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.

Thousands of workers have mobilized in France this summer to protest a new law that would make it easier for the French government to hire and fire workers. The bill, which would also relax the limit on working hours, went through parliament without a vote, sparking large scale protests.

Union members are rallying behind Philippe Martinez, leader of the General Confederation of Labor, one of France’s most prominent labor unions. Conflicts between the workers, anti-labor groups and the police have become increasingly heated. Tear gas has been used on protesters as trucks block roadways, shutting down everyday traffic in the city. Protesters and police officers have been injured. At this point, large-scale violence has yet to spread across the entire city, but it has made a visual impact on some of Paris’ most famous venues, including the Eiffel Tower, which was shut down after workers walked out on strike. The protests may strike a more peaceful note in the coming days, but with railway workers and other labor unions flooding into the city in a show of solidarity, Paris is becoming a powder keg. Images of police detaining protesters with force have gone around the world, painting the French protests as a violent threat to public order.

French labor unrest comes on the heels of the Verizon strike in the U.S., during which strikers effectively pressured Verizon leadership into adding jobs and raising pay after CWA union members spent 45 days on picket lines. The Verizon protest did not have the same violent clashes with police that have occurred in the French labor protests, but the issues at the heart of their actions are similar. Class ideology, and the battle between those eking out a living as middle wage employees versus those securely earning at the top of the food chain, is central to both conflicts.

The Verizon strike, one of the longest and most efficient in recent memory (if Verizon does honor its agreement with the CWA in the future), created inconvenience, inefficiency, and a drop in stock value for Verizon but it never rocked the boat in the same way that the Paris protests have. Perhaps because the Paris protesters have come closer to violence, teetering on the edge with fistfights and riot police, they have been dramatized as more impressive or pressing than the Verizon strike.

However, only time will tell whether the Paris workers will elicit the desired response by organizing rowdier, more dramatic protests. The Verizon protests may not have been as visually poignant but they did achieve the desired result within a relatively narrow time frame and forced the leadership of the company to truly feel the power of their organized labor force.  Paris’ protests are almost cinematic–smoke, screaming, thousands pouring into the streets–but it is important to distinguish the visuals of the protest from the reality on the ground. The Verizon protest was working towards a similar goal, but managed to do so without violent clashes–so perhaps Philippe Martinez should get in touch with the CWA and ask for pointers?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Summer of Strikes: Union Protests in the US and France appeared first on Law Street.

A 10-month-long contract dispute has finally come to a head as 36,000 Verizon employees went on strike Wednesday. The strike began after Verizon and the two labor unions that represent Verizon’s wireline service workers could not reach an agreement before the two unions’ proposed deadline of 6 am, Wednesday. On Thursday, a large group of low-wage employees in other industries walked out of work in an effort to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

Both the strike and the fight for $15 protest come after New York and California passed laws to increase their minimum wage laws. Some point to this as a pattern, in which low-wage workers are finally trying to make up for years of stagnant pay and economic hardship. For others, this is merely another blip in the perennial struggle between labor and business. Either way, this is one of the largest strikes in recent history and has quickly become a political issue.

What do both sides want?

The primary point of disagreement between Verizon and its workers is the company’s desire to have more flexibility with its workforce and the workers’ hope for sustained job security. Verizon argues that the company needs to adjust to meet the changing economy’s demands. It claims that it has offered reasonable solutions to prevent benefit costs from increasing dramatically and has offered significant pay increases. Meanwhile, workers argue that it is unfair for their company to force them to relocate and travel long distances for work, noting that if they refuse to do so they will likely lose their jobs.

An interesting aspect of the strike is that it seems to have less to do with wages specifically. Verizon has offered a 6.5 percent pay increase and most of the two unions’ complaints have not focused on wages. Verizon frames the negotiations as an effort to allow the company to get with the times, while workers argue that the contract should focus on protecting decent paying middle-class jobs.

Some Context

Underlying the negotiations is the changing importance of the wireline side of Verizon’s business. As Verizon shifts its focus to its rapidly expanding wireless service, its wireline service–which includes television, phone, and internet–has actually decreased. The wireless side of the company, which is largely ununionized, has seen its profits soar while the more costly wireline service has contracted slightly as landline phone and television service becomes less popular. In light of this change, the company wants to cut costs on the less profitable component of its business by stretching its workers more.

While the workers are right when they say Verizon’s profits have soared in recent years, the bulk of that increase came from the wireless business. Over the last several years, Verizon has made a clear effort to transition much of its business to wireless. In 2013, Verizon Communications bought Vodaphone out of its 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless, giving the company full control over the wireless side of the business. In February 2015, Verizon sold a large chunk of its landline service to Frontier Communications. The deal, which included most of the company’s wireline infrastructure in the western part of the United States, allowed Verizon to buy additional wireless spectrum, further shifting its business in that direction. Aside from its recent announcement to bring FIOS infrastructure to Boston, Massachusetts, Verizon has been relatively uninterested in expanding its wireline service.

