Tag Archives: Net Neutrality

Today FCC Restores Net Neutrality

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC...

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to restore a national standard to ensure the internet is fast, open, and fair.  Today’s decision to reclassify broadband service as a Title II telecommunications service allows the FCC to protect consumers, defend national security, and advance public safety.

Through its actions today, the Commission creates a national standard by which it can ensure that broadband internet service is treated as an essential service.  Today’s vote also makes clear that the Commission will exercise its authority over broadband in a narrowly tailored fashion—without rate regulation, tariffing, or unbundling—to foster continued innovation and investment.

 With today’s vote, the Commission restores fundamental authority to provide effective oversight over broadband service providers, giving the Commission essential tools to:

  • Protect the Open Internet – Internet service providers will again be prohibited from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful content, restoring the rules that were upheld by the D.C. Circuit in 2016.
  • Safeguard National Security – The Commission will have the ability to revoke the authorizations of foreign-owned entities who pose a threat to national security to operate broadband networks in the U.S. The Commission has previously exercised this authority under section 214 of the Communications Act to revoke the operating authorities of four Chinese state-owned carriers to provide voice services in the U.S.  Any provider without section 214 authorization for voice services must now also cease any fixed or mobile broadband service operations in the United States.
  • Monitor Internet Service Outages – When workers cannot telework, students cannot study, or businesses cannot market their products because their internet service is out, the FCC can now play an active role.

For further information on Net Neutrality, including the history of this proceeding starting in 2004 when the then Chairman of the agency challenged the broadband industry to preserve “Internet Freedoms” followed by more than a decade of work to secure these protections, visit: https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality.

Action by the Commission April 25, 2024 by Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration (FCC 24-52).  Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Starks and Gomez approving.  Commissioners Carr and Simington dissenting.  Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Carr, Starks, Simington, and Gomez issuing separate statements.

League of Rural Voters opposes FCC vote on Net Neutrality rules

Posted on by
Reply

The Center Square posts an OpEd from Neil Ritchie, executive director of the League of Rural Voters…

The over $42 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment federal funding being distributed across the country provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to connect unserved rural America and give communities like Clay County the tools they need to thrive in the digital age.

Rural America can only benefit if we ensure our leaders manage these investments responsibly and effectively. That means working to maximize the impact of every broadband dollar invested by proactively removing barriers to deployment. From the ruggedness of the Appalachian Mountains to the vastness of the Great Plains, our country has no shortage of tough-to-build-in areas that challenge internet service providers every day. The last thing they need is additional obstacles to deployment, such as heavy-handed regulation that threatens rural broadband progress.

And yet, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to do just that later this month when it is expected to vote on and pass excessive, and frankly unneeded, net neutrality rules.

These rules will force outdated 1930s utility regulations onto our 21st-century internet, placing it into the same category as water and electricity. But can we afford to allow our dynamic internet infrastructure to go the same way as our aging, underinvested national water and electricity infrastructure?

Unlike utilities, the internet has flourished without these regulations for decades. ISPs have invested more than $2.1 trillion in building, maintaining, and upgrading the national communications infrastructure since 1996 – with billions more to complement the infusion of BEAD funds. Unnecessary regulatory interference from Washington will introduce uncertainty for ISPs and discourage private broadband investments.

This isn’t conjecture – we already have proof. The FCC imposed similar net neutrality rules between 2015 and 2017, which resulted in more than $30 billion in forgone private investments. These private investments are critical to complement BEAD funding if we are serious about connecting every pocket of rural America.

We can transform our nation’s rural communities with the upcoming influx of broadband investments. We cannot allow ill-advised regulation to stand in the way.

The FCC to vote on restoring Net Neutrality

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC shares…

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today announced the Commission will vote during its April Open Meeting to restore Net Neutrality, which would bring back a national standard for broadband reliability, security, and consumer protection.  If adopted, the Chairwoman’s proposal would ensure that broadband services are treated as an essential resource deserving of FCC oversight under Title II authority.

