Dissenting Statement Of (FCC) Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
I put the other commissioner's comments in Editorials & Other Articles but decided to put this one here for more discussion.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A6.pdf
Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108.
Net neutrality is internet freedom. I support that freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll
back net neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point. And I
dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today. This decision
puts the Federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law,
and the wrong side of the American public.
The future of the internet is the future of everything. That is because there is nothing in our
commercial, social, and civic lives that has been untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power.
And here in the United States our internet economy is the envy of the world. This is because it rests on a
foundation of openness.
That openness is revolutionary. It means you can go where you want and do what you want
online without your broadband provider getting in the way or making choices for you. It means every one
of us can create without permission, build community beyond geography, organize without physical
constraints, consume content we want when and where we want it, and share ideas not just around the
corner but across the globe. I believe it is essential that we sustain this foundation of openness—and that
is why I support net neutrality.
Net neutrality has deep origins in communications law and history. In the era when
communications meant telephony, every call went through, and your phone company could not cut off
your call or edit the content of your conversations. This guiding principle of nondiscrimination meant
you were in control of the connections you made.
This principle continued as time advanced, technology changed, and Internet access became the
dial tone of the digital age. So it was twelve years ago—when President George W. Bush was in the
White House—that this agency put its first net neutrality policies on paper. In the decade that followed,
the FCC revamped and revised its net neutrality rules, seeking to keep them current and find them a stable
home in the law. In its 2015 order the FCC succeeded—because in the following year, in a 184-page
opinion the agency’s net neutrality rules were fully and completely upheld.
So our existing net neutrality policies have passed court muster. They are wildly popular. But
today we wipe away this work, destroy this progress, and burn down time-tested values that have made
our Internet economy the envy of the world.
As a result of today’s misguided action, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new
power from this agency. They will have the power to block websites, throttle services, and censor online
content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with
whom they have pay-for-play arrangements and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road.
Now our broadband providers will tell you they will never do these things. They say just trust us.
But know this: they have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your
internet traffic. And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead and do so.
This is not good. Not good for consumers. Not good for businesses. Not good for anyone who
connects and creates online. Not good for the democratizing force that depends on openness to thrive.
Moreover, it is not good for American leadership on the global stage of our new and complex digital
world.
I’m not alone with these concerns. Everyone from the creator of the world wide web to religious
leaders to governors and mayors of big cities and small towns to musicians to actors and actresses to
entrepreneurs and academics and activists has registered their upset and anger. They are reeling at how
this agency could make this kind of mistake. They are wondering how it could be so tone deaf. And they
are justifiably concerned that just a few unelected officials could make such vast and far-reaching
decisions about the future of the internet.
So after erasing our net neutrality rules what is left? What recourse do consumers have?
We’re told don’t worry, competition will save us. But the FCC’s own data show that our
broadband markets are not competitive. Half of the households in this country have no choice of
broadband provider. So if your broadband provider is blocking websites, you have no recourse. You
have nowhere to go.
We’re told don’t worry, the Federal Trade Commission will save us. But the FTC is not the
expert agency for communications. It has authority over unfair and deceptive practices. But to evade
FTC review, all any broadband provider will need to do is add new provisions to the fine print in its terms
of service. In addition, it is both costly and impractical to report difficulties to the FTC. By the time the
FTC gets around to addressing them in court proceedings or enforcement actions, it’s fair to assume that
the start-ups and small entities wrestling with discriminatory treatment could be long gone. Moreover,
what little authority the FTC has is now under question in the courts.
We’re told don’t worry, the state authorities will save us. But at the same time, the FCC all but
clears the field with sweeping preemption of anything that resembles state or local consumer protection.
If the substance that got us to this point is bad, the process is even worse.
Let’s talk about the public record.
The public has been making noise, speaking up, and raising a ruckus. We see it in the protests
across the country and outside here today. We see it in how they lit up our phone lines, clogged our email
in-boxes, and jammed our online comment system. It might be messy, but whatever our
disagreements are on this dais I hope we can agree this is democracy in action—and something we can all
support.
To date, nearly 24 million comments have been filed in this proceeding. There is no record in the
history of this agency that has attracted so many filings. But there’s something foul in this record:
Two million comments feature stolen identities.
