2014 tweet:

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

If Pai wants to formally roll back net neutrality it will likely take some time, but he could start by directing the FCC to be lax in enforcing the rules. If Pai pursued that route, big internet companies like Google and Netflix could be popular enough–and have enough money–to buffer them against any major changes. In a recent earnings report, Netflix addressed the possibility that net neutrality could be a thing of the past:

“Weakening of U.S. net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable,” the company wrote. But for smaller companies that might not have the same mass appeal, the future is less certain.

Pai is certain to have one ally if he decides to take on the net neutrality law: AT&T. In a congratulatory note posted on their website, the internet behemoth said: “No one is more prepared to reframe the agency to address the needs of this rapidly changing marketplace.”

Some members of Congress are already girding for any changes that might come. In a statement on his Facebook page, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) said if Pai and Trump decide to clamp down on net neutrality, he “will fight them every step of the way.” He added, “Net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time, and the internet should remain the free and open platform that it’s always been. It is critical to our democracy and our economy that it continue to operate this way.”

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 Will the New FCC Chairman Unravel Net Neutrality? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Police Shooting of 13-Year-Old Tyree King

After reports of an armed robbery, a Columbus, Ohio police offer shot and killed 13-year-old Tyree King after police saw him “retrieve a gun from his waistband.” After the shooting, investigators discovered the gun was actually a BB gun with an attached laser sight.

When police were called to the scene, King and two other individuals were demanding money in a crowd of people. Police attempted to speak to them but King and another suspect ran away into an alley where the fatal shooting occurred.

This is incredibly sad. Still, opinions on the matter have certainly been very mixed:

If I pulled any type of gun on a police officer, I would expect to be shot at. Color doesn’t matter when it comes to safety.#TyreeKing

— Daniel Dovel (@danieldovel) September 15, 2016

People have wasted no time blaming #TyreeKing for his own death. He had a BB gun. He was 13. He didn’t have to die. #BlackLivesMatter

— Sam White (@samwhiteout) September 15, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations to ensure an open internet in the U.S. In the wake of this latest victory for web activists and advocates of net neutrality, here are four things to consider as we move forward:

1. Your internet access won’t change, but it could get worse.

The FCC has been operating under stronger regulations from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February 2015–ISPs are now considered public utilities. However, if these regulations were not in place, ISPs would be allowed to manipulate the flow of the internet.

Debate on net neutrality focused on whether it was fair for ISPs to prioritize certain content providers who could pay more, and slow traffic to other content providers. What this meant for the average internet user was potentially higher buffering times on streaming services like Netflix and slower traffic to websites with lower priority. Yikes.

2. AT&T, lover of monopolies and telecommunications, is back at it again

AT&T has been one of the most vocal opponents of the reclassification of ISPs as telecommunication services and the government regulation that accompanies that reclassification. AT&T, among other opponents, claims that this intervention will lead to less innovation and investment.

In reaction to the ruling, AT&T Senior Executive VP David McAtee released a statement claiming, “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.”

But we’ve already seen U.S. v. AT&T in the 1970’s when AT&T was found to be breaking anti-trust laws in its monopolization of local telephone service in the U.S. And then there was the time the company tried to buy T-Mobile but abandoned the effort after a lawsuit was brought by the DOJ’s antitrust division.

Maybe AT&T just doesn’t understand that the U.S. government and its citizens have decided that we oppose the predatory business practices that are made possible with monopolies. But in case nobody has told them; no AT&T, you can’t keep trying to re-monopolize one of the most important services in the world.

3. We still have a long way to go to ensure an open, public internet service

Internet being considered a public utility is a big step. However, while we rejoice in our ability to binge-watch “Game of Thrones” at equal speeds, individuals living in rural and poor communities still face limited internet access.

Internet use in rural areas is at 78 percent, compared to 84 percent in urban and suburban areas. However, not all internet is equal. Oftentimes in rural areas, especially in parts of the south and western U.S., internet is offered at higher prices and lower speeds.

The dialogue around internet use also often disregards the inevitable fact that for poor families, buying computers that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and is not a priority, and often is not possible. The internet cannot truly be considered an open, free, and public service until we address the high prices and differences in speed and quality of internet faced by rural and poor communities throughout the U.S.

4. Don’t be surprised if you see net neutrality in the Supreme Court

In case the comment from AT&T’s David McAtee didn’t tip you off, it is widely suspected that net neutrality will find itself in the Supreme Court soon as AT&T and other providers have expressed intention of appealing the case.

