Why Net Neutrality Was Repealed and How It Affects You

by Keith Collins Dec. 14, 2017

What Is Net Neutrality

The F.C.C. voted to dismantle rules that require internet providers to give consumers equal access to all
content online. Here’s how net neutrality works.
The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules,
which required internet service providers to offer equal access to all web content without charging
consumers for higher-quality delivery or giving preferential treatment to certain websites.

The vote is a big win for Ajit Pai, the agency’s chairman, who has long opposed the regulations, saying
they impeded innovation. He once said they were based on “hypothetical harms and hysterical
prophecies of doom.”

These are the rules that were repealed

The original rules went into effect in 2015 and laid out a regulatory plan that addressed a rapidly
changing internet. Under those regulations, broadband service was considered a utility under Title II of
the Communications Act, giving the F.C.C. broad power over internet providers. The rules prohibited
the following practices:

BLOCKING Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking
websites or apps.

THROTTLING Service providers could not slow the transmission of data based on the nature of the
content, as long as it is legal.

PAID PRIORITIZATION Service providers could not create an internet fast lane for companies and
consumers who pay premiums, and a slow lane for those who don’t.

Continue reading the main story

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules DEC. 14, 2017

How it could affect you

Many consumer advocates have argued that if the rules get scrapped, broadband providers will begin
selling the internet in bundles, not unlike how cable television is sold today. Want to access Facebook
and Twitter? Under a bundling system, getting on those sites could require paying for a premium social
media package.

In some countries, internet bundling is already happening. In October, Representative Ro Khanna,

Democrat of California, posted a screenshot on Twitter from a Portuguese mobile carrier that showed
subscription plans with names like Social, Messaging and Video. He wrote that providers were
“starting to split the net.”

Another major concern is that consumers could suffer from pay-to-play deals. Without rules prohibiting
paid prioritization, a fast lane could be occupied by big internet and media companies, as well as
affluent households, while everyone else would be left on the slow lane.
Some small business owners have also been concerned these issues will affect them, worrying that
industry giants could pay to get an edge, and leave them on an unfair playing field.
“The internet, the speed of it, our entire business revolves around that,” David Callicott, who sells
paraffin-free candles on his website, GoodLight, said last month.

Interested in All Things Tech?

The daily Bits newsletter will keep you updated on the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology
industry, plus exclusive analysis from our reporters and editors.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME

E-commerce start-ups have feared they could end up on the losing end of paid prioritization, where
their websites and services load slower than those run by internet behemoths. Remote workers of all
kinds, including freelancers and franchisees working in the so-called gig economy, could similarly face
higher costs to do their jobs from home.

The argument against regulation

“It’s basic economics,” Mr. Pai said in a speech at the Newseum in April. “The more heavily you
regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”

The F.C.C. chairman has long argued against the rules, pointing out that before they were put into
effect in 2015, service providers had not engaged in any of the practices the rules prohibit.

“Did these fast lanes and slow lanes exist? No,” he said in the speech. “It’s almost as if the special
interests pushing Title II weren’t trying to solve a real problem but instead looking for an excuse to
achieve their longstanding goal of forcing the internet under the federal government’s control.”

Several internet providers have made public pledges in recent months that they will not block or
throttle sites once the rules were repealed. The companies argue that Title II gives the F.C.C. too much
control over their business, and that the regulations make it hard to expand their networks.

The internet was already changed

Perhaps the repeal won’t change the direction of the internet. In November, Farhad Manjoo argued that
the internet has already been dying a slow death, and that the repeal of net neutrality rules only hastens
its demise.

He wrote that the biggest American internet companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and
Microsoft — “control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud
storage to nearly all of the online ad business.”

Meanwhile, most American homes and smartphones connect to the internet through a “handful of
broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to
become content companies, because why not.”
The Big Tech Threat
David Leonhardt Dec. 15, 2017

A sign posted Thursday outside the Federal Communications Commission in Washington protests the
repeal of net-neutrality rules. Credit Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press
This article is part of the Opinion Today newsletter. You can sign up here to receive the newsletter
each weekday.

Seth Hanlon, a former official for the Obama administration, thinks that Republicans aren’t as close to
a final tax deal as they want you to believe. “They have many obstacles between now and final
passage,” he wrote yesterday.

Marco Rubio has said he won’t vote for the bill unless the child-tax credit is expanded. Mike Lee has
similar concerns. Jeff Flake has reason to be offended by the budget gimmicks in the bill. Susan Collins
hasn’t yet gotten what she was promised on health care.

I’m less optimistic than Hanlon sounds. Republicans seem very eager to pass a big tax cut for the
affluent, and I assume they’ll find a way to do so. But Hanlon’s tweets do a nice job of showing how
hypocritical it would be for all those senators to support the bill.

Net neutrality. Federal antitrust policy just became even more important.

It has already been getting more attention recently. Democrats — after years of accepting corporate
concentration — have decided that confronting it should be central to their economic policy. (Gilad
Edelman of Washington Monthly did a nice job explaining the shift.)

