Net neutrality is dead. The FCC has approved Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to remove the classification of ISPs as utilities and return them to their former designation as information providers.
Even a security issue delaying the vote could not save net neutrality. Brace for impact.
In a 3-2 vote along party lines, the FCC approved Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to again classify internet service providers as information services under Title I guidelines. The vote repeals a 2015 ruling by the Obama-era FCC that had designated ISPs as utilities, which under Title II, provides more stringent rules for ISPs to follow. It had, in essence, kept the internet open to all, and immune from throttling or restricted access.
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn offered an extensive dissent, saying, in part:
Among other things, she also blasted the lack of consumer input allowed, as well as the lack of reported ISP violations of trust that happened in the past.
Commissioner Michael O’Reilly said the research has been thorough, and he supported the ruling. He condemned the “fearmongering,” and said that it is not the FCC’s role to protect against “hypothetical harm.”
“In all this time, I have yet to hear recent unquestioned evidence of demonstrable harm to consumers that demand providers be constrained by the completely flawed regulatory intervention,” he said. “I still cannot endorse guilt by imagination.”
He also said the FCC will look closely at any attempt by the states to circumvent the FCC order. He said the agency will vigilant in “quashing any conflicts” that he expects the states to push to circumvent the order.
Commissioner Brendan Carr celebrated the new order as a return to the “light-handed touch” the FCC should have in regulation. He accused opponents of misrepresenting what Title I and Title II rules actually do:
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was the other dissenting vote, citing a lack of public input, lack of trust in ISPs ability to self-regulate, and the compromised commenting system on the FCC site as some of her main reasons for voting no to repeal. She also hammered on the issue that most Americans don’t have a choice of an internet provider.
“What recourse do consumer have?” she asked. “We are told ‘Don’t worry, competition will save us.’ But the FCC’s own data shows that our broadband markets are not competitive. Half of the households have no choice of broadband provider. So if your broadband provider’s blocking websites, you have no recourse. You have nowhere to go.”
Chairman Pai cast the deciding vote, and given that it was his proposal, the “yes” vote for repeal was a foregone conclusion. Several times during his commentary, he referred to Title II as “heavy-handed” and a threat to consumers.
At that point, the proceeding was interrupted “on the advice of security” but when he returned, Pai made clear his stance:
The final vote was then cast.
With net neutrality eliminated, several consumer organizations, namely Common Cause, Free Press, the Internet Association, and Public Knowledge, have vowed to go to court to fight a repeal decision, even as early as today. Whether the courts will agree to wade into the issue is a mystery, given the FCC’s authority to make, change and even repeal its own rules.
While there are arguments both pro and con for the repeal, those that use the internet on a regular basis have been loud in their opposition to it. There is concern that ISPs will use the laxer rules to begin to package access to internet websites such as Facebook, Netflix and even news sites for increased prices. Failing to pay, opponents say, could result in throttling or even blocked access.
For their part, ISPs have vowed that users need not worry because they have no plans to change the way they operate. However, opponents can point to numerous times where ISPs have already tried to skirt the previous rules, usually resulting in fines or severe user backlash.
The FCC ruling supposedly returns enforcement over the Title I rules to the Federal Trade Commission in protecting consumers, but an AT&T suit in the Ninth Circuit Court has thrown the FTC’s ability to enforce the rules into question.