The D.C. Court of Appeals found no merit to the arguments of ISPs in the case decided on Tuesday. Further, the issue has already been looked at in part by SCOTUS. In 2005, SCOTUS decided National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services by essentially saying that since the legislation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was ambiguous, the FCC got to decide how to classify internet service (as a telecommunications service or an information service). The FCC clearly has since decided to classify internet as a telecommunications service. Nevertheless, expect to see net neutrality top headlines in a Supreme Court appeal soon.

But until then, we celebrate this win as one step close in a battle for universal access to the internet, the largest, most empowering, and most accessible information database in the world.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Upholds Net Neutrality: 4 Things You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

In the beginning (way back in the time of rabbit ear televisions) the Federal Communications Commission licensed wireless spectrum to everyone, professionals and amateurs alike. Licensing spectrum prevents overlap and interference between television and radio channels, but there was plenty to go around when broadcast technology was in its infancy, so there was little concern about running out. Networks like ABC and CBS were given spectrum, but so were government agencies like the Department of Defense, which still controls a large portion of radio spectrum. Smaller broadcasters, who operate on a local rather than a national level and primarily in rural areas, were also given spectrum access.

Then technology advanced and the amount of available spectrum is no longer enough to meet the demand. This is primarily driven by the proliferation of smartphones and the growing demand for wireless data. Like land in the Wild West, which was once so prevalent that it could literally be given away, wireless spectrum is now prime real estate. Wireless companies, cell phone carriers, and broadcasters are all eager to get their hands on more of it.

To combat this problem–which with the increasing demand for smartphones and streaming services is going to get worse before it gets better–the FCC proposed an incentive auction, which began at the end of March. The auction is sufficiently complex to warrant going through it step by step, but essentially, broadcasters have too much spectrum and wireless service providers don’t have enough. The FCC is going to act as a middleman to help facilitate the transfer of broadband spectrum from broadcasters to wireless providers to help feed their increasing demand. It is the first time that the FCC has tried an auction of this kind and it has the potential to yield billions of dollars in revenue for the federal government.

Everyone agrees that cell phone companies need spectrum and it is possible to free up some of it (potentially a lot of it) by consolidating broadcast television stations and eliminating some of them altogether. But should we be favoring cell phone companies at the expense of broadcast television or are their hidden, non-monetary costs involved in incentivizing the sale of spectrum?

Going Dutch: How Does The Spectrum Auction Work?

The spectrum auction is a very complicated process that has already been in the works for several years now and will continue to play out in various stages over the next several months. This video does a good job of explaining the basics of the process:

So step one is the “Dutch auction,” or reverse auction, between the various television broadcasters and the FCC. The FCC has offered to buy spectrum (the bidding started at the end of March) and broadcasters will then offer to sell if they are interested. The broadcasters are therefore the ones setting the initial price and bidding each other down until they reach a floor, then the FCC buys the spectrum. This part of the process is voluntary so broadcasters can choose not to participate if they wish to keep all or part of their allotted spectrum.

In the second step of the process, the FCC takes all of the spectrum that it purchased from the broadcasters and sells it to wireless service providers and cell phone companies. This step is a traditional or forward auction, so the wireless companies will be bidding against each other, driving up the price. Wireless companies desperately need the spectrum so the FCC anticipates recuperating the cost of running the auction and the cost of the third step in the process. If there is any extra, that money will go toward funding other government projects.

The third step of the process is, however, mandatory. Referred to as “repacking,” this involves the FCC taking the remaining spectrum and reassigning it to the broadcasters in order to consolidate them to a tighter range of frequencies. A broadcaster, large or small, will be unable to avoid this process and since the auction just started, we really have no idea how many of them will be affected. Essentially, the FCC will have carte blanche to consolidate broadcast channels to make the most efficient use of the remaining spectrum.

Possible Consequences

The video below does a good job addressing some of the collateral concerns around the FCC’s spectrum auction. One of the key implications of this spectrum auction is how its success or failure will determine how we try to allocate spectrum going forward.

The incentive auction is a creative–if very complicated–solution to the problem of spectrum shortage for cellphone companies. By facilitating this exchange the FCC is allowing us to watch Netflix on our iPhones and maybe even make a profit for the government while doing so. It certainly is an attractive option and is much better than the alternative of spectrum shortages that would have unpleasant effects. Not just for entertainment but, as more users adopt these devices, on businesses and commercial activity as well. A first world problem would actually become a very real problem with heavy usage on an already stressed system, particularly in cities and congested areas.

