The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday to restore net neutrality in the latest salvo in a years-long game of political ping-pong.
The Commission is expected to consult Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – e.g. B. Broadband companies such as AT&T and Comcast – will be reclassified as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This classification would allow ISPs to be subject to greater oversight by the FCC. The vote is widely expected to be in favor of restoring net neutrality because FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, controls the agency’s agenda. Rosenworcel continued the measure after a fifth commissioner was sworn in, restoring the Democratic majority on the body. (Disclosure: Comcast is an investor in Vox Media, The edge‘s parent company.)
Net neutrality advocates say oversight can help ensure fair access to an open Internet by adhering to principles such as no blocking or throttling of Internet traffic. Opponents, including industry players, fear it could halt innovation and subject ISPs to burdensome pricing regulations.
The vote is widely expected to be in favor of restoring net neutrality
Here’s how we got here: The last time the FCC introduced net neutrality rules was in 2015, after a long fight and a loud campaign of grassroots support. In 2017, Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led the successful effort to repeal the rules. President Joe Biden has made clear his intention to restore net neutrality through his antitrust regulation. But that effort was delayed by a protracted battle over its original nominee for commissioner, leaving the agency without votes to restore the rules until last year.
This time, net neutrality is no longer the biggest technology policy issue for many Americans. The vote comes just a day after Biden signed legislation forcing TikTok to separate from its China-based parent company or face a ban, and follows a new sweeping privacy proposal backed by two powerful sponsors becomes. But net neutrality remains a goal of many progressives, who see it as a prerequisite for an open Internet.
The rules aren’t much different from 2015 – the courts have largely upheld the framework, so the FCC is sticking with what they believe is legal. But the rhetoric surrounding the rules has changed. Opponents of net neutrality say the lack of impact after repeal shows the rules were never necessary; Proponents argue that in the absence of federal regulations, state laws kept some of their greatest fears at bay. The pandemic and current political tensions over foreign adversaries have also influenced the way the FCC talks about net neutrality: The agency is focused on how the rules could give it insight into internet outages as well as authority over national security issues involving broadband devices.
Opponents of net neutrality say the lack of impact after repeal shows the rules were never necessary
Rosenworcel, for example, has pointed to a “gap” in the agency’s authority to restrict foreign-controlled broadband providers on national security grounds, even though the agency has the ability to crack down on other areas of its telecommunications infrastructure. Opponents of the industry see this as a new tactic to reintroduce old rules. “Recognizing that it has lost the argument about blocking or throttling rather than anti-competitive paid prioritization, the FCC has looked for new justifications, such as saying that it is now cybersecurity that drives our interest in enforcing these old ones Internet surveillance laws,” said Jonathan Spalter, president and CEO of broadband industry group USTelecom.
Opponents worry that by reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers, the FCC could end up controlling pricing, which they say will disincentivize innovation. However, the FCC says it will waive its tariff regulator authority under the proposal. According to John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, a future FCC could reverse this, but doing so would require a new, lengthy regulatory process. “It represents a speed boost for a future FCC,” Bergmayer said. “And to a certain extent it signals the intention of what scope the net neutrality rules should have.”
That’s still not enough to calm down the opponents. Spalter acknowledged that “it’s a good step for the FCC to forego tariff regulation,” but also added, “We have to trust, but verify.”
“Tariff regulation is susceptible to mission creep of all kinds and can take a variety of forms,” said Spalter. He would prefer that Congress adopt the basic principles of net neutrality to ensure that web traffic cannot be unfairly blocked or throttled. He also says it’s wrong to focus on broadband companies that have made major investments during the pandemic to keep Americans connected to the internet.
“Just two and a half years ago, we stood together – the White House, Congress, industry, consumers – to advance progress in connecting everyone, everywhere,” said Spalter. But there is “nothing about Title II that advances that shared goal.” In fact, it undermines it. And for what? When was the last time you heard of a net neutrality violation outside of Big Tech, which isn’t even covered by this rulemaking?”
Industry opponents often point to the relatively quiet years following the Net Neutrality era as evidence that the most extreme predictions about Net Neutrality repeal were exaggerated. “There is no real problem with the open Internet,” said Spalter. “And regulating an industry that is on the cusp of working with our federal government and states to finally make the Internet widely available could really jeopardize that important and bipartisan goal by creating a regulatory overhang that discourages investment.”
But advocates of federal net neutrality rules say state laws — like California’s net neutrality rules — have helped keep the worst behavior at bay. “If you think nothing has happened since the FCC withdrew from net neutrality and are wondering what the big deal is, think again. Then take a closer look,” Rosenworcel said in a speech at the National Press Club last year. “Because when the FCC backed away from putting these guidelines in place, the court said the states could step in…So we actually have open internet guidelines that the providers are currently adhering to – they’re just coming out of Sacramento and places like that.” “
“People are now realizing that the mere availability of free and open broadband networks is not really the end game. There are many other gatekeepers on the Internet.”
Bergmayer said the fact that this net neutrality vote is drawing less attention reflects the recognition that net neutrality is just the beginning of the battle over internet policy. “People are now realizing that the mere availability of free and open broadband networks is not really the end game. “There are many other gatekeepers on the Internet,” Bergmayer said. “It just means that net neutrality isn’t the only fight consumers have to fight.”
It is, of course, possible that a new administration will flip the switch again, and the political ping-pong could begin again under a new administration. But Bergmayer is hoping for some stability. “I think there’s a misconception among people like me, who have worked on net neutrality my entire career, that we just love the game. “No, I love winning,” said Bergmayer. “I look forward to getting to net neutrality, getting those rules in place and then moving on to other things.”