And although I’m skeptical that the Trump administration will follow through, it has also signaled
some concern about corporate concentration. (Joe Nocera laid this out in a recent Bloomberg column.)

The reasons are obvious enough: Companies have become a lot bigger, and their size seems to be
playing a role in rising inequality.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME

Now comes the end of net neutrality, via a 3-2 vote yesterday along partisan lines — with Republicans
in the majority — at the Federal Communications Commission. If the move survives legal challenges,
it will free up phone and cable companies to favor some internet traffic over other traffic.

Critics say the policy will squash small tech companies and innovation, because they won’t be able to
compete. Defenders of the policy — and even some people who favor net neutrality but think its
demise is manageable — say antitrust policy can keep the big companies from crushing the small. They
also point out that net neutrality failed to create a competitive panacea, since it didn’t stop tech giants
like Facebook and Google from exercising enormous control over the internet.

“The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most
focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right,”
Megan McArdle has written in Bloomberg.
In The Times, the lawyer Ken Engelhart argued that competitive forces and antitrust policy can
combine to keep internet providers from hurting consumers. If big companies misuse their power,
regulators can swat them back, much as they would have before net neutrality went into effect in 2015.

“The good news is that we will soon have a real-world experiment to show who is right and who is
wrong,” Engelhart wrote. “The United States will get rid of its rules, and the European Union and
Canada will keep their stringent regulations. In two years, will the American internet be slower, less
innovative and split into two tiers, leaving Canadians to enjoy their fast and neutral net?”

There are a lot of smart pieces decrying the end of net neutrality (from Slate’s April Glaser, Wired’s
Arielle Pardes, Columbia professor Tim Wu in The Times and technology journalist Walt Mossberg in
The Verge, for example). If I had a vote, I’d uphold net neutrality. But I’m less certain about the effects
than some commentators.

Programming notes. The Times will have a new publisher on Jan. 1 — A.G. Sulzberger — and this
Wired story gives a good sense of his previous work here.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show set a small portion of our list of Trump lies to music, and it’s
about as delightful as mendacity can be.

The Effects of Ending Net Neutrality

Dec. 15, 2017

Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, said the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually help
consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of
service options. Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times
To the Editor:

Re “F.C.C. Reverses Rules Requiring Net Neutrality” (front page, Dec. 15):

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday abrogated the very limited net neutrality
regulations that the Obama administration had put in place. In a season when Washington politics has
been overwhelmed by the naked greed of special interests, this may win pride of place as the single
most greedy, corrupt and damaging such action.

It is hardly a secret that American telecommunications markets are monopolized by a very few large
corporations, and that the current F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, worked for one of those large firms,
Verizon. The end of net neutrality will allow Mr. Pai’s former employer to extract higher profits
without returning better service to the American people.

Who really thinks that allowing the large telecom corporations more control over what Americans see
and read is a good thing? Giving monopolies more power will make it harder for new companies to
enter the marketplace and limit the pace of innovation.

In sum, Mr. Pai and the end of net neutrality exemplify everything that is currently wrong with
Washington. Vested interests corrupt the policy process, lie to the American people and make decisions
that further concentrate wealth and power in the hands of an elite few, with bleak consequences for the
American people and our economy.
Taking a clear stand against this may at the very least increase the chance that the inevitable next such
outrage can be stopped.

BARRETT L. MCCORMICK
Milwakee The writer is a professor of political science at Marquette University.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME

To the Editor:

Pay for what you use. What is wrong with that?

Some 70 percent of internet traffic during peak hours comes from real-time entertainment like Netflix
and YouTube. The internet backbone needs to be maintained and improved to handle the growing
traffic. Think about our highway system. It was not maintained and improved as it should have been,
and look at what we’ve got.

Now who should pay for maintaining and improving the backbone? The people creating the demand.
They cannot expect to get a free ride on others who don’t binge watch.

MICHAEL GUERRERO
EL CAJON, CALIF.

To the Editor:

Re “The G.O.P.’s Legislative Lemons” (Op-Ed, Dec. 15):

Michael Tomasky’s revealing analysis stimulated my awareness of how unpopular the Federal
Communications Commission’s rescinding of the net neutrality rules is. I wonder how the F.C.C.
chairman could possibly answer a query like: “Polls show that more than three-quarters of the public
wants to keep net neutrality rules. What makes you think that you know better what’s good for our
country than such an overwhelming majority of people?”

BRUCE KERIEVSKY, MONROE, N.J.

California joins Montana and New York in creating state Net Neutrality rules
Cory Doctorow

WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY?

Net Neutrality

The ACLU Answers the Key Questions

Protect your right to access what you want and how you want it on the Internet
[Updated December 2017]

The internet has become so much a part of the lives of most Americans that it is easy to imagine that it
will always remain the free and open medium it is now. We'd like to believe it will remain a place
where you can always access any lawful content you want, and where the folks delivering that content
can't play favorites because they disagree with the message being delivered or want to charge more
money for faster delivery.

But there are no such guarantees.