So Who’s Right?

Naturally, this question is the most difficult to answer. But when you take a closer look at the dynamics at play it tells us a lot about current labor dynamics in the United States. Can Verizon’s wireline business continue to be a source of good, middle-class jobs as it has been for decades, given that the company wants to shift toward wireless? More to the point, what happens to workers when technological and economic shifts make certain businesses less profitable? Unfortunately, these are questions that we probably won’t have a consensus on anytime soon, if ever.

According to a press release from Verizon, the workers on strike make an average of $130,000 per year, including salary and benefits, which indicates that wages aren’t the entire problem. It also doesn’t seem like the workers went on strike because their wages aren’t high enough. Instead, they fear that Verizon is trying to make it easier to ship jobs overseas and continue its shift away from wireline services. Although there is a significant market for Verizon FIOS, its fiber-optic internet service, its landline telephone, and video services are not as profitable as they have been in recent decades.

The exact details behind the negotiations are hard to pin down, but the dispute may end up taking some time to resolve. In the meantime, Verizon has been training non-union workers to fill in for the strikers. But even if the dispute is settled soon, it seems likely that the underlying debate will continue for quite some time. As Bernie Sanders gains national attention on a campaign to fight for workers and the push to increase the minimum wage maintains the spotlight, developed economies will have to answer some tough questions about the future of middle-class jobs in a time of rapid technological change.

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 What’s Going on with the Verizon Strike? 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.

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.

To the average internet user, the exact mechanics of the internet remain a complicated mystery. A certain abracadabra happens every time that I type a website into my browser and hit enter. How does the website suddenly show up on the screen? Where is it coming from? What exactly just happened?

This gap in knowledge facilitates easy exploitation by those with something to gain.

For example, take the Net Neutrality Act: since most people do not understand the concepts of net neutrality, most simply do not have an opinion. Both sides on the issue can say that their stance most serves justice, and the average internet user will not know who to trust.

The intuitive reader can probably guess who stands on either side: large internet providers — like Verizon or Optimum — stand against net neutrality, while hacker-types mostly advocate in favor of it. Maybe one can decide their own stance based on which affiliation they prefer?

But this still doesn’t resolve the ambiguity. Hackers are cool, but also kind of scary and potentially foul-smelling; mega internet-providers are cold and corporate, but it’s so cynical to believe that the oh-so-many people who work at these corporations can all push for a policy they know is wrong.

So, in order to understand whether or not you support net neutrality, we will need to understand the internet a little better. Don’t worry, things won’t get too complicated — even after writing this, I still kind of think the internet works via abracadabra.

What is happening when I type a website into my browser? With net neutrality, when you type a website into your browser, the internet service provider cannot block a website or discriminate with respect to the speed of service — i.e. allow certain websites to have faster service than others. Think of a highway: net neutrality says that internet providers cannot divide the highway into a fast lane and a slow lane. All websites travel at the same speed and an internet provider cannot cherrypick certain websites that receive preferential or detrimental treatment.

What do internet providers want? Internet providers argue that they do have the right to allow some websites to reach users at a faster speed than others. Providers say that if certain websites hog up bandwidth, internet providers should be allowed to charge these websites a greater fee for faster service. Additionally, they argue that the market will correct for any inefficiencies created by these discriminatory practices — if one internet service provider slows access to popular websites, the user will switch to another internet provider that does not.

What do net neutrality proponents want? Those in favor of net neutrality argue that an open internet cultivates innovation. For example, in a world without net neutrality, a company seeking to challenge Google would have to face the additional hurdles. Google can afford to pay for the fast-lane highway service while this new startup will likely have to try to compete using slower speeds. Additionally, those in favor of an open internet point to the potential abuse by internet service providers. For example, many internet service providers also offer On Demand video products which compete with Netflix and Hulu. Without net neutrality, these service providers can slow the access to Netflix or Hulu to try and push users into using their own products.

So, what do you think? Should the internet be a highway where all websites travel at the same speed or should there be a fast lane and a slow lane, with internet service providers charging a higher fee for fast-lane service? The choice will have tangible consequences on your internet speed, the ability of startup companies to compete, and how much you pay for access to many populate sites.

—

Imran Ahmed is a 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 [OpenMedia via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

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

The post What is Net Neutrality & Why Should You Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Verizon released its first transparency report earlier this month sparking new exchanges between the government and technology companies.

Many telecommunications companies will likely follow Verizon’s lead after Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a joint statement, allowing for more detailed release national security requests. Shortly afterward the statement was made, many notable technology companies dropped a FISA petition that was jointly filed last summer.

While many other companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have already published transparency reports, Verizon was the first major telecommunications companies to do so. The new arrangement set forth by the Justice Department will allow corporations to disclose how many national security letters they’ve received in ranges of 250 or 1,000, depending on the circumstances. This report appears to be starting a trend as AT&T recently announced its plans for a similar report at the end of last year.

