Why FCC’s New Neutrality Rules Are Good for the Internet
The FCC today voted in favor of the Open Internet Ordinance, which classifies the Internet as a utility in accordance with the provisions of Title II. Here’s what this messy jargon means and how it affects you.
Net neutrality, as we discussed earlier , is the idea that the Internet should be a level playing field for newcomers and established giants alike. While it used to be a quiet understanding, the FCC wants to make it official.
The FCC today voted to reclassify Internet service providers (such as Comcast and AT&T) using the same rules currently used by utilities such as wired phones. In the past, the FCC found it difficult to create legally binding rules for ISPs. This is due to the fact that Internet service providers were previously classified as “information services”. The new rules classify them as “telecommunication services”.
What’s more, the new rules apply to wireless broadband as well, which means that cellular carriers like Verizon, AT&T (again), Sprint and T-Mobile will also be bound by the same requirements, which means no exemptions just because that the company delivers the Internet to the phone instead of the computer. Until now, wireless broadband providers have followed very different, less stringent rules. The rules even give the FCC the power to investigate interconnection disputes like the famous Netflix-Comcast dispute.
So what will all of this change? Well … a lot.
Making the Internet a Utility Means Compliance
Until today, the Internet has been regulated as an “information service”. This means that there were certain rules governing existing utilities that the FCC cannot legally apply to ISPs. For example, in 2010, the FCC tried to pass rules that would restrict the activities of Internet providers, as well as prohibit them from doing so. These rules were called the Open Internet Order and, among other things, prohibited the blocking of legitimate content, applications, or websites.
Many net neutrality proponents didn’t think this had gone far enough, but it was something. However, providers, including Verizon, have challenged the rules . The results of these lawsuits (which take an agonizingly long time to resolve) showed that the FCC has no power to create such rules because the FCC does not classify Internet service providers asregular carriers (emphasis mine):
The Commission found that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 1996 empowers it to take measures to facilitate the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we also believe, has intelligently interpreted section 706 to give it the power to promulgate the rules governing broadband providers’ attitudes towards Internet traffic, and the rationale behind the specific rules in question – that they will preserve and facilitate the virtuous circle. the innovations that have driven the explosive growth of the Internet are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. However, even though the Commission has general powers to regulate in this area, it cannot establish requirements that are contrary to statutory prescriptions. Given that the Commission has decided to classify broadband providers in such a way that they are not considered regular carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from regulating them as such. Since the Commission was unable to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not in themselves impose general operator obligations, we are canceling these parts of the Open Internet Order.
This classification has been a legal obstacle for the FCC for years . Basically, the FCC wanted to give ISPs some fairly loose rules to encourage investment and innovation, but then wanted to step in with stricter rules when it didn’t like what ISPs did with their freedom. Admittedly, the FCC wanted to eat their pie too.
However, infrastructure investment has not been as significant over the past decade as the FCC would like, so now the FCC has decided it is time to tighten the reins. Since Title II treats Internet service providers as a regular carrier, rules such as those created in 2010 are effectively enforced.
Of course, Section II is actually a set of potentially enforceable rules. And, in fact, many of them won’t apply at all because they don’t make sense for an ISP. As legal blog Skadden explains:
These sections include obligations to file conditions and prices for services with the FCC (Section 203), procedures governing entry and exit from the market (Section 214), requirements for telecommunications services for persons with disabilities (Section 255), and even restrictions on provided services for monitoring alarms. some organizations (Section 275). However, with particular relevance to net neutrality, Section II also contains restrictions (Section 202) that prohibit telecommunications service providers from engaging in “unfair or unreasonable discrimination” in their costs, practices and services. As discussed below, this section of Section II has received the most attention in the ongoing debate about net neutrality …
In proposing new net neutrality rules in May, the FCC noted that one way to impose net neutrality obligations on broadband services would be to comply with its Title II legal authority. This action will result in the imposition of the entire set of Section II rules on broadband providers. However, in its May notice, the FCC said it would likely refrain from applying a number of Title II sections to broadband providers in order to minimize the regulatory burden on those providers . In his recent statement in support of Title II, President Obama also noted that the FCC should refrain from those sections of Title II that are “less relevant to broadband services.” In fact, out of nearly 50 different sections of Title II, the Commission indicated in May that it would refrain from applying almost all of them , with the exception of the following:
- Section 201 (requirement of fair and reasonable service and fees);
- Section 202 (prohibition of unreasonable discrimination);
- Section 208 (Processes governing complaints filed with the Commission);
- Section 222 (requirements governing customer privacy);
- Section 254 (universal service fund obligations of telecom operators);
- Section 255 (Access for Persons with Disabilities).
