FCC to reinstate net neutrality in the US until someone decides to scrap it again
(2024/04/03)
- Reference: 1712163611
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/04/03/fcc_net_neutrality_reinstatement/
- Source link:
The Federal Communications Commission has confirmed proposals to vote on rules to restore net neutrality in the United States later this month – whether it'll stick this time is anyone's guess, though.
The FCC [1]announced that it would hold a vote to restore net neutrality at its April 25 open meeting yesterday after declaring [2]plans to reinstate [3]the directive last September. The objective, as [4]stated [PDF] last year, is largely to undo Trump-era [5]elimination of net neutrality and return to the [6]2015 rules passed under President Barack Obama.
For those unfamiliar with the seesaw that is American net neutrality regulation, the concept rests on reclassifying internet service providers and broadband network operators as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications [7]Act of 1996. Common carriers have to generally treat all traffic equally, and Title II classification gives the FCC the ability to enforce legislation to ensure ISPs don't give preference to certain kinds of traffic.
[8]
The Obama-era net neutrality edict reclassified ISPs as common carriers, then the Trump administration's FCC undid the rule and reclassified carriers under Title I of the Telecom Act, stripping the FCC of its ability to regulate ISPs and prevent abuse of their control of the internet.
[9]
[10]
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said of the latest plan. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet."
In a press conference today with a group of senior FCC officials, the agency said that much has changed since the 2015 bill was passed. Officials noted that the coronavirus pandemic reaffirmed the essential nature of broadband access, new security threats emerged that require stronger oversight (from the FCC, naturally), and there's no federal agency able to monitor broadband outages, which the FCC said is an essential modern public safety consideration.
[11]
Then there's the matter of national security concerns - raised since the Trump administration undid net neutrality - over [12]Chinese-manufactured hardware found in US telecommunications networks.
According to officials on the call, the FCC's ability to [13]ban Chinese equipment only applies to telecom networks under [14]Section 214 of the Communications Act because telecom networks are classified as common carriers but ISPs aren't. That means there's still a bunch of foreign-manufactured hardware on broadband networks that the FCC can't make carriers replace. Restoring net neutrality, the officials said, would give the FCC authority to demand those changes.
The officials said the restoration of net neutrality would ban ISPs from selling the personal data of their customers too, which they are currently free to do, as Title I [15]Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act also doesn't apply to them.
How long will this round last?
As we've [16]noted before, net neutrality is a contentious, partisan issue in the US, with Republicans largely opposing it, and Democrats mostly in favor of it. This means it's possible that, if presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bests Democratic incumbent Joe Biden in November, the restored rules will be back on the chopping block.
Republican senators have already voiced their [17]opposition to the FCC's latest plan – so what's to say this isn't just an exercise in regulatory confusion and scrutiny? We put that question to the FCC leaders on Wednesday's call, and their responses weren't exactly encouraging.
[18]California's net neutrality rules good to go after judge boots Big Cable's lawsuit
[19]Ofcom attempts to thread the needle in net neutrality update
[20]FCC forced by court to ask the public (again) if they think tearing up net neutrality was a really good idea or not
[21]Europe to consult on making Big Tech pay for the networks it floods
When we asked if this round of net neutrality regulation has longevity, FCC senior leaders told us that they can't predict the future, but said they believe they're on firm legal ground that they hope means the rules will remain in place if and when the opposition party comes to power.
A future FCC will have to justify the rollback of net neutrality, especially to consumers, the FCC said, with an official on the call saying the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality. Officials argued that it won't make sense to roll back consumer protections that prevent the sale of personal information, or allow foreign hardware on broadband networks, and that Rosenworcel has done the best she can to ensure the regulation will stick.
[22]
That, of course, assumes any future administration will care. The broadband industry bombarded the FCC with [23]fake comments to drum up support for repealing net neutrality in 2017, and despite plenty of comments in support of the Obama-era rule, Trump's FCC – headed by former Verizon in-house lawyer Ajit Pai – went ahead with plans to scrap it anyway.
As we've noted before, Pai's arguments in favor of scrapping net neutrality were [24]frequently misleading and highly partisan. Assuming things will be different this time around is, perhaps, wishful thinking.
