Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Reclassification Is Not a Dirty Word
Reclassification Is Not a Dirty Word
Candace Clement
S. Derek Turner
<...>
How did we get here?
In 2002, the FCC made a big misstep. Caving to pressure from the cable industry, the FCC (chaired by current head lobbyist for the cable industry, Michael Powell) decided that if you were getting broadband from a cable modem, it should not be treated with the same common carriage protections. The Powell FCC declared that cable broadband was an “information service”— which meant that these ISPs could block and slow down websites and applications.
This sparked a lengthy legal case, where the FCC’s decision was first overturned by an appeals court, then upheld by the Supreme Court in a split decision. But the court did not state whether the FCC’s move to classify broadband as an “information service” was right or wrong, only that it had a right to reclassify...In 2005, following the Supreme Court’s decision in the cable modem case, the FCC applied the “information services” classification to broadband offered over all other platforms (including DSL and other phone company broadband technologies, that at the time were treated as common carrier services). This FCC reclassification of broadband from a telecom to an information service removed the common carrier protections that were key to the initial development and rapid growth of the Internet...To assuage these concerns, in 2005 the FCC adopted a set of openness principles that it promised to uphold.
And in 2010, the FCC attempted to codify these openness principles into actual enforceable rules — but it chose to do so without reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service.” Verizon quickly sued, and as everyone expected, the court told the FCC it can’t have it both ways: either broadband is a common carrier network and thus subject to non-discrimination obligations, or it is an information service that can discriminate...here we are, Internet users have zero protections. A broadband provider can block any website or application it wants; it can implement pay-for-priority schemes where everyone’s traffic is slowed down in order to make way for the content from the deep-pocketed online giants who are willing to pay the ISPs for preferential treatment...the fallout from this week’s court decision goes well beyond Net Neutrality. The decision threatens the FCC’s ability to bring broadband to rural and low-income Americans, provide consumers with basic privacy protections, help Americans with disabilities get online in greater numbers, promote competition among network operators, and eliminate requirements for broadband service providers to advertise and bill accurately for their services.
<...>
Reclassification does not need to go hand-in-hand with monopoly-style regulation. The Commission can regulate network operators with a light touch under the Communications Act, deciding that some or even a majority of common carrier provisions in Title II of the Communications Act should not apply to broadband networks. Indeed, reclassifying wouldn’t change the status quo on day one; it would just mean the FCC would have the undisputed authority to act to keep the Internet open.
- more -
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/17/reclassification-not-dirty-word
Candace Clement
S. Derek Turner
<...>
How did we get here?
In 2002, the FCC made a big misstep. Caving to pressure from the cable industry, the FCC (chaired by current head lobbyist for the cable industry, Michael Powell) decided that if you were getting broadband from a cable modem, it should not be treated with the same common carriage protections. The Powell FCC declared that cable broadband was an “information service”— which meant that these ISPs could block and slow down websites and applications.
This sparked a lengthy legal case, where the FCC’s decision was first overturned by an appeals court, then upheld by the Supreme Court in a split decision. But the court did not state whether the FCC’s move to classify broadband as an “information service” was right or wrong, only that it had a right to reclassify...In 2005, following the Supreme Court’s decision in the cable modem case, the FCC applied the “information services” classification to broadband offered over all other platforms (including DSL and other phone company broadband technologies, that at the time were treated as common carrier services). This FCC reclassification of broadband from a telecom to an information service removed the common carrier protections that were key to the initial development and rapid growth of the Internet...To assuage these concerns, in 2005 the FCC adopted a set of openness principles that it promised to uphold.
And in 2010, the FCC attempted to codify these openness principles into actual enforceable rules — but it chose to do so without reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service.” Verizon quickly sued, and as everyone expected, the court told the FCC it can’t have it both ways: either broadband is a common carrier network and thus subject to non-discrimination obligations, or it is an information service that can discriminate...here we are, Internet users have zero protections. A broadband provider can block any website or application it wants; it can implement pay-for-priority schemes where everyone’s traffic is slowed down in order to make way for the content from the deep-pocketed online giants who are willing to pay the ISPs for preferential treatment...the fallout from this week’s court decision goes well beyond Net Neutrality. The decision threatens the FCC’s ability to bring broadband to rural and low-income Americans, provide consumers with basic privacy protections, help Americans with disabilities get online in greater numbers, promote competition among network operators, and eliminate requirements for broadband service providers to advertise and bill accurately for their services.
<...>
Reclassification does not need to go hand-in-hand with monopoly-style regulation. The Commission can regulate network operators with a light touch under the Communications Act, deciding that some or even a majority of common carrier provisions in Title II of the Communications Act should not apply to broadband networks. Indeed, reclassifying wouldn’t change the status quo on day one; it would just mean the FCC would have the undisputed authority to act to keep the Internet open.
- more -
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/17/reclassification-not-dirty-word
<...>
Michael J. Copps, a former F.C.C. commissioner who is working with the nonprofit advocacy group Common Cause to keep net-neutrality safeguards in place, said big telecommunications and entertainment companies had spent millions to lobby for rules that would allow them to tilt the scales in their favor.
The F.C.C.'s plan “is a lot closer to what they wanted than what we wanted,” Mr. Copps said in a phone interview. “It reflects a lot more input from them.” Based on what the F.C.C. has revealed so far, he said, the commission appears to be going beyond what the appeals court laid out.
“The courts did not tell Chairman Wheeler to take the road that he is reportedly taking,” Mr. Copps said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/lobbying-efforts-intensify-after-fcc-tries-3rd-time-on-net-neutrality.html
Michael J. Copps, a former F.C.C. commissioner who is working with the nonprofit advocacy group Common Cause to keep net-neutrality safeguards in place, said big telecommunications and entertainment companies had spent millions to lobby for rules that would allow them to tilt the scales in their favor.
The F.C.C.'s plan “is a lot closer to what they wanted than what we wanted,” Mr. Copps said in a phone interview. “It reflects a lot more input from them.” Based on what the F.C.C. has revealed so far, he said, the commission appears to be going beyond what the appeals court laid out.
“The courts did not tell Chairman Wheeler to take the road that he is reportedly taking,” Mr. Copps said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/business/lobbying-efforts-intensify-after-fcc-tries-3rd-time-on-net-neutrality.html
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