On December 14, 2017, the Trump FCC voted to make the open internet — and the “network
neutrality” principles that sustain it — a thing of the past. What you can see on the internet, along with
the quality of your connection, are at risk of falling victim to the profit-seeking whims of powerful
telecommunications giants. If the FCC has its way, those companies could disfavor controversial
viewpoints or smaller websites and favor the content providers who have the money to pay for better
access.

The fight isn’t over, though. Read on to learn more about how you can help protect your free and open
internet.

CALL ON CONGRESS TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY NOW

The Federal Communications Commission voted in December 2017 to implement Chairman Ajit Pai’s
plan to end net neutrality. The fight now shifts to Congress, where pro-network neutrality members will
press to use something called the Congressional Review Act to undo this hasty and misguided action.
The CRA is a relatively new tool that allows Congress to reverse regulatory actions within 60
legislative days of their enactment. Congress can use this tool to reverse the FCC's action. Every
American should press their members of Congress to support such a reversal via the CRA.

CONGRESS MUST STEP IN TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY

TAKE ACTION NOW

1. What's the problem?
2. What do you mean, they might "manipulate our data"?
3. They're not allowed to do that, are they?
4. Why would the telecoms want to interfere with internet data?
5. Won't competition prevent them from doing any of this?
6. Have there been any actual instances of service providers interfering with the internet, or is this just
all theoretical?
7. So what exactly is "net neutrality," and what would it do?
8. What can be done to preserve the freedom and openness of the internet?
9. Why does the ACLU care about preserving the openness of the internet?

WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY?

Net Neutrality

The ACLU Answers the Key Questions

Protect your right to access what you want and how you want it on the Internet
[Updated December 2017]

The internet has become so much a part of the lives of most Americans that it is easy to imagine that it
will always remain the free and open medium it is now. We'd like to believe it will remain a place
where you can always access any lawful content you want, and where the folks delivering that content
can't play favorites because they disagree with the message being delivered or want to charge more
money for faster delivery.

But there are no such guarantees.

On December 14, 2017, the Trump FCC voted to make the open internet — and the “network
neutrality” principles that sustain it — a thing of the past. What you can see on the internet, along with
the quality of your connection, are at risk of falling victim to the profit-seeking whims of powerful
telecommunications giants. If the FCC has its way, those companies could disfavor controversial
viewpoints or smaller websites and favor the content providers who have the money to pay for better
access.

The fight isn’t over, though. Read on to learn more about how you can help protect your free and open
internet.

CALL ON CONGRESS TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY NOW

The Federal Communications Commission voted in December 2017 to implement Chairman Ajit Pai’s
plan to end net neutrality. The fight now shifts to Congress, where pro-network neutrality members will
press to use something called the Congressional Review Act to undo this hasty and misguided action.
The CRA is a relatively new tool that allows Congress to reverse regulatory actions within 60
legislative days of their enactment. Congress can use this tool to reverse the FCC's action. Every
American should press their members of Congress to support such a reversal via the CRA.
CONGRESS MUST STEP IN TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY

TAKE ACTION NOW

1. What's the problem?
2. What do you mean, they might "manipulate our data"?
3. They're not allowed to do that, are they?
4. Why would the telecoms want to interfere with internet data?
5. Won't competition prevent them from doing any of this?
6. Have there been any actual instances of service providers interfering with the internet, or is this just
all theoretical?
7. So what exactly is "net neutrality," and what would it do?
8. What can be done to preserve the freedom and openness of the internet?
9. Why does the ACLU care about preserving the openness of the internet?

1. What's the problem?

A. Most people get their high-speed internet access from only a few telecommunications giants —
AT&T, Comcast, Cox, CenturyLink, Charter, and Verizon. When we send or receive data over the
internet, we expect those companies to transfer that data from one end of the network to the other.
Period. We don't expect them to analyze or manipulate it. And starting in 2015, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has had protections in place to prevent broadband providers from
doing just that. But now, the Trump FCC is moving to do away with those protections.

2. Q.What do you mean, they might "manipulate our data"?

A. New technologies now allow telecom companies to scrutinize every piece of information we
send or receive online — websites, email, videos, internet phone calls, or data generated by games or
social networks. And they can program the computers that route that information to interfere with the
data flow by slowing down or blocking traffic and communicators that they don't like, and speeding up
traffic they do like or that pays them extra for the privilege.
Imagine if the phone company could mess with your calls — through bad connections or frequent
dropped calls — when you tried to order pizza from Domino's, because Pizza Hut is paying them.

3. Q.They're not allowed to do that, are they?

A. The phone company isn't allowed to do that because telephone service is treated under the law
as a “common carrier” that has a responsibility to treat all traffic neutrally. But this is what the FCC is
now proposing to do: remove the equivalent rules for broadband internet.