Several US states have taken it upon themselves to pass their own net neutrality controls since the 2017 repeal. Getting a federal law on the books that would be harder to repeal than an agency rule hasn't progressed much, however. The most recent effort, the [25]2022 Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act , never made it past committee hearings in the House or Senate. With that in mind, net neutrality advocates will just have to pin their hopes on the FCC's wishful thinking. ®
Get our [26]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-vote-restoring-net-neutrality
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/26/fcc_net_neutrality/
[3] https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-governmental-affairs/fcc-seeks-comment-safeguarding-and-securing-open-internet
[4] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397235A1.pdf
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2017/11/29/fcc_chair_defends_net_neutrality_plans_by_attacking_cher/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules_passed_by_fcc/
[7] https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/29/us_wants_all_huawei_and_zte_kit_ripped_out/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/27/fcc_china_equipment_authorization_ban/
[14] https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-section-214
[15] https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1998/nrcc8019.html
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/20/net_neutrality_is_back/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/09/net_neutrality_meets_us_opposition/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/24/california_net_neutrality/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/30/ofcom_net_neutrality_review/
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/21/fcc_net_neutrality/
[21] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/24/europe_gigabit_transformation_consultation/
[22] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[23] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/15/fake_net_neutrality_comments_cost/
[24] https://www.theregister.com/2017/04/28/fcc_chairman_ajit_pai/
[25] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/28/net_neutrality_and_broadband_justice_act/
[26] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The FCC [1]announced that it would hold a vote to restore net neutrality at its April 25 open meeting yesterday after declaring [2]plans to reinstate [3]the directive last September. The objective, as [4]stated [PDF] last year, is largely to undo Trump-era [5]elimination of net neutrality and return to the [6]2015 rules passed under President Barack Obama.
For those unfamiliar with the seesaw that is American net neutrality regulation, the concept rests on reclassifying internet service providers and broadband network operators as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications [7]Act of 1996. Common carriers have to generally treat all traffic equally, and Title II classification gives the FCC the ability to enforce legislation to ensure ISPs don't give preference to certain kinds of traffic.
[8]
The Obama-era net neutrality edict reclassified ISPs as common carriers, then the Trump administration's FCC undid the rule and reclassified carriers under Title I of the Telecom Act, stripping the FCC of its ability to regulate ISPs and prevent abuse of their control of the internet.
[9]
[10]
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said of the latest plan. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet."
In a press conference today with a group of senior FCC officials, the agency said that much has changed since the 2015 bill was passed. Officials noted that the coronavirus pandemic reaffirmed the essential nature of broadband access, new security threats emerged that require stronger oversight (from the FCC, naturally), and there's no federal agency able to monitor broadband outages, which the FCC said is an essential modern public safety consideration.
[11]
Then there's the matter of national security concerns - raised since the Trump administration undid net neutrality - over [12]Chinese-manufactured hardware found in US telecommunications networks.
According to officials on the call, the FCC's ability to [13]ban Chinese equipment only applies to telecom networks under [14]Section 214 of the Communications Act because telecom networks are classified as common carriers but ISPs aren't. That means there's still a bunch of foreign-manufactured hardware on broadband networks that the FCC can't make carriers replace. Restoring net neutrality, the officials said, would give the FCC authority to demand those changes.
The officials said the restoration of net neutrality would ban ISPs from selling the personal data of their customers too, which they are currently free to do, as Title I [15]Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act also doesn't apply to them.
How long will this round last?
As we've [16]noted before, net neutrality is a contentious, partisan issue in the US, with Republicans largely opposing it, and Democrats mostly in favor of it. This means it's possible that, if presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump bests Democratic incumbent Joe Biden in November, the restored rules will be back on the chopping block.
Republican senators have already voiced their [17]opposition to the FCC's latest plan – so what's to say this isn't just an exercise in regulatory confusion and scrutiny? We put that question to the FCC leaders on Wednesday's call, and their responses weren't exactly encouraging.
[18]California's net neutrality rules good to go after judge boots Big Cable's lawsuit
[19]Ofcom attempts to thread the needle in net neutrality update
[20]FCC forced by court to ask the public (again) if they think tearing up net neutrality was a really good idea or not
[21]Europe to consult on making Big Tech pay for the networks it floods
When we asked if this round of net neutrality regulation has longevity, FCC senior leaders told us that they can't predict the future, but said they believe they're on firm legal ground that they hope means the rules will remain in place if and when the opposition party comes to power.
