FCC Chief Announces Big Win For Net Neutrality Advocates

[IDemo]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed a big win for net neutrality advocates on Wednesday, asking for strong authority to enforce open Internet protections.

In a Wired op-ed, Wheeler said he is proposing the FCC use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to protect consumer broadband Internet. This move will allow the FCC to stop Internet service providers from charging content providers like Netflix more money for reliable Internet access.

"Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," he wrote.

Wheeler said that his "enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The FCC's plan includes equal rules for mobile and fixed networks and will be voted on by agency commissioners later this month.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/fcc-net-neutrality_n_6613494.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I am pleasantly surprised.

And gratified to be proven wrong in my doubts about Wheeler based upon his background.

[merrily]

3. The FCC has to re-classify internet service providers or net neutrality won't go anywhere.

[msanthrope]

8. That's the next step--one that Wheeler is going to talk about in March/April. It's

a tricky maneuver, but one that might be possible if it's done according to the DC Circuit Court's opinion from last year.

There's going to be litigation on reclassification---so it has to be done right.

[merrily]

11. No. The DC Circuit last year was only following an earlier SCOTUS case.

Litigating without reclassifying first, as the SCOTUS had already required, was quite suspect.

[msanthrope]

15. Merrily---if reclassification happens, it might take Comcast, et al about 15 minutes to dust off the

litigation they've already prepared. I'm talking about future litigation over reclassification.

That's why I like the fact that Wheeler took the time to get Congressional findings with Franken and Wyden.

[merrily]

17. Comcast has not litigated reclassification yet. It has litigation the feint at

net neutrality without re-classification.

But, that is not what my post was about anyway. It was the SCOTUS that required re-classification, not the DC Circuit. As I said, the DC Circuit simply followed the earlier SCOTUS case, as it was bound to do.

[msanthrope]

19. Merrily, I KNOW Comcast hasn't litigated reclassification yet. But they will. They probably

already have the suit written.

As for the DC Circuit case, please read it. The DC Circuit was not merely following precedent--their Opinion on Section 706 far outstrips anything SCOTUS has tackled.

[merrily]

32. I did read the case msanthrope.

[staggerleem]

36. That's what "Title II Authority" means!

It means he's going to re-classify ISPs as common carriers (like telephones or trucks), which can charge based ONLY on the payload (weight, for a truck - MBytes for an ISP). A truck driver can't charge based on the content of the boxes he delivers - his charges can only be based on the size & weight of the boxes - doesn't matter if they hold diamonds or gravel.

Likewise, common carrier status would mean that an ISP can charge only on the amount of data transmitted, not on the type of data, its source, or its destination.

[JimDandy]

38. Good info. Thanks. n/t

[Scuba]

6. Me too. Still fearing some hidden issues, but really pleased with what's reported here.

[BrotherIvan]

7. +1

Definitely going to wait and see on this one.

[rhett o rick]

55. I agree. Strange turn for Wheeler. nm

[msanthrope]

10. You are rather gracious!! Wheeler is an industry expert, and he's a decent human

by all accounts. He's been hamstrung by the DC Circuit, and frankly, the threat of litigation from some of the most powerful corporations in America.

But he's still trying to do right by the consumer. I think he was a good pick by the President, and I never doubted that his intent was return the FCC to a more consumer-friendly agency.

[merrily]

12. Wheeler and most of the FCC's legal department are industry insiders, so yes, they know the industry

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. History has made me a cynic.

So it's always nice to be wrong in my low expectations from government as a whole.

[msanthrope]

16. Have you read my username?

I understand. I truly do.

[Kermitt Gribble]

60. I am too.

Cautiously hopeful.

[ananda]

2. That is good news!

For a change.

[Andy823]

4. But how can that be

I have been told by numerous posters here on DU that this was "another" sellout by the president, and Wheeler. Doom and gloom was the only thing that could come of the president and Wheeler because they work for the 1% and could care less about the rest of us.

I sure hope those who spread the doom and gloom on this issue can be humble enough to admit they were wrong.

[iandhr]

20. Don't count on it.

[F4lconF16]

51. Laughing at this post--check the one directly above yours. nt

[msanthrope]

5. I hate to say "I told you so," but as a defender of Wheeler's appointment, I can only recall all the

hair on fire threads about this man on DU with a wry chuckle.

[merrily]

9. Odd. I recall a thread where you said a court decision rendered net neutrality impossible, quite

apart from what Obama or Wheeler might want. Turned out, that was not so. But, reclassification is still an issue.