“The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel.  “After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair.  A return to the FCC’s overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet.”

If adopted, the proposal would:

  • RETURN POPULAR NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS – The FCC would once again play a key role in preventing at the federal level broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, or creating pay-to-play internet fast lanes.
  • PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF BROADBAND OUTAGES – When households and businesses lose internet service, consumers often expect that the FCC might either be able to help the restoration or at least have information about the outage.  By restoring the FCC’s Title II authority over internet service providers, the FCC will bolster its ability to require these companies to address internet outages.  Without such authority, the FCC cannot require companies to report broadband outages, cannot collect outage data, and lacks the authority to even consider ways that it can help protect against and recover from internet service outages.
  • BOOST SECURITY OF BROADBAND NETWORKS – In this digital age, there are new and emerging digital threats.  Without broadband oversight, the FCC is unable to fully monitor and respond to such national security concerns.  For example, without reclassification, the FCC is limited in its authority to direct foreign-owned companies deemed to be national security threats to discontinue any domestic or international broadband services under Sec. 214 – as the agency has done with telephone services.  In addition, without reclassification, the FCC has limited authority to incorporate updated cybersecurity standards into network policies.
  • INCREASE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS – Net Neutrality protections would increase the tools the FCC has available to protect consumer data and respond to evolving consumer threats.  Updated rules could mean broadband providers could not sell your location data, among other sensitive information.  This would empower the agency to protect consumers from other harmful practices.
  • RESTORE A WIDELY ACCEPTED NATIONAL STANDARD – When the previous FCC stepped back from Net Neutrality protections, the court said states could step in.  Despite these efforts by individual states to provide robust oversight in response to the prior administration’s retreat from authority, we need a national standard to keep internet access fast, open, and fair.  A national standard is also broadly popular: eighty percent of Americans support open internet policies.

The Chairwoman will circulate her proposal to her fellow Commissioners for their review.  As is the general practice, a public draft of the proposal – officially a Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration – will be made public on Thursday on FCC.gov.  At the Commission’s April 25 Open Meeting, the Commissioners will consider and vote on the proposal.  The meeting will be open to the public and streamed live at www.fcc.gov/live.  If adopted, the reclassification and rules would largely go into effect 60 days after Federal Register publication.

 

Bill introduced HF2021: Activities prohibited by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers (Net Neutrality)

Posted on by
Reply

Representative Kraft introduces HF2021, which relates to activities prohibited by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers (Net Neutrality) to the MN House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee. Turns out Representative Kraft (who introduced the bill) worked for Sprint in 1995, when the Internet shifted from a public network to private providers hosting the backbone. Sprint was one of these providers. An interesting perspective.

Short description:  HF2021 (Kraft) Activities prohibited by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to state or political subdivisions, and monetary fines authorized.

(Long description below)

There were public testifiers including Murina Mohamed from ACLU and Elliot Payne from the Minneapolis City Council, who spoke in support of the bill; Melissa Wolf from MN Cable Communications Association, Brent Christensen from Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Sarah Psick from CTIA Wireless Association spoke against the bill.

Supporters want to secure an open internet; detractors are wonder if the State is place to do this and does the State have the expertise to regulate/differentiate network management from net neutrality.

Questions:

Why do we need this if the feds are looking too?
The federal government has been in and out of the issue based on the Administration. Feds may pick it up in October again.

Will this be a problem with interstate commerce?
I don’t think so.
Since this in MN-only. It should not be a problem.

What costs have accrued to customers in states where this has passed?
No indication of impact on cost. The industry folks say they are already doing this so there shouldn’t be expenses.

Have Minnesotans been complaining about Net Neutrality?
Now sure but we will look.

With states who have passed this – do you know if there had been complaints there?
No information here.

Motion prevailed and was placed on general register.