A future FCC will have to justify the rollback of net neutrality, especially to consumers, the FCC said, with an official on the call saying the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality. Officials argued that it won't make sense to roll back consumer protections that prevent the sale of personal information, or allow foreign hardware on broadband networks, and that Rosenworcel has done the best she can to ensure the regulation will stick.
[22]
That, of course, assumes any future administration will care. The broadband industry bombarded the FCC with [23]fake comments to drum up support for repealing net neutrality in 2017, and despite plenty of comments in support of the Obama-era rule, Trump's FCC – headed by former Verizon in-house lawyer Ajit Pai – went ahead with plans to scrap it anyway.
As we've noted before, Pai's arguments in favor of scrapping net neutrality were [24]frequently misleading and highly partisan. Assuming things will be different this time around is, perhaps, wishful thinking.
Several US states have taken it upon themselves to pass their own net neutrality controls since the 2017 repeal. Getting a federal law on the books that would be harder to repeal than an agency rule hasn't progressed much, however. The most recent effort, the [25]2022 Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act , never made it past committee hearings in the House or Senate. With that in mind, net neutrality advocates will just have to pin their hopes on the FCC's wishful thinking. ®
Get our [26]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-vote-restoring-net-neutrality
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/26/fcc_net_neutrality/
[3] https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-governmental-affairs/fcc-seeks-comment-safeguarding-and-securing-open-internet
[4] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397235A1.pdf
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2017/11/29/fcc_chair_defends_net_neutrality_plans_by_attacking_cher/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules_passed_by_fcc/
[7] https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/29/us_wants_all_huawei_and_zte_kit_ripped_out/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/27/fcc_china_equipment_authorization_ban/
[14] https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-section-214
[15] https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1998/nrcc8019.html
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/20/net_neutrality_is_back/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/09/net_neutrality_meets_us_opposition/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/24/california_net_neutrality/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/30/ofcom_net_neutrality_review/
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/21/fcc_net_neutrality/
[21] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/24/europe_gigabit_transformation_consultation/
[22] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zg3ReSDzx9FxbJkKV2C9ngAAAEM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[23] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/15/fake_net_neutrality_comments_cost/
[24] https://www.theregister.com/2017/04/28/fcc_chairman_ajit_pai/
[25] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/28/net_neutrality_and_broadband_justice_act/
[26] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Snake
We wouldn't need those billable hours if only the GOP would stop turning America into its corporatist plaything and STOP WORSHIPING AT THE ALTER OF MONEY. The Republicans hamstrung the FCC as a way to feed the ISP's the greater income they were (at the time) lobbying for; if set as Title II the ISP's faced FCC regulations on how much they could charge customers in regards to not only service but fees. The ISP's HATED that idea and wanted every dollar they could get, let the Republicans know, and you've never met a Republican who will go against corporate profits, customers be damned.
aerogems
Preaching to the choir my reptilian friend. I always found it kind of funny that Wheeler came up with some fairly minor and nuanced rules, Verizon pitched a massive fit, so Wheeler said, "Fine, we'll Title II your asses!" Then, of course, Verizon managed to get one of its employees appointed the FCC chair and set efforts back several years.
emphasis on swings right back
Jou (Mxyzptlk)
The more right wing the more "unleashed capitalism", actually working against the people. But they are masters in emotional instigation speech, and too many fall for it.
Framing the issue
DS999
There would probably be more republican support if they framed the issue towards their particular hobby horses, like "do you really want Comcast to be able to deprioritize traffic to Twitter / Truth Social, or should traffic to all sites be treated equally".
If you believe big business should be totally free from all regulation you're not going to bite when presented with arguments like "Netflix paying more to prioritize its traffic hurting other streaming services", that's just the market working as they think is intended. But turn it around and they'll see it very differently. Maybe differently enough to get a bipartisan bill passed instead of using the FCC and knowing it will be reversed eventually.
That sound you hear is a bunch of teleco lawyers and lobbyists rubbing their hands with glee at all the billable hours this will net them, all for just dusting off the draft lawsuits/legislation from the last time and making a few quick find and replace type edits.