But there are some caveats to consider. The initial steps in the auction process are voluntary–broadcasters and wireless companies are both choosing to participate (or not) in the auctions. But the third step, the repacking process, will happen to broadcasters whether they like it or not. Even those who chose not to participate in the auction will be affected and may be forced to move their broadcasting to different channels.

Repacking

This video goes into detail about this repacking process.

Aside from the logistical concerns that this is going to create for the broadcasters, repacking could have a huge impact on many small local stations and even private citizens. For example, let’s say that you are a private citizen who would like to start his or her own television broadcast to promote your political or social views. Right now the spectrum may be available to you and you can do that on your own, or with a small group of like-minded citizens. Alternative media sources, ranging from the real and credible Democracy Now! to the fictional and surprisingly relevant PTV on “Family Guy,” use this method to enter the marketplace of ideas. This is also particularly important for citizens who may not have easy access to cable or the internet and rely on broadcast television for their news.

Repacking the broadcasters will likely result in smaller broadcasters being winnowed out. The costs of switching to another channel may be too high and even if there is a possibility of reimbursement, those hurdles may be too complicated for some broadcasters to navigate. Large broadcasters will be able to have teams working on their repacking transition and may also have additional access to the FCC to advocate to make the process go as smoothly as possible. Smaller broadcasters do not have those luxuries.

These changes may also push broadcasters who survive the repacking process to cut back on broadcasting in certain areas if the cost of building infrastructure there doesn’t make economic sense. For example, if a broadcaster is changed from channel 35 to channel 19 and it has to build new towers, it may choose to only do so in areas where it gets the most viewership. Large numbers of people could be left in the dark by that broadcaster and, if the situation is the same for multiple companies, they could be left out altogether. This will disproportionately impact rural Americans. It will also impact people without smartphones or broadband internet, which tend to be poor and elderly Americans, making it more difficult for them to access media, particularly news.

So what exactly are we incentivizing? If broadcast television is going extinct anyway, perhaps not much. The FCC may just be speeding up the natural process of eliminating broadcast television, starting with smaller stations that sell all of their spectrum or get driven out of the market by the high cost of transitioning. The number of broadcast viewers actually increased last year to 13.1 million, possibly because viewers wanted to get rid of their cable subscriptions or gain access to local television stations. However, that was a relatively small change in the context of the overall viewership numbers and the growth was nowhere near the explosion in smartphone growth. And if all communities gain access to the internet, broadcast television may no longer be necessary as online media takes its place.

If technology has evolved to the point where broadcast television is going to die out then it may not be such a bad thing for the federal government to make a profit while facilitating that process. It is the same sort of argument advanced by those who want to eliminate coal mining. Yes, a percentage of the population, one that is already at a disadvantage, will be harmed. But their industry is already dying and they are such a small percentage of the population that we are willing to let that harm happen in furtherance of faster progress. Buggy-whip salesmen were harmed by the invention of the car but we needed cars. In the end, their harm, however severe, may be a small price for society to pay.

Conclusion

The FCC Spectrum Auction is not an issue that is going to be resolved anytime soon. The original plans for it started in 2012 and changes to the system could take several years after the auction closes. It’s a complicated concept and like most plans it is unlikely to survive implementation unscathed. Yet even if it succeeds and yields a profit, it may ultimately fail by working too well–by opening up too much spectrum to cell phone carriers at the expense of smaller broadcasters and the populations that rely on them. While it’s hard to guess exactly what exactly the auction and subsequent repacking will mean for broadcast networks, the FCC’s plan marks a bold step that will shape future efforts to redistribute wireless spectrum.

Resources

Primary

FCC.gov: Wireless

FCC.gov: Incentive Auctions

Additional

TheVerge: How the FCC’s Massive Airwaves Auction Will Change America—and Your Phone Service

Chicago Tribune: Spectrum Auction Underway to Shift Airwaves from TV as Mobile Demand Soars

Recode: Making Sense of the Incredibly Confusing Spectrum Auction

Forbes: FCC’s Tangled Web

Fortune: Blackstone FCC Airwaves Auction

Fortune: FCC Incentive Auction

Wall Street Journal: FCC Releases List of Bidders For Wireless Airwaves Auction

TechTimes: FCC Auction Starts Strong, Reaches Spectrum Goal

Bloomberg: Wireless Fever Cools Before FCC Auction With No Dark Horse Seen 

Variety.com: TV Spectrum Auction FCC

IBTimes: Binge What? FCC Spectrum Auction

PBS: FCC Auction FAQs

Corporation For Public Broadcasting: Spectrum

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post FCC’s Spectrum Auction: What it is and Why it Matters appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, November 7, Donald Trump will host Saturday Night Live, which in addition to being particularly entertaining television could lead to free airtime for his opponents.