Half a million comments are from Russian addresses.
Fifty thousand consumer complaints are inexplicably missing from the record.
I think that’s a problem. I think our record has been corrupted and our process for public
participation lacks integrity. Nineteen state attorneys general agree. They have written us demanding we
halt our vote until we investigate and get to the bottom of this mess. Identity theft is a crime under state
and federal law—and while it is taking place this agency has turned a blind eye to its victims and
callously told our fellow law enforcement officials it will not help.
This is not acceptable. It is a stain on the FCC and this proceeding. This issue is not going away.
It needs to be addressed.
Finally, I worry that this decision and the process that brought us to this point is ugly. It’s ugly in
the cavalier disregard this agency has demonstrated to the public, the contempt it has shown for citizens
who speak up, and the disdain it has for popular opinion. Unlike its predecessors this FCC has not held a
single public hearing on net neutrality. There is no shortage of people who believe Washington is not
listening to their concerns, their fears, and their desires. Add this agency to the list.
I, too, am frustrated. But here’s a twist: I hear you. I listen to what callers are saying. I read the
countless, individually written e-mails in my in-box, the posts online, and the very short and sometimes
very long letters. And I’m not going to give up—and neither should you. If the arc of history is long, we
are going to bend this toward a more just outcome. In the courts. In Congress. Wherever we need to go
to ensure that net neutrality stays the law of the land. Because if you are conservative or progressive, you
benefit from internet openness. If you come from a small town or big city, you benefit from internet
openness. If you are a company or non-profit, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a start-up or
an established business, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a consumer or a creator, you
benefit from internet openness. If you believe in democracy, you benefit from internet openness.
So let’s persist. Let’s fight. Let’s not stop here or now. It’s too important The future depends on it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Dear Mr. MyName,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2015 Open Internet Order, commonly known as "net neutrality" rules. Hearing from constituents like you is vital to my work in Congress, and I am grateful that you took the time to share your thoughts with me.
On Nov. 21, 2017, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released his plan to effectively dismantle much of the 2015 Open Internet Order in favor of-in his words-"a lighter regulatory approach." Let me begin by saying I have serious concerns about the Chairman's proposed plan, and I am a strong and steadfast advocate of a free, fair, and open internet.
The FCC is set to vote on the Chairman's proposal on Dec. 14, 2017. As the FCC approaches its vote, you may also contact the FCC regarding net neutrality at 1-888-CALL-FCC (225-5322) or by e-mail at mailto
peninternet@fcc.gov.
As you know, on March 12, 2015, the FCC adopted an order reclassifying broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, thereby subjecting internet service providers to a more stringent regulatory framework. Under these rules, broadband service providers are prohibited from the blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization of internet content. Simply put, broadband service providers are not able to prioritize certain data traffic over others under this rule.
Proponents of net neutrality rules argue that rolling back the open internet order will give too much power to major broadband providers. If quality of service is dependent on the price a content provider can pay, the argument runs, smaller content providers may be disadvantaged. The ability to control the content provider's bandwidth then creates the possibility that broadband providers will decide who does-and does not-have priority access. This process of prioritization would decrease consumer choice, pushing users toward the services of the broadband provider's choice.
By contrast, opponents of the FCC's 2015 order argue that it imposes an unnecessary burden on broadband service providers and stifles innovation. They further argue that broadband providers should be able to charge content providers that use higher amounts of bandwidth more for their usage. They assert that offering a range of service tiers at varying prices offers consumers more choice and control over their usage and subsequent costs.
I will continue to closely monitor this issue. Rest assured that I will be an advocate for a free and open internet as your Member of Congress.
I want to thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I make every effort to incorporate my constituents' concerns and suggestions into my work, and I hope you continue to stay in touch. If my office can ever be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us toll free at 1-888-205-5421.
Please also visit https://stephaniemurphy.emanager.house.gov to sign up for periodic updates from my office about the issues that are important to you and follow me on social media at http://www.facebook.com/RepStephMurphy and http://www.twitter.com/repstephmurphy.
It is an honor to be your voice in our nation's capital.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Stephanie Murphy
Member of Congress