The release of this information comes after many articles like this one published by the Wall Street Journal indicated that American companies may be suffering financially due to surveillance concerns. A survey published by the Cloud Security Alliance concluded that non-U.S. residents are 56 percent less likely to use cloud providers based in the U.S. in light of the debate sparked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The Snowden controversy, and government’s response, has also prompted a unique partnership among many of the large technology companies in response. AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo have all joined forces to advocate for change through the creation of www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com. The site focuses on improving transparency, protecting user information, and creating oversight and accountability within the government.

Conclusions from the Verizon Report:

In its report, Verizon states that it received approximately 320,000 requests for information about its customers from federal, state, or local law enforcement in 2013. These requests consisted of:

164,184 Subpoenas – From law enforcement agencies to provide basic customer information.

70,665 Court Orders – That were signed by a judge compelling the release of information.

36,696 Warrants – That were issued based on “probable cause,” and typically sought content related data.

50,000 Emergency Requests (approx.) – For information intended to resolve situations deemed serious emergencies.

Nearly 1,500 of the court orders were “Wiretap Orders,” which provide the actual content of communication in real time. Such content can be in the form of either telephone or internet communication. Verizon states that it requires court issued warrants or a legitimate emergency situation before it will release any stored content or non-content records (See the report’s FAQ page for definitions and details).

The report also indicates the government’s growing interest in location information, as it made nearly 35,000 requests for such data. Verizon noted an increase from the previous year’s levels, but did not disclose that number in this report. 3,200 of these requests were for “tower dumps,” which disclose the phone numbers of all devices that interacted with a cellular tower during a given period of time. Such information is often used to identify and track the location of specific people. According to the Washington Post that the government made over 9,000 tower dump requests in 2013, about a third of which were to Verizon.

Finally, it is also important to note how the United States government compares to other countries around the world. According to the international data also released by Verizon, Germany made the second most requests for information. With less than 3,000 demands from law enforcement, Germany remains far behind the over 320,000 made by the American government.

Does it Matter?

Organizations like the ACLU cite Verizon’s report as a significant step forward in government openness, yet some criticize Verizon and companies releasing similar information as not going far enough. Others argue these transparency reports are inconsequential to the security debate and may purely be an effort to improve public relations. The released information only details formal requests made to those companies specifically, and because much of the recent controversy involves informal or undocumented gathering of data, the released information may not shed enough light on the situation.

[Verizon] [Washington Post] [NY Times]

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [Verizon Communications via Wikipedia]

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 Verizon Starts New Transparency Trend 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.

So…I hate Sprint. The service is unreliable, slow, and (appropriately) the laughing stock of networks — unless you’re in a room with a Cricket or T-Mobile user. But it’s cheap and I’m a recent graduate so I take what I can afford. I’ve thought about switching from Sprint to Verizon quite a few times and lucky for #TeamiPhone, I can do this with a simple phone call (plus maybe a shitty termination fee) and voila!

But what if you have a phone that isn’t carried by the network you wish to join? Well, then you’re screwed. But even if you have a tech-savvy friend who can ‘hook it up’ by unlocking your phone — even if your contract has ended — he or she can face criminal penalties.  Last year, the Library of Congress announced that utilizing software to bypass a carrier’s network limitations is a copyright violation. This ruling centered on the notion that “unlocking” a cellphone requires the alteration of software so that it may be accessible to other wireless companies. The cellular providers asserted that locking cell phones is part of its business practices. CTIA, the Wireless Association that includes cellular networks such as AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, contended that phones have been traditionally locked as an integral aspect of the carriers’ business models.  So, essentially, the carrier pays a fee to the cell phone’s creator (think Apple and Nokia) and the carrier receives a promise from the creator to utilize that particular carrier as its premier network. But who pays for these wireless barriers in the end? We do.

If we can use our cellphones on any network, then service providers would be forced to lower their prices because of an increase in competition. But in all fairness, there is a possibility that switching from one network to another could produce technical difficulties. A phone may be only partially functional on certain networks because not all carriers’ technology is compatible with that of another. However, if carriers are forced to allow the unlocking of phones, the barriers between each entity will undoubtedly be lowered because they’ll have to adapt to the change in law.

This new agreement requires mobile carriers to notify consumers that they may legally unlock phones once their contracts are up. Let’s throw one back for the increase in transparency among these mobile carriers. And honestly, can’t you use the money? Not only will we be exposed to cheaper service rates but we’ll also able to resell our old phones more easily because there will be less concern with network compatibility.

So start digging up those old Blackberrys and Razors — we’ve got a bigger market and more ways to bustle the hustle in 2014.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Tiz via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

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

The post The Cellphone Come Up: How Selling Your Cell Can Pay Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.