4. Q.Why would the telecoms want to interfere with internet data?

A. Profit and other corporate interests, or a dislike for certain political viewpoints, or those that it
deems “controversial.” Companies might want to interfere with speech that makes them look bad,
block applications that compete with their own, degrade or block access to union sites during a labor
conflict, or increase their profit by forcing developers to pay more to avoid having their data blocked or
slowed down.
5. Q.Won't competition prevent them from doing any of this?
A. It should and normally it would — but it won't. First of all, manipulations of our data are not
always easily detectable; content can be delayed or distorted in important but subtle ways.
Second, most Americans don't have more than a handful of legitimate high-speed broadband options at
home (the vast majority have only one or two). It costs many billions to build a big high-speed
broadband service, so the “barriers to entry” to the marketplace are high and there aren't very many of
them. That means customers often can't switch if a big broadband providers starts messing around with
their service.
6. Q.Have there been any actual instances of service providers interfering with the internet, or is this
just all theoretical?
A. Broadband providers have both the incentive and the ability to interfere with the internet. That
hasn't stopped network neutrality opponents from claiming that the threat is “theoretical,” or that
applying time-honored common carrier principles to the internet is a “solution in search of a problem.”
In fact, real abuses happened consistently before the FCC put its network neutrality rules in place.
AT&T's jamming of a rock star's political protest. During an August 2007 performance by the rock
group Pearl Jam in Chicago, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder's performance. The
ISP, which was responsible for streaming the concert, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, "George
Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home." By doing so, AT&T, the
self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied viewers the complete exclusive
coverage they were promised. Although Vedder's words contained no profanity, an AT&T
spokesperson claimed that the words were censored to prevent youth visiting the website from being
exposed to "excessive profanity." AT&T then blamed the censorship on an external Website contractor
hired to screen the performance, calling it a mistake and pledging to restore the unedited version of
Vedder's appearance online.
Comcast's throttling of online file-sharing through BitTorrent. In 2007, Comcast, the nation's largest
cable TV operator and second largest ISP, discriminated against an entire class of online activities in
2007 by using deep packet inspection to block file transfers from customers using popular peer-to-peer
networks such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella. Comcast's actions, which were confirmed in
nationwide tests conducted by the Associated Press, were unrelated to network congestion, since the
blocking took place at times when the network was not congested. Comcast blocked applications that
are often used to trade videos — pirated content but also much legitimate content. Critics noted that
Comcast hopes to sell online video itself. The FCC subsequently took action against Comcast for this
abuse; Comcast stopped the throttling but also challenged the order in court and won, leading to a crisis
in enforcement of network neutrality.
Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In late 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off
access to a text-messaging program by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL that the group used to
send messages to its supporters. Verizon stated it would not service programs from any group "that
seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or
unsavory to any of our users." Verizon Wireless reversed its censorship of NARAL only after
widespread public outrage.
Telus' blocking of striking workers' web site. In 2005, the Canadian telecom, involved in a bitter labor
dispute, blocked its internet subscribers from accessing a website run by the union that was on strike
against Telus.

7. Q.So what exactly is "net neutrality," and what would it do?

A. Network neutrality means applying well-established “common carrier” rules to the internet in
order to preserve its freedom and openness. Common carriage prohibits the owner of a network that
holds itself out to all-comers from discriminating against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise
tampering with the transfer of any data (except for legitimate network management purposes such as
easing congestion or blocking spam).
Important Fact: Common carriage is not a new concept — these rules have a centuries-old history.
They have long been applied to facilities central to the public life and economy of our nation, including
canal systems, railroads, public highways, and telegraph and telephone networks.
8. Q.What can be done to preserve the freedom and openness of the internet?
A. The Federal Communications Commission voted in December 2017 to implement Chairman
Ajit Pai’s plan to end net neutrality. The fight now shifts to Congress, where pro-network neutrality
members will press to use something called the Congressional Review Act to undo this hasty and
misguided action. The CRA is a relatively new tool that allows Congress to reverse regulatory actions
within 60 legislative days of their enactment. Congress can use this tool to reverse the FCC's action.
Every American should press their members of Congress to support such a reversal via the CRA.
9. Q.Why does the ACLU care about preserving the openness of the internet?
A. Network neutrality is a consumer issue, but it is also one of the foremost free speech issues of
our time. In this day and age, it is pretty much impossible to get through life without using the internet
— which is why it's essential that our free speech rights are protected both on- and offline. After all,
freedom of expression isn't worth much if the forums where people actually make use of it are not
themselves free.
That is why the ACLU — a tireless defender of free speech and First Amendment rights for nearly a
century — has long supported FCC actions that promote competition and innovation in
telecommunications. The ACLU has been a principal participant in almost every internet free speech
case that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the past two decades, and our legislative staff has been
aggressive on the issue in Congress and at the FCC. We continue to be vigilant on this issue.

LETTERS

The Effects of Ending Net Neutrality

Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, said the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually help
consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of
service options.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times
Dec. 15, 2017
To the Editor:
Re “F.C.C. Reverses Rules Requiring Net Neutrality” (front page, Dec. 15):

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday abrogated the very limited net neutrality
regulations that the Obama administration had put in place. In a season when Washington politics has
been overwhelmed by the naked greed of special interests, this may win pride of place as the single
most greedy, corrupt and damaging such action.

It is hardly a secret that American telecommunications markets are monopolized by a very few large
corporations, and that the current F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, worked for one of those large firms,
Verizon. The end of net neutrality will allow Mr. Pai’s former employer to extract higher profits
without returning better service to the American people.