Dating all the way back to the Communications Act of 1934, broadcast channels that feature a candidate for federal office provide “equal opportunity” to opposing candidates who request their airtime. While there are several notable exceptions for news programming, this rule basically entitles Trump’s opposition to request free airtime on all NBC affiliates that air Saturday Night Live.

Because Trump is hosting the show, he will probably get somewhere between 20 to 25 minutes of airtime, which means that if his opponents submit free time requests NBC affiliate stations could be on the hook for a lot of free airtime. But this is also where several questions emerge. Equal opportunity only applies to “qualified candidates,” which according to the rule must have filed all of the necessary paperwork and made a “substantial showing” of his or her intention to seek the nomination. Any Republican who can prove that he or she is a qualified candidate may be entitled to free airtime.

The rule applies to all NBC affiliates that air SNL but not the network itself, meaning that individual stations would be charged with negotiating equal opportunity airtime. So far, most campaigns have focused on early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which means that candidates’ requests may not meet the requirements in all states. Requests also need to be made within a week of Trump’s SNL appearance, but if airtime is granted candidates are entitled to do whatever they want with it.

While news programming is exempt from the equal opportunity rule, Saturday Night Live is subject to equal opportunity requests. In fact, this came up recently when Hillary Clinton made an impromptu appearance on the show. Her brief part in a sketch caused the New York NBC affiliate to notify the FCC that Clinton appeared on air without charge for three minutes and 12 seconds. As a result, Clinton’s opponents in the Democratic party were entitled to make equal opportunity claims, and one of them did. Lawrence Lessig, who at the time was running for president as a Democrat (but no longer is) asked 47 NBC affiliates for the same amount of airtime that they afforded to Clinton.

This is not the first time an equal opportunity issue has come up with a Saturday Night Live host. As Politifact points out, the show had Al Sharpton host back in 2003, which sparked concern over how the network would deal with equal opportunity claims. Senator Joe Lieberman, one of Sharpton’s opponents for the Democratic nomination, made a request and ended up getting free time–he was given a 28-minute segment to air a town hall discussion on NBC affiliates in California and Missouri. But based on the show’s opening scene in 2003, it’s pretty clear that they knew what they were doing when they invited Sharpton to host. Check out the video:

The rule’s original intention makes sense when you consider the media landscape several decades ago–broadcast television had much less competition than it does today and networks had significant of influence over the information people were exposed to. This rule essentially prevented networks from special treatment to specific candidates. But now, the idea of equal opportunity may seem a little weird. With the rise of cable and the internet, the media is much more fragmented than it was in the past, yet this rule only applies to broadcast media.

As Phillip Bump at the Washington Post points out, if Trump’s episode of SNL was only shown online, rather than broadcast over public airwaves, the rule would not apply. Some argue that equal opportunity is simply outdated and that the FCC should get rid of it. After all, the Federal Elections Commission is still able to punish media outlets if it considers their treatment of was candidate unfair. But barring a significant reinterpretation of the law, it looks like it will continue to be an option for candidates during this election cycle.

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 Trump’s SNL Appearance Could Lead to Free Airtime for GOP Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is officially reducing a big burden for American prisoners–the huge cost of prison phone calls. On October 22, the FCC voted to lower the cost of jail and prison phone calls in both and state and federal prisons.

The FCC explained its motivation for changing the rules, disclosing:

Acting on its mandate to ensure that rates for phone calls are just, reasonable and fair for all Americans, the FCC is working to rein in the excessive rates and egregious fees on phone calls paid by some of society’s most vulnerable: people trying to stay in touch with loved ones serving time in jail or prison.

In most cases, inmates’ telephone calling options are limited to one or more of the following calling types: collect, debit account or pre-paid account. Also, incarcerated persons typically may not choose their long distance service provider. These factors, combined with unrestricted long-distance rates, often result in unreasonably high phone bills for inmates’ families.