As to Wheeler, the OP article gives a clue: Obama has come out more strongly for net neutrality.

IIRC, the thread may have been started by villager.

[msanthrope]

13. My legal opinion is that the DC Circuit Court's Opinion was so bad that it did render net

neutrality impossible as a practical matter. While the opinion suggests reclassification as an option, it's sort of a bait-and-switch---there's nothing to indicate that the DC Circuit Court would then agree with the FCC on reclassification.

In other words, I think that Opinion is so frigin' craven that even though the Court suggests reclassification, they are Lucy and the football.

So, while I think it's great that reclassification is on the table, I think the litigation over the issue could screw us all.

Which doesn't mean we don't do it....it's just a reminder that in 2016, who do you want making judicial picks? I also applaud Wheeler for working with Franken and Wyden on this issue.

[merrily]

18. Again, the DC Circuit simply followed SCOTUS precedent, as it must.

[msanthrope]

21. No--it did not merely follow precedent. That's part of what made it so controversial.

Have you actually read the case?

[merrily]

22. Yes, I read it. I wrote an OP about it after the posts that you and another lawyer

made about it did not make sense to me.

I also looked at a couple of cases you named that had nothing to do with it-about the breakup of ATT.

[msanthrope]

23. Is that the OP where you used a Ph.d. as your primary legal source? To be fair, you also used

an attorney---but he didn't address the DC Circuit court opinion.

So, your OP seemed to be claiming that Wheeler could just change the rules (i.e. reclassification) at will, without Congress, and without judicial repercussion. You seem to be arguing that he could simply change the rules by fiat, because the DC Circuit Opinion told him he could.

If you would, since you read the opinion, kindly show us where the court wrote that?

[merrily]

27. I used several sources for various points. I don't specifically recall using a Ph.d for a thing.

If I did use a Ph.d., it would not have been as my primary legal source.

Your recollection of my OP is faulty, to say the least. Mostly, my OP stated what the opinion of the DC Circuit actually said because you and others were claiming or, at the very least, strongly implying, that the FCC had no way around the DC opinion at all.

[msanthrope]

30. No--most of your OP's legal interpretation was done by a Ph.d....which you noted. Why are you

avoiding my question?

Your OP's stance was that Wheeler could reclassify by fiat.....so show us the section of the opinion you base that on.

[merrily]

31. Do you have a link to that OP?

Unfortunately, I am unable to search DU for reasons neither I nor Skinner could figure out.

I am not avoiding your question. I would not have said that FCC could reclassify by fiat. That is not how FCC rules are made.

[msanthrope]

39. Here.....

http://lmgtfy.com/

You know, there's a feature on DU that allows you to save your OPs to your journal. If you are going to reference your OPs as 'proof' of something, I would absolutely keep track of them.

[merrily]

40. Thanks for the link to google.

I don't think I referenced that OP as proof of anything. You were the one who made a claim about my OP from about a year ago that did not seem familiar to me. So, I wanted to see the OP to try to figure out what you were talking about.

[pa28]

25. I remember something along that line as well.

[villager]

26. What thread did that rascally Villager start now!?

I've posted a lot on this issue.

I'm glad there was enough public umbrage that we seemed to have "made Obama do it," in this case -- advocate strongly for Net Neutrality -- thus providing the cover Wheeler did to do, seemingly, the "right thing" here.

Of course, we're not over the finish line yet, so let's see what happens in the weeks ahead. But so far, so surprising.

[merrily]

28. Not now, villager. Months ago, when the DC Circuit opinion first came down. I cannot swear that you

were actually the OP, only that it is my current recollection that you were. It was a long thread, many replies, lots of disagreement.

[villager]

33. I know you meant earlier -- yes, there were a couple of long lively threads around the time

...the decision was handed down.

[merrily]

34. I thought you did a great job. Iching Carpenter and Koko, too. If I am leaving out anyone who was

fighting the good fight then, I apologize, but those are the names that leap to my mind right now. IIRC, I acknowledged them in the OP that I did after I read the DC Circuit opinion myself.

[villager]

35. Why... thanks!

And now we get to wait and see what the real/final set of (re?)-regulations will be!

[merrily]

37. Let's first see what Wheeler's next step is.

What I find puzzling is the huge difference in attitude between a year ago and now.

If you recall, a year ago, two DUers who say they are lawyers (and I believe them both) told us that the court had put the kibosh on net neutrality. Just cited the opinion as the total answer.

But, a year later, when Wheeler says something more cheerful, and we applaud. Did something in the law change between a year ago and now?