Who really thinks that allowing the large telecom corporations more control over what Americans see
and read is a good thing? Giving monopolies more power will make it harder for new companies to
enter the marketplace and limit the pace of innovation.

In sum, Mr. Pai and the end of net neutrality exemplify everything that is currently wrong with
Washington. Vested interests corrupt the policy process, lie to the American people and make decisions
that further concentrate wealth and power in the hands of an elite few, with bleak consequences for the
American people and our economy.
Taking a clear stand against this may at the very least increase the chance that the inevitable next such
outrage can be stopped.

BARRETT L. MCCORMICK
Milwakee The writer is a professor of political science at Marquette University.

**F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

By CECILIA KANGDEC. 14, 2017

Ajit Pai, the F.C.C. chairman, said the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually help
consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of
service options. Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules
regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the
power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from
blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government
will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.

The action reversed the agency’s 2015 decision, during the Obama administration, to have stronger
oversight over broadband providers as Americans have migrated to the internet for most
communications. It reflected the view of the Trump administration and the new F.C.C. chairman that
unregulated business will eventually yield innovation and help the economy.

It will take weeks for the repeal to go into effect, so consumers will not see any of the potential changes
right away. But the political and legal fight started immediately. Numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill
called for a bill that would reestablish the rules, and several Democratic state attorneys general,
including Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, said they would file a suit to stop the change.

Several public interest groups including Public Knowledge and the National Hispanic Media Coalition
also promised to file a suit. The Internet Association, the trade group that represents big tech firms such
as Google and Facebook, said it also was considering legal action.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the
rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and
Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options. His two fellow Republican commissioners
also supported the change, giving them a 3-to-2 majority.

“We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Mr. Pai said. “Broadband providers will have
more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”

The discarding of the net neutrality regulations is the most significant and controversial action by the
F.C.C. under Mr. Pai. In his first 11 months as chairman, he has lifted media ownership limits, eased
caps on how much broadband providers can charge business customers and cut back on a low-income
broadband program that was slated to be expanded to nationwide carriers.

TECHNOLOGY By AARON BYRD and NATALIA V. OSIPOVA 00:48

What Is Net Neutrality?
The F.C.C. voted to dismantle rules that require internet providers to give consumers equal access to all
content online. Here’s how net neutrality works.
His plan for the net neutrality rules, first outlined early this year, set off a flurry of opposition. The
issue has bubbled up occasionally for more than a decade, with the debate getting more intense over the
years as digital services have become more ingrained in everyday life.

Critics of the changes say that consumers will have more difficulty accessing content online and that
start-ups will have to pay to reach consumers. In the past week, there have been hundreds of protests
across the country, and many websites have encouraged users to speak up against the repeal.

In front of a room packed with reporters and television cameras from the major networks, the two
Democratic commissioners warned of consumer harms to come from the changes.

Mignon Clyburn, one of the Democratic commissioners, presented two accordion folders full of letters
protesting the changes, and accused the three Republican commissioners of defying the wishes of
millions of Americans by ceding their oversight authority.

Continue reading the main story

“I dissent, because I am among the millions outraged,” said Ms. Clyburn. “Outraged, because the
F.C.C. pulls its own teeth, abdicating responsibility to protect the nation’s broadband consumers.”

Brendan Carr, a Republican commissioner, said it was a “great day” and dismissed critics’
“apocalyptic” warnings.

“I’m proud to end this two-year experiment with heavy-handed regulation,” Mr. Carr said.

During Mr. Pai’s speech before the vote, security guards entered the meeting room at the F.C.C.
headquarters and told everyone to evacuate. The commissioners were ushered out a back door. The
agency did not say what had caused the evacuation, other than Mr. Pai saying it had been done “on
advice of security.” The hearing restarted a short time later.

Despite all the uproar, it is unclear how much will eventually change for internet users. Major telecom
companies like AT&T and Comcast, as well as two of the industry’s major trade groups, have promised
consumers that their experiences online would not change.

Mr. Pai and his Republican colleagues have echoed the comments of the telecom companies, which
have told regulators that because of the limits to their business imposed by the rules, they weren’t
expanding and upgrading their networks as quickly as they wanted.

“There is a lot of misinformation that this is the ‘end of the world as we know it’ for the internet,”
Comcast’s senior executive vice president, David Cohen, wrote in a blog post this week. “Our internet
service is not going to change.”
But with the F.C.C. making clear that it will no longer oversee the behavior of broadband providers,
telecom experts said, the companies could feel freer to come up with new offerings, such as faster tiers
of service for online businesses willing and able to pay for it. Some of those costs could be passed on to
consumers.

Those experts also said that such prioritization could stifle certain political voices or give the telecom
conglomerates with media assets an edge over their rivals.
Consumer groups, start-ups and many small businesses said there have already been examples of net
neutrality violations by companies, such as when AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones using its
network.

