text:
Net neutrality in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series about
Net neutrality
Topics and issues
Bandwidth cap
Bandwidth throttling
Data discrimination
Deep packet inspection
End-to-end principle
Internet Protocol (IP)
Net bias
Net neutrality law
Search neutrality
Tiered Internet
By country or region
Brazil
Canada
Chile
European Union
India
Netherlands
Philippines
Singapore
United States (FCC)
v
t
e
In the United States, net neutrality has been an issue of contention among network users and access providers since the 1990s.[1][2]
In 2005, under Republican Chair Abernathy, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted policies and rules establishing principles of “network neutrality” in order to carry out the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet” and “to promote the continued development of the Internet," “encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability” – broadband – “to all Americans.”. [3] The FCC noted that Congress had cited the Internet's educational and informational importance, and the fact that "[t]he Internet also represents “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity," as well as "play[ing] an important role in the economy, as an engine for productivity growth and cost savings."
In order "to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner," and noting that its "Enforcement Bureau recently entered into a consent decree to resolve an investigation with respect to the blocking of ports used for voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)," the Commission adopted network neutrality principles "to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age."
Throughout 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue zealously lobbied Congress.[4] Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Each sought to preserve the open Internet that consumer groups sought, and to prohibit Internet service providers from using various variable pricing models based upon the user's quality of service level, described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination arising from abuse of "local monopolies enshrined in law" by some economists.[5][6][7]
Large broadband Internet access service providers challenged the FCC's network neutrality principles. In Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014) The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the FCC classified broadband internet service providers (ISPs) as providing "information services," governed by Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, rather than "common carrier services," governed by Title II of the Act (47 U.S.C. § 201–31), the FCC could not regulate ISPs pursuant to the much broader regulatory power found in Title II of the Act. Thus the rules were struck down.
Following that ruling, the FCC took steps to reclassify ISPs as common carriers subject to Title II regulation. The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting comments from the public on the issue. The FCC received 3.7 million comments, a substantial majority of which supported reclassifying internet to a telecommunications service and ISPs to common carriers subject to Title II regulatory authority. The FCC then went forward, reclassifying retail providers of BIAS as common carriers, and adopted revised open Internet requirements. On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[8][9][10] On April 13, 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "net neutrality" regulations.[11][12] These rules went into effect on June 12, 2015.[13]
The United States Telecom Association, which represents large telecom companies, filed a lawsuit against the FCC in 2015 challenging the net neutrality rule. The Association argued that the FCC's classification of broadband carriers as "common carriers" was a form of administrative overreach. In June 2016, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules and the FCC's determination that broadband access is a public utility, rather than a luxury.
Upon becoming FCC chairman in April 2017, Ajit Pai proposed to repeal the policies and issued a NPRM soliciting comments from the public on the issue.[14][15] The FCC received over 20 million comments this time around.[16] While this process was still underway, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman made public that he has been investigating a substantial amount of fraudulent activity relating to the comments on this rulemaking and that the FCC has been resistant to assisting him in his investigation.[17] It has since been revealed that there were millions of fraudulent comments submitted during this comment period.[18] Nevertheless, on December 14, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favor of repealing these policies, 3–2, along party lines, as the 2015 vote had occurred.[19][20][21] On January 4, 2018, the FCC published the official text for "Restoring Internet freedom".[22][23] Shortly thereafter, twenty two state Attorneys General filed suit against the FCC, alleging, inter alia, that the comment process was corrupted, making the rule changes invalid.[24]
Contents
[hide]
1 Regulatory history
1.1 Early history 1980 – early 2000s
1.2 FCC promotes freedom without regulation (2004)
1.3 CLEC, dial-up, and DSL deregulation (2004–2005)
1.4 FCC attempts at enforcing net neutrality (2005–2010)
1.5 FCC's conditions for spectrum auction (2008)
1.6 FCC Open Internet Order (2010)
1.7 Narrowing of the FCC's authority (2014)
1.7.1 Section 706 vs. Title II
1.8 Deliberations about reclassification as common carriers (2014–2015)
1.8.1 Policy proposals (2014)
1.8.2 Ruling
1.9 Net neutrality and the Trump administration (2017)
1.10 Timeline of significant events