[msanthrope]

41. Look--it's been explained to you many times. Net Neutrality as promulgated in 2010 is dead. Gone.

That was the subject of the Verizon litigation, and the DC Circuit Court put the kibosh on it.

Wheeler is trying to do an end run AROUND that ruling. I think he doesn't, legally, have a chance in Hell at reclassification that will survive a court challenge. I'd love to be wrong about that.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should not applaud, and it doesn't mean I think he wasn't a good pick. He is.

[merrily]

42. Um, no. The DC Circuit did not put the kibosh on it. It said the SCOTUS had said that

the FCC could not regulate that heavily without reclassification to common carrier status. Given the earlier SCOTUS opinion, Wheeler should never have tried what he tried without at least attempting reclassification.

If, however, as you say, Wheeler does not have a chance in hell of getting around the DC Circuit opinion, then he is bsing now, not proving what a great nomination this industry insider was.

Your explanations last year were not consistent with the Circuit Court opinion. Not to mention the case about the ATT break up decades ago. to which you directed me for reasons still best known to you (if anyone).

No clue what other explanations about this you are claiming to have made to me "many times," but I'll stick with the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion. So, good news: you can stop "explaining."

[msanthrope]

43. Wheeler never should have tried? Wheeler wasn't appointed when the litigation started. Further,

kindly cite the SCOTUS ruling that speaks directly to net neutrality that "Wheeler" should have followed.

I'm serious---you keep citing this SCOTUS opinion. Let's see the cite....tell us where SCOTUS directed the FCC to reclassify before making NN rules.

[merrily]

44. Wheeler was there while the case was on appeal. FCC, Genachowski, Wheeler. No one attempted re-

classification.

Let's see the cite....tell us where SCOTUS directed the FCC to reclassify before making NN rules.

Read my post again, msanthrope. That is not what it said about the SCOTUS ruling. My post said,

the SCOTUS had said that the FCC could not regulate that heavily without reclassification to common carrier status.

Do you disagree with what I actually said about the SCOTUS ruling? If not, why "rephrase" my post and ask me for a cite to something I never said?

It's tactics like this that again impel me to tell you the good news that you can stop trying to explain things to me.

[msanthrope]

45. Kindly cite what you claim. Show me the SCOTUS cite that indicates that net neutrality was

addressed by SCOTUS, and they said what you claim.

FYI--Tom Wheeler was appointed November 4, 2013.

You know when the DC Circuit case was heard? September 9, 2013.

Unless he had a time machine, what was Wheeler supposed to do?

[merrily]

46. Already responded in Reply 44.

You are asking me a second time to support your "paraphrase." Really? And if you have a beef with the claim that the SCOTUS case governed, take it up with the DC Circuit.

As for the DC appeal, as you well know, the relevant date in this case would not be when the case was argued. (Again, you can stop "explaining" that case to me.)

However, as my Reply 44 also stated: FCC, Genachowski, Wheeler--whatever. Blame whoever or whatever you want: point is, no one reclassified.

[msanthrope]

47. Again--what is your cite in support of your claim? You claim that SCOTUS ruled on net neutrality,

directing the FCC to reclassify....

SO CITE THAT.

You also wrote this amazing thing---

As for the DC appeal, as you well know, the relevant date in this case would not be when the case was argued. (Again, you can stop "explaining" that case to me.)

Well, if you are blaming Tom Wheeler for a case that was argued before he was even appointed, then YES...the date does become relevant. Short of a time machine, what did you expect Wheeler to do about a case that commenced and was heard before his appointment?

[merrily]

48. I have responded to those same points twice already.

[msanthrope]

49. No--you have not responded--you keep claiming that SCOTUS told the FCC something about

net neutrality, but when you are challenged to provide a single sentence from SCOTUS to back that claim up, you haven't been able to provide it.

Why not just admit that you cannot cite your claim?

And since Wheeler did not even come to the FCC until after the final appellate hearing--what, precisely, was he supposed to do?

[merrily]

50. No. YOU keep claiming that I said those words. I have already pointed out to you

twice that I did not. See replies 42 (for the words I did use originally), reply 44 which quotes those words to you, pointing out they did not say what you claim, and Reply 46, where I again declined to be responsible for your attempts to change my wording.

Your attempts to put words in my mouth have now failed three times, or is it four?

And, again, if you don't think that the SCOTUS case that the DC Circuit cited about reclassification to common carrier status before attempting heavy regulation, was actually controlling, you need to take that up with the DC Circuit. My reply 42 was also clear that I was talking about what the opinion of the DC Circuit said and not inventing a new concept.

