“OPEN INTERNET” VS NET NEUTRALITY
JANUARY 6, 2015


NET NEUTRALITY SO FAR


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-the-gop-challenge-obama-over-net-neutrality/

Will the GOP challenge Obama over net neutrality?
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS
January 5, 2015

Net neutrality could be one of the many policy issues that becomes up in a tug-of-war between the Obama administration and Congress this year as Republicans seek to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not heavily regulate internet service providers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that conservatives are planning to use their new control of Congress to block any attempts by the FCC to regulate the internet like a utility, which would give them greater control over how internet service providers handle traffic. Although the agency is independent, the president said in November that they should set the "strongest possible rules" to ensure that all web traffic is treated equally without priority access for certain sites.

The FCC is in the process of drafting new rules for internet providers after a federal appeals court threw out a rule in January 2014 that was supposed to force broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally. The agency is back to the drafting process with plans to vote on a final rule in February. The Washington Post reports that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler plans to circulate his draft rule internally, with a vote on the rule a few weeks later.

If the internet is reclassified as a utility--like electricity or water--the FCC would have greater control over internet service providers that many conservatives, service providers and industry lobbyists say would hurt competition and innovation.

"The regulatory tools at the FCC's disposal are outdated and its previous efforts to create rules to regulate the Internet were struck down by the courts," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-South Dakota, in a statement, according to the Journal. "It's hard to imagine that its new attempt will escape legal challenges and avoid the kind of regulatory uncertainty that harms Internet innovation and investment," he continued.

In November, after the president's remarks, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, sent a letter to Wheeler warning that increased regulation over the internet may not be legal and would very likely be litigated. He would prefer to see the agency to enforce antitrust laws to prevent anticompetitive behavior. GOODLATTE PROMISED IN THE LETTER THAT HIS COMMITTEE WOULD CONTINUE ITS COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING AN OPEN INTERNET.

A Republican staffer for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight authority over the FCC, told the Journal that LAWMAKERS WON'T KNOW THEIR EXACT RESPONSE UNTIL THEY SEE THE FCC'S FINAL RULE IN FEBRUARY. BUT THEY COULD PASS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM RECLASSIFYING THE INTERNET AS A UTILITY OR CUT THE FCC'S BUDGET.

A LAW TO MAINTAIN NET NEUTRALITY WITHOUT RECLASSIFYING INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS SEEMS LESS LIKELY, the paper reported, given widespread Republican opposition to internet access regulations. PLUS, LEGISLATION SEEKING TO OVERRIDE THE FCC WOULD LIKELY BE VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT.

The Journal also reports that the fight over net neutrality could hamper cooperation on other issues related to the internet, including how the government allocates the airwaves that wireless carriers use to transmit data, or legislation to address cybersecurity.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-things-you-should-know-about-net-neutrality

5 things you should know about net neutrality
By KIM PETERSON MONEYWATCH
November 11, 2014

Americans are in love with the Internet. They would give up television, their landline phones and even their cell phones before losing Internet access, surveys show.

Americans also hate it when the things they love change. There's a very real possibility that the structure of the Internet could change, now that the Federal Communications Commission is tweaking the rules. And that's caused an uproar among some groups who worry that the Internet of the future isn't going to be much like the Internet we know and love today.

The issue is known in shorthand as net neutrality, and it's becoming one of the most important public policy debates in years. The debate is confusing and fraught with complexity, however, and many Americans haven't been following all its twists and turns.

So for all of you who have been too busy looking at vacation pictures on Facebook or playing "Clash of Clans" to follow how the backbone of the Internet may be changing, here are five things to know about net neutrality:

WHAT IS IT? So far, all content has driven down the Internet's "information superhighway," to borrow the groan-inducing phrase, at the same speed. Internet service providers treat Netflix, YouTube and Facebook all equally. They don't favor one over the other, and customers expect the same access to everything online.

But the FCC is looking at changing the rules for consumer broadband Internet. SOME POSSIBLE CHANGES COULD ALLOW BROADBAND COMPANIES TO BLOCK OR SLOW DOWN CONTENT, OR TO CHARGE CONTENT PROVIDERS MORE TO GET ON AN INTERNET FAST LANE. THE WORRY IS THAT A COMPANY LIKE NETFLIX MIGHT HAVE TO PAY MORE TO GET ON THAT FAST LANE, AND WILL THEN PASS ON THAT FEE TO USERS.

WHY IS THE FCC DOING THIS? Actually, a federal court blew this thing out of the water in January when it looked at a lawsuit brought by Verizon and, for the second time, threw out the rules that require broadband providers to play nice with everyone equally.

So now, the FCC has to figure out new rules that keep the courts happy. For the record, the FCC says it opposes Internet fast lanes. "The Internet must not advantage some to the detriment of others," said chairman Tom Wheeler Monday.

However, the FCC proposed rules in April that did in fact allow for paid Internet fast lanes. The rules were pounced on by critics as discriminatory.

WHAT'S PRESIDENT OBAMA DOING ABOUT IT?He can't do much. The FCC is independent and can decide whatever it wants. But Obama can let his opinions be known, and he did that Monday when he said there shouldn't be any fast lanes or tiers for Internet access. He wants the FCC to treat Internet service as if it's a utility, like electricity or water.

Internet providers were, naturally, opposed to the idea of being regulated as a utility. "Such a move would set the industry back decades, and threaten the private sector investment that is critically needed to ensure that the network can meet surging demand," said Scott Belcher, chief executive of the Telecommunications Industry Association.