Long version:

A bill for an act
relating to broadband service; prohibiting certain activities by Internet service
providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to the state or
political subdivisions; authorizing monetary fines; proposing coding for new law
in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 16C; 325F.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Continue reading →

EVENT Feb 19: Minnesota House Committee to look at Net Neutrality (HF2021)

Posted on by
Reply

The MN House Commerce and Finance and Policy Committee will be talking about Net Neutrality on Monday.

Info on the meeting:

Monday, February 19, 2024 , 1:00 PM

Commerce Finance and Policy

Chair: Rep. Zack Stephenson
Location: Room 10
Agenda:

HF2021 (Kraft); Activities prohibited by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to state or political subdivisions, and monetary fines authorized.

And the language of bill as introduced:

A bill for an act relating to broadband service; prohibiting certain activities by Internet service providers serving Minnesota customers and those under contract to the state or political subdivisions; authorizing monetary fines; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 16C; 325F.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

[16C.57] CONTRACTS FOR INTERNET SERVICE; ADHERENCE TO
NET NEUTRALITY.

Subdivision 1.

Definitions. 

(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
the meanings given in this subdivision.

(b) “Broadband Internet access service” means:

(1) a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability, including
any capability that is incidental to and enables the operation of the communications service,
to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints;

(2) any service that provides a functional equivalent of the service described in clause
(1); or

(3) any service that is used to evade the protections established under this section.

Broadband Internet access service includes service that serves end users at fixed endpoints
using stationary equipment or end users using mobile stations, but does not include dial-up
Internet access service.

(c) “Edge provider” means any person or entity that provides (1) any content, application,
or service over the Internet, or (2) a device used to access any content, application, or service
over the Internet. Edge provider does not include a person or entity providing obscene
material, as defined by section 617.241.

(d) “Internet service provider” means a business that provides broadband Internet access
service to a customer in Minnesota.

(e) “Paid prioritization” means the management of an Internet service provider’s network
to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic (1) in exchange for monetary
or other consideration from a third party, or (2) to benefit an affiliated entity.

Subd. 2.

Purchasing or funding broadband Internet access services; prohibitions. 

A
state agency or political subdivision is prohibited from entering into a contract or providing
funding to purchase broadband Internet access service after August 1, 2023, that does not
contain:

(1) a binding agreement in which the Internet service provider certifies to the
commissioner of commerce that the Internet service provider must not engage in any of the
following activities with respect to any of the Internet service provider’s Minnesota
customers:

(i) subject to reasonable network management, block lawful content, applications,
services, or nonharmful devices;

(ii) subject to reasonable network management, impair, impede, or degrade lawful
Internet traffic on the basis of (A) Internet content, application, or service, or (B) use of a
nonharmful device;

(iii) engage in paid prioritization;

(iv) unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage:

(A) a customer’s ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet service or lawful
Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the customer’s choice; or

(B) an edge provider’s ability to provide lawful Internet content, applications, services,
or devices to a customer, except that an Internet service provider may block content if the
edge provider charges or intends to charge a fee to the Internet service provider for providing
the content; or

(v) engage in deceptive or misleading marketing practices that misrepresent the treatment
of Internet traffic or content; and

(2) provisions requiring the state agency or political subdivision, upon determining the
Internet service provider has violated the binding agreement under clause (1), to: (i)
unilaterally terminate the contract for broadband Internet access service without penalty to
the state agency or political subdivision, as applicable; and (ii) require the Internet service
provider to remunerate the state agency or political subdivision for all revenues earned
under the contract during the period when the violation occurred.

Subd. 3.

Other laws. 

Nothing in this section: (1) supersedes any obligation or
authorization an Internet service provider may have to address the needs of emergency
communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities, consistent
with or as permitted by applicable law; or (2) limits the provider’s ability to meet, address,
or comply with the needs identified in clause (1).

Subd. 4.

Exception. 

This section does not apply to a state agency or political subdivision
that purchases or funds fixed broadband Internet access services in a geographic location
where broadband Internet access services are only available from a single Internet service
provider.

