Net neutrality voted to return (maybe)

The net is saved! Or is it…?

Fans of a free internet, rejoice! The FCC has voted to restore net neutrality.

Net neutrality has been a bit of a controversial subject throughout the years. To better understand net neutrality, the Wall Street Journal made a short video:

The vote does not mean that net neutrality has been restored just yet. The bill still has to go through the Republican-controlled Senate, and President Trump himself. 

The response

Trump took to Twitter in 2014, bashing net neutrality and comparing it to the Fairness Doctrine from the 1940s. 

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has been a long-time advocate for removing net neutrality. After the vote was made, Pai released a statement on Twitter.

You may remember Pai released this video to try to convince Americans that ending net neutrality would be a good thing. It did not go well.

The lawsuit

After the FCC voted to remove net neutrality, more than 20 states petitioned the FCC.

Ultimately, about two-dozen attorneys general sued the FCC, calling the decision “illegal.”

According to the lawsuit,  removing net neutrality violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The FCC cannot make “arbitrary and capricious” changes to existing policies such as net neutrality.  It disregarded evidence on industry practices and possible harm to consumers and businesses.

“The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online,” Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said. “This would be a disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet. That’s why I’m proud to lead this broad coalition of 22 Attorneys General in filing suit to stop the FCC’s illegal rollback of net neutrality.”

At the start of February, the FCC finally responded to the lawsuit in a statement from FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks.

“Today in federal court, this FCC is attempting to explain why it ignored the evidence before it and hastily abandoned the carefully crafted, common sense Open Internet framework established in 2015. In the process, it ignored the will of millions of people who made their support for a free and open internet crystal clear. Like many others, I am paying close attention,” Starks said

Starks continued, “We know that consumers cannot count on the good will of big business to protect their interests. Unfettered access to the open internet provides a gateway to opportunity. Strong, enforceable rules empower consumers to make sure they get the service that they pay for and expect. I strongly believe that the FCC made the right call with the framework it established in 2015, and I am hopeful that these critical consumer protections will soon be restored.”

What can we expect to happen?

If you are wondering how what fate may befall this bill from the FCC, this video from the 1970s may enlighten you.

Stranger things have happened during the Trump administration, so net neutrality may very well return. About 90% of Americans are in favor of a free internet provided by net neutrality. That said, senators and the president could pass the bill to gain support come election time. 

If net neutrality is restored, fans of a free internet everywhere will rejoice. Until that day comes, we won’t hold our breath.

Trump administration challenges California’s net neutrality laws

State governments are willing to go to war over net neutrality.

California pushes back against Trump on net neutrality

Just when you thought the fight for net neutrality was lost, the plot thickens.

Recently, California passed the toughest statewide net neutrality law in the country. Hours later, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice sued the state. The federal government, and by extension the DOJ, has its pockets deeply lined with “donations” from major telecommunication companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

Essentially, California’s new law (SB822) rolls back net neutrality rules to what they were before they were gutted by the FCC. This prevents internet service providers from selectively throttling or blocking their users’ access to different websites or online services. For example, in states other then California, Comcast could block or slow access to Netflix in an attempt to draw more users to their On Demand service. The bill also outlaws anti-competitive data sponsorship programs, which allow ISP’s to exclude their video services from their customers’ data caps, giving them an unfair advantage over services like Hulu or Netflix.

California isn’t the only state defending net neutrality through legislation, Washington is pushing its own laws, too. The attorneys general of 22 states have filed a brief against the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai accused California’s bill of being anti-consumer, even though the bill has the support of many consumer groups.

Trump does not appear to hold a strong opinion on net neutrality one way or another. His administration repealed it last year, but his personal stake in repealing it seemed to be revoking yet another Obama-era policy. It should be noted, however, that Trump has expressed concern in the past about ISPs blocking access to conservative online content.

American cable and internet providers have created one of the most unregulated, monopolistic industries in the world. Major ISPs, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable, have essentially divided the country amongst themselves. They make no attempts to encroach on each others’ territories, and any smaller ISPs have a laughably small chance of succeeding in territories controlled by the main players.

Consumers essentially have no choice when it comes to internet or cable; it mostly depends on where they live and who the local ISP kingpin is. This lack of competition also results in lower quality cable and internet services for consumers, as these companies have no incentive to offer faster internet services (matching the speed of services like Google Fiber) because the customer has no other options.

If California wins their bout with the DOJ, you can expect more states to follow their lead.