{"id":69778,"date":"2017-11-22T17:52:17","date_gmt":"2017-11-22T22:52:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/?p=69778"},"modified":"2017-11-25T08:51:15","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T13:51:15","slug":"fcc-set-to-strike-down-net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/?p=69778","title":{"rendered":"FCC Set To Strike Down Net Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>The battle is now &#8220;ON&#8221; for the fight to keep Net Neutrality.<\/h2>\n<p>The FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is dead set to kill Net Neutrality. His statement is listed below and the link for the full document can be found <a href=\"http:\/\/transition.fcc.gov\/Daily_Releases\/Daily_Business\/2017\/db1121\/DOC-347868A1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Ajit Pai:<\/strong> For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach<br \/>\nestablished by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the<br \/>\nprivate sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United<br \/>\nStates. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.<\/p>\n<p>But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it<br \/>\nimposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake.<br \/>\nIt\u2019s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.<\/p>\n<p>Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach<br \/>\nand return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my<br \/>\nproposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would<br \/>\nsimply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers<br \/>\ncan buy the service plan that\u2019s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can<br \/>\nhave the technical information they need to innovate.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able<br \/>\nto police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably,<br \/>\nmy proposal will put the federal government\u2019s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on<br \/>\nthe beat to protect consumers\u2019 online privacy<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h3>FCC\u00a0Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/apps.fcc.gov\/edocs_public\/attachmatch\/DOC-347935A1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fact Sheet<\/a>; Understanding Chairman Pai\u2019s Proposal to Dismantle Net Neutrality.<\/h3>\n<h4>Prepared by the Office of FCC Commissioner Clyburn, November 22, 2017<\/h4>\n<h4>What is Net Neutrality?<\/h4>\n<p>Net neutrality is the concept that consumers and businesses should be able to reach the online<br \/>\napplications and services of their choosing without interference from their broadband provider.<br \/>\nIn other words, that all data and all legal traffic that travels over the Internet should be treated<br \/>\nequally. This has been a bipartisan bedrock principle for more than a decade.<\/p>\n<h4>What is Commissioner Clyburn\u2019s position on Net Neutrality?<\/h4>\n<p>Commissioner Clyburn has been an unwavering champion of robust, bright-line net neutrality<br \/>\nrules that protect consumers against the anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of<br \/>\nbroadband providers. The Commissioner continues to believe that the 2015 rules adopted by the<br \/>\nFCC are the best way to protect consumers and small businesses while promoting innovation.<\/p>\n<h4>Is it true that Chairman Pai\u2019s proposal would eliminate Net Neutrality?<\/h4>\n<p>Yes. It eliminates all prohibitions against blocking and throttling (slowing down) applications by<br \/>\nbroadband providers, and enables them to engage in paid prioritization and unreasonable<br \/>\ndiscrimination at the point of interconnection. It ignores thousands of consumer complaints and<br \/>\nmillions of individual comments that ask the FCC to save net neutrality and uphold the principles<br \/>\nthat all traffic should be created equal.<\/p>\n<h4>What does Chairman Pai\u2019s proposal really do?<\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Increases uncertainty for consumers, ensuring that broadband providers could block or<br \/>\nthrottle at a whim.<\/li>\n<li>Threatens innovation at the edge, by allowing broadband providers to charge tolls to<br \/>\naccess their customers.<\/li>\n<li>Enables offerings that favor the vertically integrated broadband provider\u2019s own content<br \/>\nand services over those of consumers and innovators who rely on the Internet to grow<br \/>\ntheir own businesses and stay informed.<\/li>\n<li>Prevents states and localities from adopting any related consumer protections \u2013 an action<br \/>\nthat is likely unlawful.<\/li>\n<li>Undoes the light-touch, court-approved Title II classification of broadband Internet<br \/>\naccess service that was modeled on the wildly-successful approach to mobile voice, and<br \/>\nreturns to an unregulated approach where broadband providers reign supreme and<br \/>\ncustomers with complaints have no redress at the FCC.<\/li>\n<li>Empowers a federal agency that has never enforced net neutrality protections (the FTC)<br \/>\nto manage consumer complaints and ensures that there is no FCC recourse for wronged<br \/>\nconsumers or businesses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4>GLOSSARY<\/h4>\n<p>The Office of Commissioner Clyburn provides this glossary to help decipher the jargon used in<br \/>\nChairman Pai\u2019s proposal to destroy net neutrality.