Regulatory classification

INCOMPAS, whose members including streaming services, edge providers, and competitive carriers, has officially filed suit against the Restoring Internet Freedom order. Part of their argument is the Federal Communications Commission did not include important information in the comment record for the decision. 

More than four months after the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal network neutrality rules, the rules are technically still on the books, and we still don't know when they will die their final death. Why are the rules still in place? There's a technical answer related to how Pai structured the repeal, and there is speculation on why Pai structured it that way.

There is a lot of confusion on the effective date for the 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal Order, aka “Restoring Internet Freedom — Which Is Not In The Least Overdramatic Unlike You Hysterical Hippies.” This is not surprising, given the rather confusing way the Federal Register Notice reads.

[Commentary] When it came to unreasonable discrimination, the Federal Communications Commission's paid prioritization ban was more restrictive than the obligations that Section 202 placed on the old Bell telephone monopoly. 

[Commentary] A few years ago, Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin explained that “a system of free speech depends not only on the mere absence of state censorship, but also on an infrastructure of free expression.”  He wisely observed that policies that facilitate open innovation “better serve the interests of speech in the long run.” To innovate, to speak, to learn, to trust – these are outcomes squarely within the power of the Federal Communications Commission to advance.

Gov Kate Brown (D-OR) will sign a network neutrality bill into law April 9, making Oregon the second state to pass a net neutrality law since the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal nationwide rules. The new law was written narrowly in an attempt to survive lawsuits from Internet service providers. Instead of imposing prohibitions on all Internet providers, the law forbids state agencies from purchasing fixed or mobile Internet service from ISPs that violate the core net neutrality principles laid out in the soon-to-be-dead FCC rules.

Former Obama-era Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz argued against a state bill creating its own network neutrality rules and regulations and Internet service provider contract terms and online privacy protections in the wake of the Federal Communications Commission's elimination of its own rules. According to his prepared testimony for a hearing before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, Leibowitz said he recognized "the sky did not fall" when the FCC, during the Obama Administration, reclassified ISPs as Title II common carriers.

Republican state senators in Connecticut used a procedural trick to block a bill that would let the state regulate the internet. The bill failed in the state's Energy and Technology Committee.  The committee includes two state Senate Democrats and two state Senate Republicans. When House members are included, Democrats have a majority in the committee. State Sen Paul Formica (R), co-chairman of the panel, split the committee so only the senators were allowed to vote. With two senators voting against the measure and two voting for it, the bill failed in the committee.

Comcast would support a ban on paid prioritization as long as there is an exception for "specialized services" that benefit consumers, said Comcast senior executive VP David Cohen. Cohen's suggestion of a paid-prioritization ban with an exception for specialized services is similar to an early version of network neutrality rules that was passed in 2010 but thrown out in court in 2014.

[Op-ed] National debates too often miss the reality on the ground in Alaska, and that reality is at the forefront of my mind when I’m considering the current debate about Net Neutrality. I strongly support a free and open internet and agree with those concerned about internet service providers prioritizing one website’s traffic over another’s or throttling access to certain content. I also believe and prefer Congress, not an executive agency like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), should legislate protections for the internet.