These critics of Mr. Pai, who was nominated by President Trump, said there isn’t enough competition
in the broadband market to trust that the companies will try to offer the best services. The rule changes,
they believe, give providers incentive to begin charging websites to reach consumers.

“Let’s remember why we have these rules in the first place,” said Michael Beckerman, president of the
Internet Association, the trade group. “There is little competition in the broadband service market.”

Dozens of Democratic lawmakers, and some Republicans, have pushed for Congress to pass a law on
the issue.

One Republican commissioner, Mike O’Reilly, said he supported a law created by Congress for net
neutrality. But he said any law should be less restrictive than the 2015 rules, protecting the ability of
companies to charge for faster lanes, a practice known as “paid prioritization.”

Any legislative action appears to be far off, however, and numerous online companies warned that the
changes approved on Thursday should be taken seriously.

“If we don’t have net neutrality protections that enforce tenets of fairness online, you give internet
service providers the ability to choose winners and losers,” Steve Huffman, chief executive of Reddit,
said in an interview. “This is not hyperbole.”

Netflix US
@netflix
We’re disappointed in the decision to gut #NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented
era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix
stands w/ innovators, large & small, to oppose this misguided FCC order.
The Economist explains
What may happen to the internet in America
America’s Federal Communications Commission has voted to rescind net-neutrality regulations
Dec 15th 2017by G.E.
THE internet has supposedly changed overnight in America. On December 14th the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to rescind regulations, imposed by the same body
under Barack Obama in 2015, that were designed to ensure that internet-service providers do nothing to
privilege some types of online content over others. The three Republican-appointed members of the
commission, including Ajit Pai, the chairman, argued that the “net neutrality” rules posed an
unnecessary burden on internet providers, without being of help to consumers. Activists and many
Democratic lawmakers argued that a repeal could bring an end to the open internet (two Democrat-
appointed commissioners voted to keep the rules in place). What will actually happen, now that net-
neutrality rules have been repealed?

To get a sense of what might happen, it is important to understand what net neutrality is and why the
Obama-era FCC rules were chosen. Put simply it is the principle that all internet traffic, whether from
Netflix, Tinder or a news website, is treated equally by the “pipe” companies carrying that traffic, like
AT&T or Verizon. In the early days of the internet this principle was not really necessary as the pipe
companies could not see differences in the content they were carrying (part of the reason they are
called “dumb pipes”, at least by some). Crucially, services like Netflix that consumed far more internet
bandwidth than the others, putting a strain on broadband and wireless infrastructure, did not exist. With
the rise of Netflix and its ilk in streaming media, broadband companies began to suggest that they may
have to charge more for some types of traffic, or slow down some services (“throttling” them). Net-
neutrality activists argued that if providers could discriminate between different types of traffic, they
would have far too much power over the internet. They could privilege their own services over
competitors’, or they could even throttle or block some services they did not like. The Obama-era rules
were designed to prevent that.

Democracy continues its disturbing retreat

Are such rules necessary or harmful? It is difficult to prove either side of that question. Internet-service
providers might choose not to charge more for using broadly popular services like Netflix. And
repealing net neutrality does not make it legal for internet-service providers to censor content or
discriminate against companies they do not like. The FCC will be responsible for policing internet-
service providers for abuses. But, activists argue, they could throttle unknown upstarts, companies that
would otherwise become the next Netflix, Amazon, Google or Facebook (if that were conceivable).
And policing the behaviour of broadband and wireless companies, heretofore not known for their
transparency, will be a challenge. In the end the argument about net neutrality boils down to whether
internet-service providers should be regulated before they have shown they might abuse their power, or
only after they have actually done so. The current FCC has just opted for the latter.

In the immediate future, consumers will start to see more deals on their internet plans, including “zero-
rating”: the pipe companies can offer certain internet-preferred content for nothing while charging for
other data. They will also persuade some internet services to pay to be included with the faster traffic.
But it is unclear how consumers might benefit in the long run. Broadband companies have long argued
that if they could charge more for some traffic, they would be able to offer the internet more cheaply to
consumers who are less bandwidth-hungry. They also say they would be able to invest in better
broadband infrastructure. The hole in this argument is that most broadband providers in America enjoy
regional monopolies and high pricing; they are not forced by competition to improve their
infrastructure or pricing. If consumers are to get much lower prices for their internet, they will need a
lot more help than net neutrality can offer.

The Economist explains

What network neutrality is, and why it matters

Feb 25th 2015by L.S.

“THE promotion of network neutrality”, wrote Tim Wu of Columbia Law School in a widely read paper a
decade ago, is about “preserving a Darwinian competition among every conceivable use of the Internet so that
only the best survive.” He thus not only coined the label for one of the most controversial of internet-policy
issues, but correctly predicted that it will be a difficult one to sort out. On February 26th America’s Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) will have a go at regulating, and defending, network neutrality, by taking
the radical step of reclassifying internet access as a utility. But what is it?