[msanthrope]

52. You just did it again----

And, again, if you don't think that the SCOTUS case that the DC Circuit cited about reclassification to common carrier status before attempting heavy regulation, was actually controlling, you need to take that up with the DC Circuit.

CITE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.....what case???? What SCOTUS ruling on net neutrality?

[merrily]

53. No, YOU just rephrased part my post again and ignored the rest. Apparently, you are enjoying this

game. Do continue.

[msanthrope]

54. Wait a second--are you agreeing with Verizon that net neutrality is "heavy regulation?"

Because you used the phrase "heavy regulation" with regards to this issue......

[merrily]

56. As I said, take it up with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

[msanthrope]

57. So you cannot cite the SCOTUS case you claim, and you cannot answer whether you agree with Verizon

on "heavy regulation?"

Because, you understand, that's the RW propaganda about net neutrality---that it's heavy regulation (of an industry that has almost no regulation.) That is what makes the DC Circuit decision so damn craven....don't you agree?

This is what Verizon had to say about net neutrality.....

"It is counterproductive because heavy regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment among the many players — not just Internet service providers — that now will need to consider FCC rules before launching new services," said Michael Glover, Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/04/us/politics/ap-us-net-neutrality.html?_r=0

[merrily]

58. Back to the game? From Reply 42 on, I have been telling you that I am saying what the

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said.


Again, if you have a problem with what the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit says, take it up with the court.

Pretending that I'm inventing this stuff hasn't won you anything so far. But, if you enjoy it anyway, as I said before, be my guest.

[msanthrope]

59. Again--are you going to cite the phantom SCOTUS case you claim on net neutrality? nt

[Kelvin Mace]

29. I will celebrate when the actual text comes out

spelling out the decisions. A lot of changes can occur 'tween op-ed and regulatory text.

[onenote]

61. Not just an op-ed. An FCC Fact Sheet released today

Unlikely that the Chairman would have put it out if he didn't have two more votes for what he described.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Again, just text

What becomes regulation is what matters. The press release giveth, the weasel words in the law taketh away.

[wolfie001]

62. Great news! nt

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

63. Well, this is a phenomenon I never thought I'd see.

A stuffy bureaucrat defending Net Neutrality
And regulations stickin' it to greedy ISPs.
It's a stance most endearing.
I can't believe I'm cheering
For the fellas at the freakin' FCC!

[Major Hogwash]

64. Boo-yah!

And that's how you get it done!!!

[blackspade]

65. Nice.

[deutsey]

66. I'm glad there was such a huge outpouring of protest

?itok=WxAUVTxr

Inspired by Hungary's recent victorious protests to defeat an internet tax, "Internet Emergency" vigils to defend net neutrality are slated to sweep the United States Thursday evening.

In over a dozen cities across the United States, "demonstrators will hold their cell phones, laptops, and tablets above their heads as a symbol of protest, and shine light on the corruption unfolding in Washington, DC.," according to a statement from organizers, who include Fight for the Future, PopularResistance.org, Free Press, Demand Progress, reddit, and grassroots groups.

Under the leadership of chairman Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industry, the Federal Communications Commission is currently considering what the New York Times calls a "hybrid regulatory approach to net neutrality." Open internet campaigners warn that the new rules fall short of the strong net neutrality protections that are needed, because it would allow for internet fast and slow lanes.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/06/internet-emergency-protests-sweep-united-states-defense-net-neutrality

[blkmusclmachine]

67. Will wait for the other shoe to drop.

[jtuck004]

69. Apple's live TV service would be exempt from net neutrality rules

...
The FCC’s “bright light” ban on paid prioritization doesn’t apply to content delivery networks like the one Apple is rolling out.

...

The former Wall Street Journal media specialist reported Wednesday that someone at Apple — probably Eddy Cue — has been spotted in Hollywood trying once again to cut content deals with the folks who make TV shows.

Apple, according to Kafka, seems to be trying to start an “over the top” pay-TV service like Dish’s Sling TV product, or the one Sony is getting ready to launch.

What makes the timing so interesting is that Kafka’s story broke the same day the chairman of the FCC issued controversial net neutrality rules that would prohibit, among other things, “paid prioritization” on the Internet.
...

[link:http://fortune.com/2015/02/05/apples-live-tv-service-would-be-exempt-from-net-neutrality-rules/|Here.

Always someone trying to find an edge...