UTILITY OR NOT? This gets to the heart of the current debate on net neutrality. Is the Internet necessary enough that it should be viewed as a public utility rather than its current classification as an information service? Obama joined advocates in pushing the FCC to treat the Internet as a utility by classifying it under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would give the commission legal authority over Internet providers.

But Republican lawmakers and big Internet service companies said this would be a horrible move. Verizon issued a statement saying a reclassification would hurt competition, innovation and an open Internet. The company also hinted at "strong legal challenges" if the FCC went down that road.

WHAT'S NEXT? The FCC says it's going to offer some revised Internet rules next week, with the goal of voting on them in a December meeting. It's unclear if Obama's involvement will cause the commission to delay its timeline. Even if the FCC moves forward, this thing is far from over. Both sides feel very strongly about the issue and will likely tie it up in the courts for years.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/net-neutrality-obama-urges-strong-rules-to-protect-open-internet/

Obama urges strong rules to protect net neutrality
CBS NEWS
November 10, 2014

President Barack Obama is urging the Federal Communications Commission to set the "strongest possible rules" to safeguard net neutrality as the agency begins crafting new regulations for Internet traffic.

Obama's position puts him on the side of Internet activists and much of the public who fear that broadband providers are moving toward creating "fast lanes" on the Internet.

The FCC, an independent regulatory body led by political appointees, is nearing a decision on how far to go to regulate these backroom deals, but is stumbling over the legal complexities.

"We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme" regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry, which supplies much of the nation's Internet access.

This "tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results," Powell added.

Mr. Obama in a public statement asked the FCC on Monday to prohibit so-called "paid prioritization," which open the door for Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon to charge tech companies to send content to consumers more quickly.

If the Federal Communications Commission approves Obama's recommendations, the Internet would be regulated like other utilities such as electricity, water and telephone service.

The president said "an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and...access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money."

The FCC should regulate consumer broadband service more like a public utility, Mr. Obama urged.

"There should be no gatekeepers between you and your favorite online sites and services," the president said. "Ensuring a free and open Internet is the only way we can preserve the Internet's power to connect our world."

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Monday said welcomed President Barack Obama's comments on his work on new Internet traffic, but was cautious about saying whether or not they would be implemented.

"The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options, the more it has become plain that there is more work to do," Wheeler said in a statement, according to Reuters.

"The reclassification and hybrid approaches before us raise substantive legal questions. ... We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online."

The issue of net neutrality has the potential to become another partisan battleground. Many congressional Republicans have come out against the idea of the government regulating Internet speeds.

New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that Obama's proposal "in favor of more heavy-handed regulation that will stifle innovation and concentrate more power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats is a terrible idea. The Commission would be wise to reject it."

In an earlier letter to Wheeler, several Republican leaders said implementing Obama's plan is "politically corrosive rulemaking, relying upon new and untested court-defined powers rather than upon clear Congressional intent and statutory authority."

In May, the FCC endorsed a new two-tier system for Internet service providers, overturning the principle of net neutrality, which essentially treats all web traffic the same.

The FCC calls the Internet the "Open Internet."

According to the agency: "It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. ... Under this principle, consumers can make their own choices about what applications and services to use and are free to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or share with others. This openness promotes competition and enables investment and innovation."

The potential ban on content deals, and the possibility of heavier government regulation, sent investors scurrying on Monday out of cable stocks. Time Warner, Comcast, Cablevision and Charter Communications have all seen shares drop between two and four percent.




“OPEN INTERNET” WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY – See the following websites.

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?Id=2F442B02-C3EB-49FA-AE82-2079D732A90D&Statement_id=04F886B6-45C2-4A79-B0EB-A3F42A9C06D2 – This website is available by email updates to those who want to follow the events as they unfold.

See http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/8311d33f-705d-4ef2-8fb5-be34f7631eb4/letter-to-fcc-re-net-neutrality-11-10-14-.pdf – for Goodlatte's letter to Wheeler and the FCC. This letter is three pages long and can't be copied, but is available in full at this website. Goodlatte argues that antitrust law can prevent abuse by providers both in excluding users or content and in overpricing their services. It does not mention the FCC proposal of a two-tier system which is so onerous to most Americans. It does say that Net Neutrality will not protect the consumers from price increases and content limitation.

Most Democrats disagree with that. Personally, I am very much opposed to the use of higher prices to achieve any kind of control over the freedom of information. The presence of pornographic sites and terroristic sites does, I feel, need to be controlled more than it currently is. ISIS is recruiting young and naive men who want adventure to go to the Middle East and fight on their side. That is a problem. The use of higher prices for the public to do that, however, is grossly unfair to the poor who simply can't compete with the wealthy in that way. It is discriminatory. Maybe there will be some lawsuits on that score if the two-tiered system is set in motion.

The FCC's ruling is due out in February, so we will see what happens then. My greatest fear personally is that the poor or working class American will not be able to afford “the fast lane” Internet service and that large providers like AT&T can either economically or by outright denial of service eliminate such things as the open discussion of ideas, especially on social, scientific, legal, political and generally informational subjects. Eliminating opposing voices could shut off the free flow of ideas which for the most part exists today in the US, thus strangling our democratic system. It's like murder by means of denying food. Until just recently I thought such ideas were highly illogical, but I now – after some of the things I have heard from the Tea Party – only think they are not very likely to occur. I would rather have the means of such control on our freedom of speech eliminated, even if the Republican moderates are moving gradually away from the far right and their extremes.