<\/p>\n<h4>What do these terms really mean?<\/h4>\n<p><strong>Costly and restrictive laws of a bygone era<\/strong> \u2013 The Communications Act of 1934, as amended.<br \/>\nStill in force. Has not been repealed or declared unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cost-benefit analysis<\/strong> \u2013Despite insufficient data and data to the contrary, the Chairman&#8217;s Order<br \/>\ndraws conclusions by only accepting self-serving statements made by large broadband providers.<br \/>\nIt makes no effort to verify these claims against the statements these very same companies have<br \/>\nmade in filings before the Securities and Exchange Commission. See para. 301.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Government control of the Internet<\/strong> \u2013 Limited rules applying to the residential broadband<br \/>\nservice delivered on a broadband providers\u2019 own network. It does not include other services<br \/>\noffered by broadband providers nor does it include services offered by edge providers (e.g.,<br \/>\nGoogle, Facebook, or Netflix).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Heavy-handed regulation<\/strong> \u2013 Limited rules to protect consumers and competition that broadband<br \/>\nproviders do not like. Synonym for \u201cburdensome regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Market-based policies<\/strong> \u2013 Policies favoring little to no regulation for powerful broadband<br \/>\nproviders.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Network innovation<\/strong> \u2013 The ability of broadband providers to charge more for service to both<br \/>\nsides of the two-sided market. See para. 250.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Utility-style regulation of the Internet<\/strong> \u2013 Enforceable requirements that broadband providers<br \/>\nact in a \u201cjust and reasonable\u201d manner. Paradoxically, it does not involve any legal requirements<br \/>\nhistorically known as utility regulation. See \u201cGovernment control of the Internet\u201d; \u201cCostly and<br \/>\nrestrictive laws of a bygone era.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Title II Order<\/strong> \u2013 2015 Open Internet Order that was upheld in court last year.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Unnecessary and likely to inhibit innovation and competition<\/strong> \u2013 Not financially beneficial to<br \/>\nbroadband providers.<\/p>\n<h4>Office of Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: (202) 418-2100<br \/>\nTwitter: @MClyburnFCC<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.fcc.gov\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">www.fcc.gov<\/a><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/fcc_commissioners.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-69780 alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/fcc_commissioners.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"345\" height=\"103\" srcset=\"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/fcc_commissioners.png 345w, https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/fcc_commissioners-300x90.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 345px) 100vw, 345px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>The FCC as an organization is not the &#8220;Bad Guy&#8221; here. You have a rogue Chairman of that agency, looking to benefit a particular part of an industry. The &#8220;Why&#8221; is not important, what it is time for is to fight, to engage, and to educate. The other item to keep in mind, is that the &#8220;Fact Sheet&#8221; was created by the FCC. Remember, we have friends everywhere, even if the leader of the organization is part of the enemy.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Strive to do more, while you still can.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The battle is now &#8220;ON&#8221; for the fight to keep Net Neutrality. The FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is dead set to kill Net Neutrality. His statement is listed below and the link for the full document can be found here. Ajit Pai: For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world. But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake. It\u2019s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation. Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that\u2019s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate. Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government\u2019s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers\u2019 online privacy FCC\u00a0Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has issued a Fact Sheet; Understanding Chairman Pai\u2019s Proposal to Dismantle Net Neutrality. Prepared by the Office of FCC Commissioner Clyburn, November 22, 2017 What is Net Neutrality? Net neutrality is the concept that consumers and businesses should be able to reach the online applications and services of their choosing without interference from their broadband provider. In other words, that all data and all legal traffic that travels over the Internet should be treated equally. This has been a bipartisan bedrock principle for more than a decade. What is Commissioner Clyburn\u2019s position on Net Neutrality? Commissioner Clyburn has been an unwavering champion of robust, bright-line net neutrality