Currently, phone calls in some prisons can run as high as $14 per minute. Traditionally, prisons or jails have entered into contracts with companies that provide the phone services. Those companies get a chunk of the charges, so there’s motivation to keep upping the prices.

But under the new regulations, phone calls from inmates will be as low as 11 cents per minute in some prisons. Fifteen minute calls, both in state and out state will be capped at $1.65. Additionally, certain service charges will be capped. For example, service charges on Telecommunications Relay Service equipment–equipment that allows deaf or otherwise disabled inmates to make calls–will be prohibited. Flat rate calls will also be eliminated. These new regulations will go into effect in 2016.

These high rates were a hugely prohibitive cost for families who have loved ones in prison. It can break families apart–more than 2.7 million American children have an incarcerated parent. Moreover, it could be dangerous to cut prisoners off from their families. Evidence shows that allowing prisoners to talk to their loved ones can reduce recidivism rates. Cheryl Leanza, an advocate for reforming prison phone policies explained to the Sacramento Bee, “Society and communities are safer because they’re not going to re-offend if they stay connected with a network that can check in with them and make sure they’re alright.” The FCC did a good thing this week by making sure that families can check in with their loved ones–regardless of legal status.

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 FCC Lowers the Cost of Prison Phone Calls 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.

I am wearing all black as I write this because it might as well be a funeral.

Sadly, Aereo is dead. The startup–which I had once believed to be a potential comeback kid has reached the end of its long and arduous battle; however, in a desperate attempt to retain hope, I am consoled by the revolutionary impact the small company seems to have made on the television industry. Aereo, a service provider that utilized small antennas to transmit broadcast signals to individual subscribers, filed for bankruptcy protection last week. Founder and CEO Chet Kanojia wrote in a letter to consumers:

We have traveled a long and challenging road. We stayed true to our mission and we believe that we have played a significant part in pushing the conversation forward, helping force positive change in the industry for consumers.

Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright.

Shortly after the decision was released, Aereofiled for a cable license necessary for continued operation; however, the “Plan B” approach did not prove to be lucrative as the recent bankruptcy decision is Aereo’s best hope for maximizing its remaining value. With the filing for Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, Aereo can put its legal woes behind it and sell any remaining assets that exist in the company. Lawton Bloom of Argus was appointed to serve as Chief Restructuring Officer.

William Baldiga, Aereo’s lawyer, announced that an auction of assets should occur on February 17, 2015, pending an approval hearing. “The company is now highly focused on devoting all its energy and limited resources to a transaction that will produce the highest and best return for our creditors and shareholders.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane granted various requests submitted by Aereo to allow what is left of the company to remain active during the liquidation period. Aereo has fired 75 of its 88 employees and greatly decreased remaining employee pay. Kanojia’s salary was cut in half.

While Aereo barely gained footing before its huge legal battle, the service forced major broadcasters to play offense instead of defense, recognizing a definitive hole in the cable market. Cord-cutters need programming too and Aereo may be the catalyst for a new business trend. Current broadcsting companies have already begun recognizing the internet television demand. CBS recently announced CBS All Access, a streaming service available by subscription for a $5.99 monthly fee. HBO also recently announced a streaming service independent of a cable subscription.

Although only existing content companies are dominating internet television by way of new services, it’s only a matter of time before new startups, supported by cloud technology, appear. The FCC is bracing itself for such an occurance. Last month, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a new rule that would allow internet television providers to license programming in an identical way to current cable and satellite companies. In an official FCC Blog post, Wheeler wrote:

Aereo recently visited the Commission to make exactly this point – that updating the definition of an MVPD [multichannel video programming distributor] will provide consumers with new choices. And perhaps consumers will not be forced to pay for channels they never watch.

So, although we are in a state of bereavement, heartbroken to see Aereo go, it will forever be the internet TV martyr that paved the way for the future of subscription streaming services.

Thank you, Aereo, for such innovation. You will be missed.

The post Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy 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.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his new ‘net neutrality’ proposals yesterday, which essentially approve a fast lane option for companies that want to charge a higher rate for those wishing for a faster Internet based on content. (See our previous coverage on what recent developments mean for you and for startups.) Facing intense opposition, Wheeler needs to show these opposing groups that his proposed rules are part of the principle of net neutrality in the first place: that all content on the Internet will remain free in value.

The problem? The rules gut that principle entirely.