2 Violations
3 Attempted legislation
4 Positions
4.1 Support of net neutrality
4.2 Opposition to net neutrality
4.3 Alternative FCC proposals
4.4 Opinions cautioning against legislation
5 Unresolved issues
5.1 Alternatives to cable and DSL
5.2 Utility company restrictions
6 Repeal plan
6.1 Executive Orders effective immediately
6.2 Other actions pending
6.3 Summary of state-level net neutrality actions
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
Regulatory history[edit]
Early history 1980 – early 2000s[edit]
See also: Communications Act of 1934
While the term is new, the ideas underlying net neutrality have a long pedigree in telecommunications practice and regulation. Services such as telegrams and the phone network (officially, the public switched telephone network or PSTN) have been considered common carriers under U.S. law, which means that they have been akin to public utilities and expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment. They have been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to ensure fair pricing and access.[25]
In the late 1980s the Internet became legally available for commercial use, and in the early years of public use of the Internet, this was its main use – public access was limited and largely reached through dial-up modems (as was the Bulletin board system dial-up culture that preceded it). The Internet was viewed more as a commercial service than a domestic and societal system. Being business services, cable modem Internet access and high-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, had always since their creation been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, unlike telephone services (including services by dial-up modem), and not as a telecommunications service, and thus had not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.
However, by the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Internet started to become common in households and wider society. Also in the 1980s, arguments about the public interest requirements of the telecommunications industry in the U.S. arose; whether companies involved in broadcasting were best viewed as community trustees, with obligations to society and consumers, or mere market participants with obligations only to their shareholders.[26] The legal debate about net neutrality regulations of the 2000s echoes this debate.
By the 1990s, some U.S. politicians began to express concern over protecting the Internet:
How can government ensure that the nascent Internet will permit everyone to be able to compete with everyone else for the opportunity to provide any service to all willing customers? Next, how can we ensure that this new marketplace reaches the entire nation? And then how can we ensure that it fulfills the enormous promise of education, economic growth, and job creation?
—  Al Gore, 1994, [27]
In the early 2000s, legal scholars such as Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig raised the issue of neutrality in a series of academic papers addressing regulatory frameworks for packet networks. Wu, in particular, noted that the Internet is structurally biased against voice and video applications. The debate that started in the U.S. extended internationally with distinct differences of the debate in Europe.[28]
FCC promotes freedom without regulation (2004)[edit]
In February 2004, then Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell announced a set of non-discrimination principles, which he called the principles of "Network Freedom". In a speech at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium, Powell encouraged ISPs to offer users these four freedoms:[29]
Freedom to access content
Freedom to run applications
Freedom to attach devices
Freedom to obtain service plan information
In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed the willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles by opening an investigation about Madison River Communications, a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service. Yet the FCC did not fine Madison River Communications. The investigation was closed before any formal factual or legal finding and there was a settlement in which the company agreed to stop discriminating against voice over IP traffic and to make a $15,000 payment to the US Treasury in exchange for the FCC dropping its inquiry.[30] Since the FCC did not formally establish that Madison River Communications violated laws and regulation, the Madison River settlement does not create a formal precedent, though established that it would take enforcement action in such situations.[31]
CLEC, dial-up, and DSL deregulation (2004–2005)[edit]
In 2004, the court case USTA v. FCC voided the FCC's authority to enforce rules requiring telephone operators to unbundle certain parts of their networks at regulated prices. This caused the economic collapse of many competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC).[32]
In the United States, broadband services were historically regulated differently according to the technology by which they were carried. While cable Internet has always been classified by the FCC as an information service free of most regulation, DSL was regulated as a telecommunications service. In 2005, the FCC reclassified Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, as "information service" relaxing the common carrier regulations and unbundling requirement.[33]
During the FCC's hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness. This made up a voluntary set of four net neutrality principles.[34] Implementation of the principles was not mandatory; that would require an FCC rule or federal law.[35] The modified principles were as follows:[36][37]
Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
In December 2006, the AT&T/Bell South merger agreement defined net neutrality as an agreement on the part of the broadband provider: "not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application or service providers ... any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any (data) packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."[38]
FCC attempts at enforcing net neutrality (2005–2010)[edit]
In 2007, Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, was found to be blocking or severely delaying BitTorrent uploads on their network using a technique which involved creating 'reset' packets (TCP RST) that appeared to come from the other party.[39] An August 2007 report by TorrentFreak (based on substantial nationwide research led by chief researcher Andrew Norton) noted that ISPs had been throttling BitTorrent traffic for almost two years, since 2005, but Comcast was completely blocking it in at least some cases.[40] This was later verified by both the EFF[41] and Associated Press[42]. On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic where Comcast was to adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times."[43] In December 2009, Comcast reached a proposed settlement of US$16 million, admitting no wrongdoing[44] and amounting to no more than US$16 per share.[45]
In August 2008, the FCC made its first Internet network management decision.[46] It voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software because it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files to ensure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.[47][48] The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in the year 2008, ordered Comcast to disclose the details of its network management practices within 30 days, submit a compliance plan for ending the offending practices by the end of the year, and disclose to the public the details of intended future practices. Then-FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent, that Internet providers and all communications companies could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit, unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that "We are preserving the open character of the Internet" and "We are saying that network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications." The case highlighted whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain network neutrality, i.e., treat all usages of their networks equally. The legal complaint against Comcast was related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading movies, television shows, music and software on the Internet.[49]
Towards the end of 2009, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski announced at the Brookings Institution a series of proposals that would prevent telecommunications, cable and wireless companies from blocking certain information on the Internet, for example, Skype applications.[50] In September 2009, he proposed to add two rules to its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, requiring that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers. He argued that wireless should be subject to the same network neutrality as wireline providers.[51] In October 2009, the FCC gave notice of proposed rule making on net neutrality.[52]
In two rulings, in April and June 2010 respectively, both of the above were rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Comcast Corp. v. FCC. On April 6, 2010, the FCC's 2008 cease-and-desist order against Comcast to slow and stop BitTorrent transfers was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no powers to regulate any Internet provider's network, or the management of its practices: "[the FCC] 'has failed to tie its assertion' of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress",[53][54] and in June 2010, it overturned (in the same case) the FCC's Order against Comcast, ruling similarly that the FCC lacked the authority under Title One of the Communications Act of 1934, to force ISPs to keep their networks open, while employing reasonable network management practices, to all forms of legal content.[55] In May 2010, the FCC announced it would continue its fight for net neutrality.[56]
FCC's conditions for spectrum auction (2008)[edit]
In February 2008, Kevin Martin, then Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband ISPs from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.[57]
In 2008, when the FCC auctioned off the 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum in anticipation of the DTV transition, Google promised to enter a bid of $4.6 billion, if the FCC required the winning licensee to adhere to four conditions:[58]
Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and use any software application, content, or services they desire;
Open devices: Consumers should be able to use a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms;
Open networks: Third parties, such as Internet service providers, should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
These conditions were broadly similar to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement; FCC's applications and content were combined into a single bullet, and an extra bullet requiring wholesale access for third party providers was included. The FCC adopted only two of these four criteria for the auction, viz., open devices and open applications, and only applied these conditions to the nationwide C block portion of the band.[59]
President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called for an investment of $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure and included an openness stipulation. [60]