For much of the internet’s history the network has been neutral by default, thanks to its technical rules, which are
blind to the type of data being handled. This more than anything explains the disruptive (and Darwinian) power
of the internet: network operators could not play favourites among the packets of data they were transmitted, and
startups didn’t have to ask them for permission to build innovative services. But new technologies, like the
inelegantly named “deep packet inspection” (DPI), now allow network operators to identify what kind of traffic
they are funnelling through. At the same time new forms of traffic are increasing in importance and generating
calls for better traffic management: Netflix, the video-streaming service, now accounts for a third of peak traffic
in America, for example. To handle this data flood, telecoms firms say, they need to build bigger pipes and
charge the likes of Netflix to use them.

Most observers agree that in some form or another the concept of neutrality with respect to data should be
enshrined in law. But they cannot agree on the exceptions to the rule. Network-neutrality purists insist that there
should be none. Rent-seeking network operators would exploit any loopholes, they argue, and rather than
investing in DPI or such things, telcos should simply add capacity. Others are not so sure, and would accept
several exceptions: emergency and health services, for instance, should always enjoy priority. Some wonder why
exactly bandwidth-hungry offerings such as Netflix should get a free ride. Unsurprisingly, positions in the debate
are often based on interests and ideology. Producers of digital content, for instance, often argue in favour of
strict network-neutrality rules, which make distributing their wares easier. Libertarians think the internet, as most
other things, should simply be left alone.

Given this cacophony, it comes as no surprise that only three countries—Chile, the Netherlands and Slovenia—
have so far passed strict network-neutrality laws, whereas most others have opted for softer rules. And it is
unlikely that the principle will ever be set in stone: as technology and digital markets change, so will the
definition of neutrality. In America the FCC's decision certainly will not end the debate. Lobbying has already
begun over how the new rules, whose details have yet to be made public, should be interpreted. And big
broadband access providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, are sure to sue: they could live with network-neutrality
requirements, but hate the idea that their internet business should be regulated in the same way as their plain-old
telephone service.

Dig deeper:
Internet rules are inevitably a work in progress (January 2015)
How best to sort out the network-neutrality mess (January 2015)

Network neutrality
The rules of the road on the internet will always be a work in progress
 Print edition | Business
Jan 29th 2015

A TERSE 900-word letter sent by AT&T to America’s attorney-general a century ago changed the
course of the telecoms industry. In exchange for not being broken up, the monopoly agreed to treat all
phone calls equally. What became known as the “Kingsbury Commitment” entrenched the notion that
existing transport rules would apply to so-called “long lines”.

That helped build the world’s best telephone systems. But life is trickier now. Policymakers are
wrestling with how that “common-carriage” approach should apply to the internet. In Europe ministers
on January 27th discussed rules proposed by Latvia, which currently holds the European Union’s
rotating presidency. America’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to start
discussing plans on February 5th (and vote on them on February 26th).

The arguments revolve around “network neutrality”, a term coined ten years ago by Tim Wu of
Columbia Law School. It underlies the extraordinary success of the internet: the businesses that operate
the network—by transmitting data, or providing access to it—may not discriminate between different
packets of data. So innovators do not need to ask for permission, or to pay extra, to make new projects
work.

Neutrality has long been baked into the internet through its protocols, the rules which govern how data
move around the network, paying no attention to its content. But big changes are afoot. New
technologies now allow network operators to identify what kind of traffic they transmit. Many would
like spam and criminal traffic to be scrutinised, slowed or stopped. For their part telecoms firms, who
own most of the cables and switches, wish to sell premium access—fast lanes, in effect—to bandwidth-
hungry services, such as video.

Activists for internet freedom and other causes are up in arms. Without strict network-neutrality rules,
they warn, toll booths and other checkpoints will mushroom, robbing the network of what has made it
great. Investment would flow to the profitable fast lanes; humbler folk would travel virtual dirt roads.
Operators that offer internet services of their own could throttle or even block rivals. Abandoning
network neutrality, European Digital Rights and other net-advocacy groups wrote in an open letter to
EU officials, means abandoning a core human right: “the freedom to impart and receive information
without interference”.