The very fact that allowing certain companies to fast-track their content violates the principle of a fair, open Internet. Wheeler’s justification for allowing the rules to go forward is that there would be regulations watching out for Internet Service Providers intentionally slowing down traffic. While this is also part of a net neutrality ideology, the rules ignore the rampant discrimination inherent in an “Internet fast lane.”

Yesterday’s FCC vote to open the proposals to public comment went largely along party lines. The three Democratic commissioners voted in favor of public comment, while the Republican commissioners voted for only Congressional comment instead and find no legal basis for the Commission to allow the public to weigh in. July 15 is the deadline for initial public comments, followed by the September 10 deadline for responses to those comments.

While this was a partisan vote down the line, the commissioners expressed hesitation for how the process is moving no matter the decision for public comment. “I believe the process that got us to this rule making today is flawed. I would have preferred a delay. I think we moved too fast, to be fair,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the commissioners who voted in favor. Michael O’Reilly, a commissioner who voted against public comment, said, “I have serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope of regulation.”

Nevertheless, the FCC is now open to public comments regarding this new proposal. You can send your comment here: http://www.fcc.gov/comments.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Gerd Altmann via Pixabay].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Last Gasps of Net Neutrality 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.

The difference between believing that the internet is vital to life and just accepting it as a useful tool is the difference between having government regulation and allowing the market to regulate it on its own. Nobody supports unwarranted government interference, but it would be unwise to think government involvement for the purpose of regulating industries is unnecessary. This brings me to the topic of Open Internet, also known as net neutrality.

In January, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia changed several rules established in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Court’s decision rolled back the rules that disabled the blocking of legal content and enforced nondiscriminatory practices, but upheld the rule that enforced transparency. The Court’s decision terrified many people and left us wondering how open and free the internet will remain. Recently, an official document was leaked that may give insight to exactly where the FCC is headed in regulating net neutrality, and unfortunately the odds look like they’re in favor of major Internet Service Providers.

The leaked FCC documents show that the Commission is considering allowing major Internet Service Providers to give large, well known companies the option of paying for faster lanes through which their videos and other content travel. This amounts to deregulating the more equalizing practice of having all content from all companies travel the same internet lanes. This means that well established companies will have an extra advantage in supplying their content to their users. How is this harmful to small startups and new innovation?

In the age of faster is better, the ability to use a service faster is more likely to be chosen over a service that runs slower. For example, you can either choose wireless internet or dial-up. They both supply an internet connection, but when was the last time you heard the screeching sound of a dial-up connection?…. Exactly!  If the FCC follows through with this idea, small startups will not be able to compete against the financial strength of giants that have the resources to provide speedier service. In addition, these costs for faster internet lanes may be passed to consumers as companies work to maintain profits.

Another possibility that hasn’t been talked about is the larger companies’ ability to recreate the innovations of smaller, lesser known companies. For example, if Company X creates a new way to shop on the internet and the larger Company Z recreates this technology, Company Z would have the advantage of faster internet speed to their site over Company X.  Even though Company X created the technology, Company Z would benefit, leaving small startups asking “what’s the point in trying?”

With our economy’s strength and growth hinging on new innovation, it is counterproductive to have an unfair system that doesn’t allow companies both large and small to have the same service capabilities. This goes directly against the entrepreneurial spirit of our country and shows that lawmakers have gotten it wrong in their assertion that the internet is important but not vital.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Svilen.milev via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leaked FCC Documents Signal Bad News for Startups appeared first on Law Street.

Net neutrality is back on the scene in a big way this week. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced new rule proposals that take a middle-of-the-road approach. Rather than unequivocally endorsing a neutral internet, the FCC proposal allows content providers to give preferential treatment to certain traffic, as long as the preferred access is on “commercially reasonable” terms.

Net neutrality refers to the idea that the internet should remain open and free. Currently, internet service providers (think Verizon or Time Warner Cable, for exampled) cannot charger higher rates to certain content providers. Thus, for example, video-on-demand services offered by Verizon or Time Warner have to run at the same speed as sites like Netflix; the service providers cannot slow the internet speed when users use Netflix or charge Netflix a higher rate for equal internet speed.

While only a proposal, the FCC approach has scared proponents of net neutrality. Allowing regulation of the internet on “commercially reasonable” terms has an inherent vagueness that will likely cause service providers to progressively push the boundaries of what they can or cannot do. The current proposal gives more power to internet service providers and chips away at the framework of a neutral internet.