FCC Open Internet Order (2010)[edit]
Main article: FCC Open Internet Order 2010
In December 2010, the FCC approved the FCC Open Internet Order banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. On December 21, 2010, the FCC voted on and passed a set of six net "neutrality principles":
Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;
No blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic, prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;
Level playing field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;
Network management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules do not forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;
Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;
Vigilance: The order creates an open Internet advisory committee to assist the commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.[61]
The net neutrality rule did not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. The measure was denounced by net neutrality advocates as a capitulation to telecommunication companies such as allowing them to discriminate on transmission speed for their profit, especially on mobile devices like the iPad, while pro-business advocates complained about any regulation of the Internet at all. Republicans in Congress announced to reverse the rule through legislation.[62][63] Advocates of net neutrality criticized the changes.[64]
Narrowing of the FCC's authority (2014)[edit]
On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission[65][66] that the FCC had no authority to enforce network neutrality rules as long as service providers were not identified as "common carriers".[67] The court agreed that FCC can regulate broadband and may craft more specific rules that stop short of identifying service providers as common carriers.[68]
Section 706 vs. Title II[edit]
As a response to the DC Circuit Court's decision, a dispute developed as to whether net neutrality could be guaranteed under existing law, or if reclassification of ISPs was needed to ensure net neutrality.[69] Wheeler stated that the FCC had the authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate ISPs, while others, including President Obama,[70] supported reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Critics of Section 706 point out that the section has no clear mandate to guarantee equal access to content provided over the internet, while subsection 202(a) of the Communications Act states that common carriers cannot "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Advocates of net neutrality have generally supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II, while FCC leadership and ISPs have generally opposed such reclassification. The FCC stated that if they reclassified ISPs as common carriers, the commission would selectively enforce Title II, so that only sections relating to broadband would apply to ISPs.[69]
Deliberations about reclassification as common carriers (2014–2015)[edit]
Policy proposals (2014)[edit]
Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).[71] A "fast lane" in the Internet can irrevocably decrease the user's tolerance to the relative slowness of the "slow lane".
On February 19, 2014, the FCC announced plans to formulate new rules to resume enforcing net neutrality while complying with the court rulings.[72] However, in the event, on April 23, 2014, the FCC reported a new draft rule that would permit broadband ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon to offer content providers, such as Netflix, Disney or Google, willing to pay a higher price, faster connection speeds, so their customers would have preferential access, thus reversing its earlier position and (so far as opinion outside the ISP sector generally agreed) would deny net neutrality.[73][74][75][76][77]
Public response was heated, pointing out FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's past as a president and CEO of two major ISP-related organizations, and the suspicion of bias towards the profit-motives of ISPs as a result. Shortly afterwards, during late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that the FCC under Wheeler would consider promulgating rules allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for Internet users to access certain content — whose owners paid fees to the ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) — and harder to access other content,[78] thus undermining the traditional open architecture of the Internet. These plans received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners.[79][80] In May 2014, over 100 Internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook — signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet".[81] As of May 15, 2014, the "Internet fast lane" rules passed with a 3–2 vote. They were then open to public discussion that ended July 2014.[82]
On May 15, 2014, in the face of continuing intense focus and criticism, the FCC stated it would consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality.[83][84] The same day, the FCC opened a public comment period on how FCC rulemaking could best protect and promote an open Internet, garnering over one million responses, the most the FCC had ever received for rulemaking.[85] The FCC proposal for a tiered Internet received heavy criticism. Opponents argued that a user accessing content over the "fast lane" on the Internet would find the "slow lane" intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any content provider who is unable to pay for "fast lane" access. They argued that a tiered Internet would suppress new Internet innovations by increasing the barrier to entry. Video providers Netflix[86] and Vimeo[87] in their comments filed with the FCC used the research of S.S. Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provided quantitative evidence of the impact of Internet speed on online video users.[71] Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users with faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity.[88][89][90]