rules that protect consumers against the anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of broadband providers. The Commissioner continues to believe that the 2015 rules adopted by the FCC are the best way to protect consumers and small businesses while promoting innovation. Is it true that Chairman Pai\u2019s proposal would eliminate Net Neutrality? Yes. It eliminates all prohibitions against blocking and throttling (slowing down) applications by broadband providers, and enables them to engage in paid prioritization and unreasonable discrimination at the point of interconnection. It ignores thousands of consumer complaints and millions of individual comments that ask the FCC to save net neutrality and uphold the principles that all traffic should be created equal. What does Chairman Pai\u2019s proposal really do? Increases uncertainty for consumers, ensuring that broadband providers could block or throttle at a whim. Threatens innovation at the edge, by allowing broadband providers to charge tolls to access their customers. Enables offerings that favor the vertically integrated broadband provider\u2019s own content and services over those of consumers and innovators who rely on the Internet to grow their own businesses and stay informed. Prevents states and localities from adopting any related consumer protections \u2013 an action that is likely unlawful. Undoes the light-touch, court-approved Title II classification of broadband Internet access service that was modeled on the wildly-successful approach to mobile voice, and returns to an unregulated approach where broadband providers reign supreme and customers with complaints have no redress at the FCC. Empowers a federal agency that has never enforced net neutrality protections (the FTC) to manage consumer complaints and ensures that there is no FCC recourse for wronged consumers or businesses. GLOSSARY The Office of Commissioner Clyburn provides this glossary to help decipher the jargon used in Chairman Pai\u2019s proposal to destroy net neutrality. What do these terms really mean? Costly and restrictive laws of a bygone era \u2013 The Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Still in force. Has not been repealed or declared unconstitutional. Cost-benefit analysis \u2013Despite insufficient data and data to the contrary, the Chairman&#8217;s Order draws conclusions by only accepting self-serving statements made by large broadband providers. It makes no effort to verify these claims against the statements these very same companies have made in filings before the Securities and Exchange Commission. See para. 301. Government control of the Internet \u2013 Limited rules applying to the residential broadband service delivered on a broadband providers\u2019 own network. It does not include other services offered by broadband providers nor does it include services offered by edge providers (e.g., Google, Facebook, or Netflix). Heavy-handed regulation \u2013 Limited rules to protect consumers and competition that broadband providers do not like. Synonym for \u201cburdensome regulation.\u201d Market-based policies \u2013 Policies favoring little to no regulation for powerful broadband providers. Network innovation \u2013 The ability of broadband providers to charge more for service to both sides of the two-sided market. See para. 250. Utility-style regulation of the Internet \u2013 Enforceable requirements that broadband providers act in a \u201cjust and reasonable\u201d manner. Paradoxically, it does not involve any legal requirements historically known as utility regulation. See \u201cGovernment control of the Internet\u201d; \u201cCostly and restrictive laws of a bygone era.\u201d Title II Order \u2013 2015 Open Internet Order that was upheld in court last year. Unnecessary and likely to inhibit innovation and competition \u2013 Not financially beneficial to broadband providers. Office of Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: (202) 418-2100 Twitter: @MClyburnFCC www.fcc.gov The FCC as an organization is not the &#8220;Bad Guy&#8221; here. You have a rogue Chairman of that agency, looking to benefit a particular part of an industry. The &#8220;Why&#8221; is not important, what it is time for is to fight, to engage, and to educate. The other item to keep in mind, is that the &#8220;Fact Sheet&#8221; was created by the FCC. Remember, we have friends everywhere, even if the leader of the organization is part of the enemy.\u00a0 Strive to do more, while you still can.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":69794,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,3,683],"tags":[1368,1370,1369,84,657],"class_list":["post-69778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activism","category-tech","category-activism-usa","tag-fcc","tag-fcc-chairman-pai","tag-fcc-commissioner-clyburn","tag-feature","tag-net-neutrality"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=69778"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69778\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69782,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69778\/revisions\/69782"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/69794"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=69778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=69778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=69778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}