Subd. 5.

Enforcement. 

The commissioner of commerce must enforce a violation of the
certification provided under subdivision 2. An Internet service provider who materially or
repeatedly violates this section is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 for each violation.
A fine authorized by this section may be imposed by the commissioner through a civil action
brought by the commissioner under section 45.027, or by the attorney general under section
8.31 on behalf of the state of Minnesota. Fines collected under this subdivision must be
deposited into the state treasury.

Sec. 2.

[325F.6945] INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS; PROHIBITED ACTIONS.

Subdivision 1.

Definitions. 

The definitions in section 16C.57 apply to this section.

Subd. 2.

Prohibited actions. 

An Internet service provider is prohibited from engaging
in any of the following activities with respect to any of the Internet service provider’s
Minnesota customers:

(1) subject to reasonable network management, block lawful content, applications,
services, or nonharmful devices;

(2) subject to reasonable network management, impair, impede, or degrade lawful Internet
traffic on the basis of (i) Internet content, application, or service, or (ii) use of a nonharmful
device;

(3) engage in paid prioritization;

(4) unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage:

(i) a customer’s ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet service or lawful
Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the customer’s choice; or

(ii) an edge provider’s ability to provide lawful Internet content, applications, services,
or devices to a customer; or

(5) engage in deceptive or misleading marketing practices that misrepresent the treatment
of Internet traffic or content.

Subd. 3.

Certification required. 

Prior to offering service to a customer in Minnesota,
or prior to August 1, 2023, for Internet service providers already offering service to customers
in Minnesota, an Internet service provider must file a document with the commissioner of
commerce certifying that it must not engage in any of the activities prohibited under
subdivision 2. The filing required by this subdivision must be provided (1) prior to offering
service for the first time in Minnesota, (2) at any time after a company or entity has changed
ownership or merged with another entity, and (3) prior to offering service in the state after
the company has suspended service for more than 30 days. An Internet service provider is
not required to make filings under this subdivision on an annual basis.

Subd. 4.

Other laws. 

Nothing in this section: (1) supersedes any obligation or
authorization an Internet service provider may have to address the needs of emergency
communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities, consistent
with or as permitted by applicable law; or (2) limits the provider’s ability to meet, address,
or comply with the needs identified in clause (1).

Subd. 5.

Enforcement. 

(a) A violation of subdivision 2 may be enforced by the
commissioner of commerce under section 45.027 or by the attorney general under section
8.31. The venue for enforcement proceedings is Ramsey County.

(b) A violation of the certification provided under subdivision 3 must be enforced under
section 609.48. The venue for enforcement proceedings is Ramsey County.

More details the push for Net Neutrality

Posted on by
Reply

The Twin Cities Pioneer Press posts an Associated Press article on Net Neutrality spurred by US Senators asking the FCC to restore Net Neutrality rules…

Landmark net neutrality rules rescinded under former President Donald Trump could return under a new push by U.S. Federal Communications Commission chair Jessica Rosenworcel. The rules would reclassify broadband access as an essential service on par with other utilities like water or power.

“For everyone, everywhere, to enjoy the full benefits of the internet age, internet access should be more than just accessible and affordable,” Rosenworcel said at an event at the National Press Club. “The internet needs to be open.”

The proposed rules would return fixed and mobile broadband service to its status as an essential telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. It would also prohibit internet service providers from blocking or throttling lawful Internet traffic and from selling “fast lanes” that prioritize some traffic over others in exchange for payment.

The move comes after Democrats took majority control of the five-member FCC on Monday for the first time since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021 when new FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez was sworn in.

Rosenworcel said the FCC will vote in October to take public comment on the proposed rules.

Senators ask FCC to restore Net Neutrality

Posted on by
Reply

The Benton Institute for Broadband and Society report…

Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) led 25 of their Senate colleagues in writing to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to expeditiously reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act and restore net neutrality protections. Doing so will allow the FCC to effectively protect consumers from harmful practices online, promote affordable access to the internet, enhance public safety, increase marketplace competition, and take other important steps to benefit our nation’s digital future. The letter is cosigned by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Patty Murray (D-WA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Duckworth (D-II), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-II), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Angus King (I-Maine).

