Regulatory classification

Since the Federal Communications Commission voted to abolish net neutrality regulations, California, Washington, and New York State have vowed to take up the cause. New York is one of the first out the gate. State Assemblymember Patricia Fahy—a Democrat whose district includes the capital, Albany—has drafted a short piece of legislation to introduce this week. It requires the state government, state agencies, and local governments (including New York City) to do business only with ISPs that adhere to net neutrality principles of no blocking or slowing down access to any legal content.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) vote to scrap net neutrality rules has sparked a vigorous debate about what comes next.  The effects of the FCC’s policy change will not be clear for some time, experts say.  “In the short term, little to nothing is going to be changing,” said Doug Brake, a policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan technology focused think-tank.  Gigi Sohn, a former policy adviser to past FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and current fellow at Georgetown Law’s New Institute for Technology Law and Policy, has been a vocal critic

[Commentary] The only sure fire strategy to regain control of this vital underpinning of modern economies is for us to own the broadband networks themselves. Only then will we able make the rules that serve the public interest. Decisions about caps and rates and access, about the digital divide and net neutrality and privacy can and should be debated and made at the local level, not in some distant boardroom or in even more distant federal agencies and federal courts.

When the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal net neutrality regulations, it went one step further: It banned state and local governments from taking their own action to preserve net neutrality within their borders. It’s a preemption effort that isn’t sitting well with local leaders across the country. Already, states and local governments say they’re preparing to sue the FCC. This could be an uphill battle: The FCC has authority over interstate communication laws, and Republican commissioners cite the Constitution's Commerce Clause to support their case.

[Commentary] So long as the Federal Communications Commission is run by majority rule, members of the first faction will never achieve lasting protections to their liking; the pendulum will continue to swing with changes in the White House. The solution is obvious: Congress needs to give the FCC (or the Net Tribunal) a clear mandate to define appropriate ISP and tech platform behavior and to police it. Until that day comes, we will have more heart-pounding installments of the net neutrality saga than Star Wars.

[Hal Singer is principal at Economists Incorporated]

[Commentary] Net neutrality advocates must shift their focus from the Federal Communications Commission to Congress, where they may well find the support and power they need to safeguard a fair and free internet. There is a strong historical argument for shifting attention to Congress: the Fairness Doctrine.  

As senators who have been working to close the digital divide, we believe federal policy must continue to promote the expansion of broadband access across rural America. Consumers and innovators deserve clear rules of the road that will continue to ensure the internet remains an open marketplace, will drive our online economy and will support investment throughout our internet ecosystem.

With the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of network neutrality rules set to go into effect in 2018, attention is turning to the pledges internet service providers have made to consumers about how they'll handle web traffic. Many are taking a fairly hard line against blocking or slowing down the delivery of content. It gets more complicated when it comes to whether internet companies will allow a website, such as Netflix, to pay for a "fast lane" to prioritize its content over sites' content. Comcast says it won't block access to content or slow down its delivery.

Proponents of major media mergers say that consumers will benefit if regulators approve the deals. But consumers, especially those who can least afford it, could get screwed by these deals.Multi-billion-dollar deals — along with regulatory changes such as the repeal of net neutrality rules — are often justified as ways to spur innovation and increase consumer choice, but consumer advocates argue the actions could actually make access to some popular content more expensive. The real question: Is choice at the expense of price really giving consumers what they want?

Even if the Federal Communications Commission wins in court, large Internet serivce providers still need to find a way to prevent any future FCCs from simply reinstating the network neutrality rules. That’s why the same giant ISPs that backed the FCC’s assault on net neutrality are now pushing for a “legislative solution” in Congress. The goal: they want a law that contains so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless, yet prevents the FCC from crafting any real, tough laws down the road.