It’s an odd legal move, but it allows the FCC to strike a balance between over-regulation and over-regulation without any teeth. Among the new rules that have been passed, the FCC now prohibits traffic blocking or throttling, paid prioritization (read: faster lanes at higher prices), and requires ISPs to disclose their network management practices. It also gives the FCC the power to investigate consumer abuse or complaints.
The last part is perhaps the most important. The FCC can now intervene when the actions of ISPs reach dangerous levels. Prior to that, if consumers have had a complaint with an ISP (and there is no shortage of those complaints ), they can turn to advocacy groups such as the EFF, complain about their ISP directly, or hope Congress does something about it. Unfortunately, the EFF has no de facto mandate, ISPs have little incentive to change (as they face little direct competition), and Congress is often stuck in a dead end. The FCC Title II empowerment means that consumers have an agency they can turn to that can actually get things done.
Title II could mean more innovation (like Google Fiber)
While it is still unclear how this will happen, the Section II classifications also include provisions for building infrastructure. In this regard, Google from all companies has expressed an interest in being classified as a Title II service provider. Unfortunately, the FCC did not vote to share the last mile, which would have helped Google. However, it has adopted regulations that allow ISPs to access poles and other infrastructure, which could make it much easier for them to enter new markets.
First of all, Google clashed with existing ISPs while trying to leverage existing infrastructure. For example, in Austin, Texas, AT&T owns about 20% of the grid towers . Google asked to use them, but AT&T wanted to charge more money than other ISPs. If Google were classified as a communications service provider, AT&T would be legally obligated to provide access at a fair market (read: lower) rate. Until that happens, AT&T is reluctant to share:
“Under federal law, Google has the right to join our pillars if it qualifies as a telecom or cable TV service provider, as they themselves admit,” said American-Statesman AT&T vice president of public affairs Tracy King. “We will work with Google when they qualify, like all such qualified providers.”
According to the new classification, this is no longer necessary. Google can have access to the poles it wants by the same rules as any other ISP. This means Google won’t have to dig the ground and build redundant power towers just to get Google Fiber to an area where it’s technically feasible (emphasis and link added):
“Thus, currently, a BIAS provider that does not offer its broadband service on a general basis and does not offer other cable TV or telecommunications services over its network does not have the federal Section 224 protections for traditional cable and telecommunications systems. “- writes the director of communications for Google Austin Schlick. “Google Fiber, for example, offers its Basic Internet services on a stand-alone basis and alone or in combination with the Internet Protocol video service of its Gigabit Internet service , which is not traditional cable TV and therefore lacks federal section 224 access rights . If BIAS was classified as a telecommunications service, but then the statutory right to access the utility infrastructure will apply to all BIAS providers , regardless of what services they otherwise provide. “
Anyone who has read about Google Fiber knows that this service is a serious competitor to existing internet services. So much so that it really worries the existing providers . Google Fiber is exactly the competition the Internet needs in the US, but the lack of regulation that forces existing ISPs to play fair is actively discouraging infrastructure investment. Oddly enough, there are no rules to keep newcomers in check.
Of course, Google did a deal with AT&T in this particular dispute anyway, so it’s not entirely clear how much that will help. It may be that Google is able to enter markets it could not enter before, or it may simply be that it takes less time to resolve these disputes. Either way, it’s a win, and that means new ISPs have one less hurdle.
What can you do
The vote went to the FCC, but like last time, there are already people lining up to challenge it and overturn the rules. Several members of Congress have already proposed legislation that specifically prohibits this type of classification, making the vote controversial. And there will no doubt be no lawsuits from the industry itself challenging the legality of these rules in court.
If you would like to show your support (or disagreement!) With these new rules, please continue to contact the FCC right here . This is also a good time to contact your Congressional representative to let them know what you think of the new rules. While today was a good day for net neutrality, there are still challenges ahead.