Opponents of the rules declared September 10, 2014, to be the "Internet slowdown". Participating websites were purposely slowed down to show what they felt would happen if the new rules took effect. Websites that participated in the Internet slowdown included Netflix,[91] Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo and Kickstarter.[92][93][94][95] The Economist described the "Battle for the Net [...] now casting the upcoming FCC decision as an epic clash between "Team Internet" (a plucky band of high-tech multi-millionaires) and "Team Cable" (a dastardly bunch of Big-ISP billionaires)."[96] On November 10, 2014, President Obama stepped in, and recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[97][98][99]
On November 12, 2014, future president Donald Trump tweeted, "Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."[100]
Ruling[edit]
On January 16, 2015, Republicans presented legislation, in the form of a U. S. Congress HR discussion draft bill, that made concessions to net neutrality but prohibited the FCC from accomplishing that goal, or from enacting any further regulation affecting ISPs.[101][102] Two weeks later, on January 31, AP News reported the FCC would present the notion of applying ("with some caveats") common carrier status to the Internet in a vote expected on February 26, 2015.[103][104][105][106][107] Adoption of this notion would reclassify Internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications[108] and ensure net neutrality, according to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler.[109][110] On the day before the FCC vote, the FCC was expected to vote to regulate the Internet in this manner, as a public good,[9][10] and on February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to apply common carrier of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the Internet.[8][111][112][9][10] On the same day, the FCC also voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that limited the ability of local governments in those states to provide broadband services to potential customers outside of their service areas. While the latter ruling affects only those two states, the FCC indicated that the agency would make similar rulings if it received petitions from localities in other states.[113] In response to ISP and opponent views, the FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, commented, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."[114]
On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rules,[115][116][117] and on April 13, 2015, the final rule was published.[11][12]
Social media platforms had a large role on engaging the public in the debate surrounding net neutrality. Popular websites such as Tumblr, Vimeo, and Reddit also participated in the Internet slowdown on September 10, 2014, which the organization said was the largest sustained (lasting more than a single day) online protest effort in history.[118] On January 26, 2015, popular blogging site Tumblr placed links to group Fight For The Future, a net neutrality advocacy group. The website displayed a countdown to the FCC vote on Title II on February 26, 2015. This was part of a widespread Internet campaign to sway congressional opinion and encourage users to call or submit comments to congressional representatives.[119] Net neutrality advocacy groups such as Save the Internet coalition[120] and Battle for the Net[121] responded to the 2015 FCC ruling by calling for defense of the new net neutrality rules.[120]
Net neutrality and the Trump administration (2017)[edit]
In January 2017, newly inaugurated president Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai as the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Pai had previously been nominated to fill one of the required Republican seats on the commission by President Obama under the recommendation of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.[122] Pai, who objected to the 2015 Open Internet Order, quickly began to roll back some of the policies that had been implemented by the FCC during the Obama administration, and halted an investigation into the use of zero-rating by U.S. wireless providers. After his appointment, Pai stated that he planned to "modernize" FCC policies to "match the reality of the modern marketplace", but was unsure over whether the FCC would continue to enforce the net neutrality rules or Title II classification of broadband services.[123][124]
In an interview on May 5, 2017, with NPR, Pai stated his argument against net neutrality enforcement rules to be only about focusing on fixing actual anti-competitive behavior that Internet providers show as opposed to just "regulating against hypothetical harms".[125] Another argument he makes against this is that when the government inserts itself into the Internet’s issues then it stifles its innovation and growth. He argues that it is impossible to predict all outcomes, and although some might be bad, it is not a good idea to put such strict restrictions on everyone when there are only a few companies who would harm consumers or innovators. He believes that strict net neutrality rules would "prohibit a number of pro-competitive business arrangements" and "would reduce investments".[125]
