Regulatory classification

After the FCC’s vote to scrap its net neutrality regulations, activists will turn to lawsuits, Congress—and the 2018 election. Lawsuits probably won’t be filed until at least January, but it’s already clear that they will challenge the FCC’s vote on both substance and process. The substance argument is a legalistic, almost existential, debate over the true nature of an ISP.  What’s kept the fire burning all these years is the fight over two lousy choices for how to legally classify an ISP.

In the hours after the Trump administration scrapped rules that required internet providers to treat all web traffic equally, a handful of states mobilized in a bid to reverse the decision by the Federal Communications Commission in court — or perhaps write their own new regulations as a replacement. To start, a coalition of state attorneys general, led by New York, pledged on Dec 14 that they would sue the FCC to stop its rollback from taking place.

Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen -- The FCC’s action today restored the FTC’s ability to protect consumers and competition throughout the Internet ecosystem. The FTC is ready to resume its role as the cop on the broadband beat, where it has vigorously protected the privacy and security of consumer data and challenged broadband providers who failed to live up to their promises to consumers. 

Now that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under chairman Ajit Pai has officially repealed net neutrality rules that have been in effect since 2015, the question becomes: Will the web really change?  Experts say that, if net neutrality norms do start to erode, it will probably happen incrementally, in ways that may be hard to recognize at first.  Here's what consumers should watch for. 

[Commentary] As the US continues to debate whether to embrace internet freedom, the world is doing so already, with many countries imposing even stronger rules than the ones the Federal Communications Commission did away with. Other countries are facing similar dilemmas about how to deal with today’s digital realities, and are slowly and individually contributing to a patchwork of laws that differ from country to country.

A Q&A with Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu. 

[Commentary] When the Federal Communications Commission voted December 14 to repeal the rules protecting a fast, fair, and open internet, the lobbyists for the internet service providers realized their long-envisioned strategy to gut the authority of the agency that since 1934 has been charged with overseeing the activities of the nation’s essential networks. The companies’ goal: to move regulatory jurisdiction from the Federal Communications Commission to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

[Commentary]  To taste a future without network neutrality, try browsing the web in Beijing. China’s internet, provided through telecom giants aligned with the Communist Party, is a digital dystopia, filtered by the vast censorship apparatus known as China’s Great Firewall. Some sites load with soul-withering slowness, or not at all. Others appear instantly. Content vanishes without warning or explanation. The culprit is rarely knowable. A faulty Wi-Fi router? A neighborhood power failure? Commercial sabotage? A clampdown on political dissent?

On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission acted decisively to protect the rights of internet users to employ any legal applications, content, devices, and services of their choosing on the broadband networks they rely on. Today, the FCC’s Republican majority abandons those protections.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is facing an online backlash after joking about the implications of repealing net neutrality. Pai appeared in a video wielding a fidget spinner and performing the Harlem Shake just one day before a decisive vote is cast over whether to repeal net neutrality. The video appeared on conservative news site The Daily Caller on Wednesday, ahead of Thursday’s vote by the FCC that is expected to reverse the Obama-era “Open Internet Order” regulations.