What Comes Next In The Net-Neutrality Debate?

Can't happen here!

(Plutocracy couldn't replace Democracy either.)

***

What comes next now that the FCC has advanced its latest net-neutrality proposal

FCC accelerates its Internet 'fast lanes' proposal. "U.S. regulators on Thursday advanced a 'net neutrality' proposal that would ban Internet providers from blocking or slowing down access to websites but may let them charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users....Dozens protested the vote at the FCC on Thursday as many consumer advocates have rejected FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal that may allow some 'commercially reasonable' deals in which content companies could pay broadband providers to prioritize traffic on their networks." Alina Selyukh in Reuters.

Primary source: The full text of the proposed rule and supporting documents.

Explainers:

Some facts about net neutrality. Bree Fowler in the Associated Press.

Everything you wanted to know about net neutrality. Amy Schatz in Re/code.

Now it's the public's turn to weigh in. "The plan is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments." Cecilia Kang in The Washington Post.

@binarybits: My inbox is half lefty groups attacking the FCC for killing net neutrality and half lefty groups hailing the FCC for moving toward it.

Video: Why you should care about net neutrality. Brendan Sasso and Reena Flores in National Journal.

The one quote from the meeting you must read. "'If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited. If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and therefore bedoubly prohibited.' The term 'commercially unreasonable' is vital here. It's the test by which the FCC is proposing to determine whether an Internet service provider has violated net neutrality. Critics say the term...could allow ISPs to give the FCC the run-around. But Wheeler is saying that although his plan allows a tiered Internet with faster lanes, the floor will be set at whatever service a customer has bought." Brian Fung in The Washington Post.

@nycjim: FCC commissioner: "When my mother calls" about net neutrality "I know that there is a problem." Live updates: http://on.mash.to/1jM6AoM

The FCC's huge dilemma. "Wheeler yesterday said 'the prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable.' That's what the FCC will be, no matter how it fashions final rules. If it adopts toughened rules as demanded by advocacy groups, some Democratic lawmakers and content providers including Google Inc. (GOOG) and Netflix Inc. (NFLX), Wheeler and carriers foresee years of litigation. If the FCC adopts the Wheeler proposal advanced yesterday to allow some priority arrangements as long as they aren't 'commercially unreasonable,' it could determine winners and losers on a case-by-case basis."Todd Shields and Chris Strohm in Bloomberg.

How activists put tougher net-neutrality rules back on the agenda. "Under massive public pressure, the FCC has shown itself more responsive than Congress, opening up a legitimate debate over the rules. Tech firms have linked arms with the public against the Wheeler proposal. And what activists consider the only path to true net neutrality--reclassifying broadband Internet under Title II of the Communications Act as a common carrier service, allowing the FCC to regulate it like phone lines--has moved from an impossible dream to a more viable alternative." David Dayen in The New Republic.

Comcast to FCC: Don't you even think about it. "Comcast Corp. is applauding 'the first step' in the Federal Communications Commission's rule-making process aimed at drafting a new set of rules to guarantee an open Internet. But the Philadelphia cable giant also warned the FCC not to go too far with the rules -- or reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service -- which would bring a higher degree of regulatory scrutiny." Meg James in the Los Angeles Times.

Explainer: The case against toughening the rules by reclassifying broadband. Timothy B. Lee in Vox.

The White House tries its best poker face. "It seems almost no one is neutral about the Federal Communications Commission's latest net neutrality plan, though the White House, in a statement on Thursday, did its level best to keep its distance from the agency's deliberations." Carol E. Lee in The Wall Street Journal.

There's nothing neutral about the FCC's partisan politics. "That may be not be surprising, considering the issue at hand pits large businesses against grass-roots consumer advocates. But the vote is also evidence of the internal frictions between the FCC's Democratic majority and Republican minority....Generally, the only time we get to see those members interact is when they appear before the public at the commission's monthly open meeting. In recent weeks, though, we've had brief glimpses of their behind-the-scenes relationship, thanks to unusually public statements about the inner workings of the agency." Brian Fung in The Washington Post.

Here's why Silicon Valley actually had a good day in D.C. "Despite all the hand-wringing statements about net neutrality that Silicon Valley companies were shooting out Thursday, tech actually had a pretty good day in D.C. While FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's fast-lane/slow-lane net neutrality proposal was taking a beating on all sides (even Wheeler took a few whacks at it), Internet companies sneaked through a huge victory when the agency agreed to set aside up to three channels of TV airwaves for unlicensed use. That doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's something that Google, Microsoft and other tech companies have spent years advocating." Amy Schatz in Re/code.

BRODSKY: FCC proves again that it is out to kill net neutrality. "Well, that meeting of the Federal Communications Commission earlier today was certainly a lot of sound and fury signifying next to nothing. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite weeks of backlash, still wants to allow Internet Service Providers like Comcast and Verizon to 'offer' different levels of service to internet companies, although he refused to call them a 'fast lane' and a 'slow lane' and refused to recognize how those arrangements up the food chain affect consumers and a neutral internet. He is refusing to recognize reality." Art Brodsky in Wired.

BALTO: Reclassifying broadband Internet as telecommunications service is a bad, outdated idea. "This bad idea would effectively treat broadband providers and a wide range of Internet firms as public-utility style 'common carriers,' along the lines of railroads and canal boats of centuries past. Applying a 19th century regulatory solution to a 21st century problem simply does not make sense." David Balto in Roll Call.

HILTZIK: Actually, don't shy from the reclassification option. "The one regulatory move that would restore the FCC's unquestioned authority to ride herd on these profiteers? The House GOP calls that 'turning back the clock.' Doing so, say these water-carriers for the cable and telephone companies, 'would be fatal to the Internet as we know it.' Advocates of the open Internet and net neutrality have long been aware that reclassification would be politically difficult, precisely because of the sentiments the GOP letter expresses....But that's not a reason to shy from it. Now that the Internet providers and their handmaidens in Congress have drawn the line, the FCC should step over it and let the battle begin." Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times.