Alternatively, the FCC views the proposal as a more realistic compromise likely to settle the intense issue for a time. Net neutrality represents only one of many possible business models of internet monetization. Service providers argue that competition will work as a necessary check on abusive behavior, and that allowing regulation of internet speed will enhance the quality of user experience by providing higher internet speed for sites that are more demanding. Finally, service providers note that someone gets the windfall from whatever policy the FCC implements — net neutrality allows content providers to freely use the internet at the cost of service providers. Why should service providers eat the cost rather than content providers?

The FCC Proposal has raised heated debate about the merits of net neutrality — in a single day nearly 70 organizations with skin in the game lobbied FCC officials on the matter. It will certainly be interesting to see and experience the new internet as a result.

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Barrett Buss via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RIP Net Neutrality? 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.

In the “Age of the Internet,” consumers expect to have access to any information they want, as fast as possible, with little charge. But a recent court ruling against the Federal Communications Commission could allow Internet Service Providers to explore options that may alter the level of access, and possibly the price point, at which consumers have access to web content.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) act as “go between” for consumers and the content they want on the Internet. Companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, are the means, which we use to access the web. Until a few days ago, these ISPs were subject to a series of regulations from the FCC. But on January 14th, the US Court of Appeals in DC shot down these regulations. As a result, many are worried consumers are at risk.

The concept of “net neutrality” contends that consumers should have equal access to all content on the Internet, and that no content should be discriminated against, or unfairly promoted. In theory, this applies to governments, as well as companies with the ability to control web content.

In order to better protect consumers from potentially unfair business practices, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set out a list of three guidelines in 2010 that all ISPs had to follow. These included transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. All ISPs had to follow the rules, and as a result of the regulations, consumers couldn’t be charged differently based on what sites they visited, and no websites could be purposefully hindered from loading as fast as others, among other things. Some people saw these as a win for consumer protection, while others thought it was an infringement on the rights of the ISPs, and web businesses that were not able to promote themselves.

But Verizon, a large ISP, sued the FCC, saying it had overstepped its bounds in trying to control ISPs to this extent. And earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals in D.C. agreed with Verizon, saying the FCC could no longer dictate such strict stipulations for ISPs. With these regulations out the window, people have begun analyzing tactics ISPs could theoretically use to boost business, while potentially harming consumers.

One possibility would be allowing websites to pay the ISP more for faster service. While this is good for large companies that have the money to pay off a corporation like Verizon, it could be disastrous for small businesses that don’t have the same resources.

A second tactic ISPs could use is to charge customers extra for accessing certain websites. One Reddit user created an infographic signaling the potential for price increases users could see simply for accessing popular websites. Hypothetically, ISPs could upcharge users frequenting video hosting sites (like Netflix and Hulu). Or, the ISPs could charge those companies higher prices, threatening to slow the website down, or remove it altogether, should they refuse to pay. The companies would have to defray those costs somehow, probably through by charging the consumer more.

Finally, and most drastically, ISPs could just block certain content all together. While certain businesses, like Au Bon Pain, have allegedly blocked content either directly or through obscenity filters, ISPs could dictate what content would not be allowed as part of their service. Unless a consumer wanted to switch their ISP altogether, he or she would be at a loss in this situation.

But is all of this hype warranted? Not necessarily. While a few specific provisions of the FCC were struck down, the Commission didn’t lose all of its regulating muscle.

In the opinion filed by Judge Tatel, the court points out one of the specific reasons these regulations were deemed inappropriate: “given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such” (Verizon v. FCC). This means that if the FCC chooses to change how it classifies ISPs, it may be able to impose restrictions on them once again. Additionally, the FCC has reportedly considered appealing the ruling.

We also have to look into what is in the best interest of the ISP. Consider the fact consumers can choose from several providers. Rather than raise their rates as soon as they can, these ISPs will probably wait to size up what their competition is doing, and then proceed with any price or content changes. There will still be competition among them, and consumers will still be able to choose which provider best matches the content and price point for which they are looking.

So while changes may happen down the road, it’s probably nothing serious enough to warrant binge-watching all 5 seasons of Breaking Bad on Netflix this weekend (unless that was already the plan).

[FCC] [Washington Post] [Court Opinion]

—

Featured Image Courtesy of [Randy Stewart/Stewtopia via Flickr]

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Neutral No More: How One Court Ruling Could Affect Everyone who Uses the Internet appeared first on Law Street.