Industry insiders, network engineers and some economists say this is scaremongering. Network
operators, they say, have no interest in fragmenting the internet; they just want to manage their assets
well—for example by channelling traffic to avoid congestion. That improves service for everyone.
Moreover, why should capacity-hogging services such as Netflix, whose video-streaming comprises
one-third of peak-time traffic in America, get a free ride? “The internet doesn’t need to be saved,”
argues Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank.
Yet governments are moving towards codifying some sort of network neutrality, according to Sam
Paltridge of the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries. Chile, the Netherlands and Slovenia have
already passed strict network-neutrality laws; several others, including Norway, have opted for softer
rules or are planning to do so.
Big network operators are sometimes to blame for this. The Dutch move came after KPN, the former
national telecoms company, threatened to levy a fee on services such as internet calls and instant
messaging, and block users who wouldn’t pay. One of Norway’s largest internet-service providers,
Nextgentel, curbed traffic from NRK, a public broadcaster, in a row about paying for additional
capacity.
The strictness of neutrality rules varies. Chile forbids any kind of traffic prioritisation. Others allow
plenty of exceptions. In Slovenia, for instance, network operators can block spam and manage traffic to
avoid congestion or for security reasons. Norway stands out because it chose what it calls “co-
regulation” instead of a new law: the regulator issues guidelines, and stakeholders meet to discuss any
changes.
That approach may work in a cosy Nordic country, but not in America and the EU with their armies of
adversarial lawyers and politicians. Several attempts by the FCC to satisfy the rival camps have fallen
foul of the courts or public opinion. Barack Obama tried again in November, asking the commission to
classify broadband access as a common carrier so it can regulate it as such. The FCC is expected to
heed the president’s call while exempting the internet from old telephone-era rules such as price
controls. Kevin Werbach, a former FCC lawyer who now teaches at the Wharton business school, says
it will be interesting to see how the agency will treat wireless internet access and what it thinks of such
deals as Netflix paying Comcast for a “fast lane” for its videos.
The outlook in Europe is even murkier. EU governments must agree on common regulation, but each
has its own agenda. Big member states, such as Italy, tend to defend the interests of their big telecoms
firms, which argue that only profitability will allow them to upgrade their networks. The partners in
Germany’s ruling grand coalition have promised each other to push some form of network neutrality.
Britain, for its part, wants self-regulation (which, critics say, has not been a big success at home). So
the Latvian proposal gives plenty of wiggle room. Paid-for fast lanes, for instance, are allowed
“provided that sufficient network capacity is available so that the availability and general quality of
internet access services are not impaired in a material manner”. “Prove that,” sniffs Chris Marsden of
the University of Sussex.

Nullifying zero-rating
When (and if) the FCC has voted and the EU has struck a deal, the saga will continue. Republicans in
Congress pay lip-service to network neutrality, but they balk at enforcement. Network operators will
sue in any case. They mind less about neutrality than about escaping regulation as a utility. The
European Parliament is unlikely to approve whatever emerges from the Latvian draft without major
changes.
The next network-neutrality battle has already begun—over “zero-rating”, a practice by which mobile
operators allow customers access to certain services, such as Facebook or Wikipedia, without charging
them for the data usage. Fans argue that this is a great way to give poor consumers access to these
offerings. Critics counter that it allows mobile operators to pick winners and makes it more difficult for
others to compete; for that reason, the Slovenian and the Dutch regulators recently banned certain
forms of zero-rating. Like free trade, it seems, network neutrality will always be a work in progress.

Internet access
Gordian net
Why network neutrality is such an intractable problem—and how to solve it
Print edition | Leaders
Jan 29th 2015
THE idea that certain businesses are so essential that they must not discriminate between customers is as old as
ferries. With only one vessel in town, a boatman was generally not allowed to charge a butcher more than a
carpenter to move goods. This concept, called “common carriage”, has served the world well, most recently on
the internet. The principle of blindly delivering packets of data, regardless of origin, destination or contents, is
welded into the network’s technical foundations. This, more than anything else, explains why the internet has
become such a fountain of innovation.

Yet with the internet becoming more crowded and traffic-management tools improving, this principle—known
today as “network neutrality”—is under threat. Telecoms firms would like to create lanes of different speeds, not
just to manage their networks better, but to capture more profits. Internet advocates fear this would lead to an
online world studded with toll booths and other choke-points. They fret that rent-seeking network operators
would abuse their market power. Prices would shoot up for those using the fast lanes; everyone else would get
much cheaper, but much crummier, service.

Governments are taking action. On February 5th America’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which
has been chewing on the problem for years, will put forward yet another set of network-neutrality rules. Latvia,
which holds the presidency of the European Union’s Council of Ministers, has just outlined its own European
proposal (see article). Both plans will face opposition: from Congress and in the courts on one side of the
Atlantic, and from the European Parliament on the other. How can the debate be settled?

More providers, fewer rules

Finding a solution has proved tricky. First, neutrality is a slippery concept. Although the internet was designed to
treat all data equally, it was never completely neutral: services such as games or video have always been at a
disadvantage because the public internet cannot guarantee real-time connections. Second, any reform involves
legal quandaries. Should an e-mail campaign from a political party count as spam, or freedom of speech? After
losing several American court cases because the internet was held to be an unregulated information service, the
FCC wants to reclassify it as an old-style utility in order to impose network-neutrality rules.

The debate is, therefore, unlikely ever to end—which means that trying to impose detailed rules or even utility-
type regulation, as the FCC is likely to do, looks misguided. Better to stick with broader rules, such as insisting
that a provider’s basic broadband service cannot be much slower than the fast lanes it offers—and ensure that
regulators and the public can police them. Each operator should be required to publish detailed information
about its network’s performance. Broadband providers can then be exposed if they slow or ration customers’
access to, say, Netflix or Skype. Regulators should have the power to punish such underhand tactics.

Wherever possible, however, they should leave the market to sort things out. The best way to do this is to
encourage vigorous competition in all parts of the internet, particularly between broadband providers, so that
none can become a bottleneck and exploit that position. That, alas, happens all too often, particularly in America,
where 75% of households have no choice of provider for fast internet access. Get rid of those monopolies and
there would be much less need to worry about the mind-numbing intricacies of network neutrality.