Here’s the text of the letter they sent...

We write regarding the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) rightful authority over broadband internet access. Now that the FCC has a full slate of commissioners, we urge you to expeditiously reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. Doing so will enable you to effectively protect consumers from harmful practices online, promote affordable access to the internet, enhance public safety, increase marketplace competition, and take other important steps to benefit our nation’s digital future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has left no doubt that, now more than ever, broadband is essential. Over the past three years, Americans have come to rely on the internet for everything from education and healthcare to commerce and connection to loved ones. Three-fourths of Americans say that internet access is as important as water or electricity,1 and broadband usage during the pandemic grew at the highest rate of increase in nearly a decade.2 With the passage of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress made historic investments to ensure every American can access what has become the country’s primary communications network. By passing that historic law, we recognized the necessity of affordable, reliable, high-quality broadband internet connections. Now, the FCC’s regulatory classifications should reflect what Americans and Congress know to be true: broadband internet access service is an indispensable part of American life.
Despite the essential nature of broadband, the previous Administration’s FCC voted to repeal net neutrality protections, and with it threw out most of the Commission’s ability to enforce the consumer protection, competition, public safety, and universal service principles at the heart of the Communications Act. Net neutrality is a set of guidelines necessary to keep the internet open to all and free of discriminatory practices by providers. It forbids Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing down customers’ access to sites or apps; charging websites to reach users at quicker speeds; and instituting other unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practices. Net neutrality creates an internet ecosystem that is free and open to all, and it benefits consumers, small businesses and rural residents alike. Critically, repeated court rulings have
made clear that reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service is the only way the FCC can use its legal authority to reinstate net neutrality, which will protect online expression, catalyze competition, and increase innovation.
Reinstating the Commission’s rightful Title II authority over broadband will also benefit the public in areas beyond net neutrality. Since the previous Administration erroneously classified broadband as an information service, we have heard from constituents, companies, and entrepreneurs about the need for the FCC to reassert its authority so it can prevent broadband providers from engaging in practices that harm online users as well as potential new entrants into the broadband marketplace. Only with Title II classification can the FCC prohibit unreasonable and unjust practices of broadband providers, effectively protect network resiliency and national security, ensure service quality, expand internet access, and combat anti-competitive practices. The FCC is the agency with expertise in broadband policy, and reclassifying broadband as a Title II service is a requisite step in the FCC’s efforts to serve the American people and conduct proper oversight of broadband internet.
You have unequivocally condemned the FCC’s past actions to roll back net neutrality policies and relinquish FCC authority over broadband. Now that the FCC has a full complement of commissioners, we urge you to act to protect the free and open internet for all Americans. We commend you for your leadership and appreciate your attention to this important topic.

Minnesota Public Radio asks: Is it time to change the way we pay for the internet?

Posted on by
Reply

Spurred by the recent Google-Verizon friendship, Minnesota Public Radio asked folks to chime in on that question:

Is it time to change the way we pay for the internet?

The answers are interesting and varied. Some are very astute. Here’s just a glimpse of the comments… (They are in order presented and I’m trying to grab a good sample – not promote these ideals. In fact at least one comment made me growl.)

  • How much more could they possibly charge?
  • Yes, access to it should be free to all. Just like materials in the library.
  • Without Network Neutrality and flat fees for unlimited data, we risk losing humanity’s greatest potential technology to corporations who only want us to consume their information
  • I just wish I could something more than dial up where I live.
  • When the free market is working, government shouldn’t meddle. When the market runs rough-shod over ordinary folks, government should step in.
  • You know, if we were in Finland, we would all have a 1 Mb/s broadband connection with an attempt to give everybody a 100 Mb/s connection by 2015 as a legal right.