In April 2017, it was reported that Pai had proposed that the net neutrality rules and Title II classifications be rolled back, that ISPs should instead "voluntarily" commit to the principles, and that violations of them should be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC as unfair or deceptive business practices.[126][127] On April 29, 2017, a clearer understanding of the latest net neutrality compromise proposal was described.[14][15]
On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to move forward with Pai’s Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on "Restoring Internet freedom"[128] by rolling back net neutrality regulations.[129] The official "Comment Date" was July 17, 2017, with the "Reply Comment Date" being August 16, 2017.[130]
The primary argument in this NPRM is that the Title II Order (on net neutrality) has pushed the major telecoms to reduce their capital expenditures (CapEx) in new infrastructure, thereby threatening the future of the nation. For this, they cite the approx. $1 billion reduction from 2014 to 2015 in CapEx reported by the United States Telecom Association and similar figures from industry consultant Hal Singer.[131]
Broadband capital expenditures by U.S. broadband providers ($ billions, 1996-2015)
However, the accompanying plot of the USTelecom data cited (but not plotted) in the NPRM raises questions about whether the Title II Order generated a major reduction in Telecom Capex following the FCC's 2015 Title II Order on net neutrality: Roughly three quarters of the annual changes between 1996 and 2015 were larger. That change could easily be attributed to any number of other changes. The New York Times claimed that the majority on the FCC had to cherry-pick their data to support their conclusion.[132][133] In her dissent to this NPRM, Commissioner Clyburn wrote, “I have yet to see a credible analysis that suggests that broadband provider capital expenditures have declined as a result of our 2015 Open Internet Order. ... Using the same logic that the NPRM uses, one could suggest that the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service in 2002 resulted in an even more precipitous drop in broadband provider investment.”[134]
Falcon, Legislative Council for the Electronic Frontier Foundation[135] claimed that no such claims of CapEx reductions have been made in official reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),[136] He said that major companies can be sued by investors who assert that they lost money because of misleading information in an SEC filing, and no such penalties apply to potentially misleading statements to Congress or the public.[136]
Falcon's claim is supported by an analysis by Turner of Free Press in a report that includes 26 figures and tables, 21 of which were extracted from SEC filings and three of the remaining five came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Capital Expenditures Survey.[137] The change since the Title II Order was negative for only 5 of Turner's 24 tables, and the mean and median change over the 24 tables for which it seemed reasonable to extract a typical annualized percentage change were 8.1% and 5.2%, respectively.[138]
Over 1,000 startups and investors signed an open letter to Pai[139] opposing the proposal. The FCC received over 21 million comments from the public,[140][16][18] though it has since become clear that millions of these comments were fraudulent.[141][18] After the commenting period, the FCC voted along party lines to repeal the 2014 rules.[142][19]
To investigate the suggestion that some of the anti-net neutrality comments might be fraudulently using the names of real people without their knowledge, Fight for the Future created a web site called comcastroturf, claiming [on May 23, 2017], "Someone has submitted nearly half a million anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC, many of which appear to be completely fake — using stolen names and addresses", and inviting the reader to see if comments had been filed by someone else in his / her name. On May 23, Fight for the Future reported they had 'received a cease and desist order from Comcast’s lawyers, claiming that Comcastroturf.com ... violates Comcast’s “valuable intellectual property.” The letter threatens legal action if the domain is not transferred to Comcast’s control. “This is exactly why we need Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, “If Ajit Pai’s plan is enacted, there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like Comcastroturf.com that are critical of their corporate policies”.'[143][144]
In early May, Forbes reported that, "a group of activists, under the banner Battle for the Net, unveiled a campaign to generate letters to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complain about zero rating offerings, or free data programs." Forbes claimed that, "All of the groups sponsoring this petition are funded by Google, who is likely upset because zero rating is a way for startups to circumvent Google’s demands. Zero rating eradicates the idea that paid ads on search engines are the only way to gain visibility online."[145]
In early June, Battle for the Net, a coalition spearheaded by Fight for the Future, Free Press Action Fund, and Demand Progress, announced a "massive day of action" for July 12.[146] Over 50,000 websites, including multinational corporations, participated in what Fight for the Future called "the largest online protest in history".[147]
On June 15, 2017, Gigi Sohn, who had previously served as a top counselor to then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, published "4 steps to writing an impactful net neutrality comment (which you should do)":[148]
Write about yourself and how the net neutrality rules have affected you.
Write about what you understand you are buying when you purchase broadband Internet access.
Write about the choices you have (or don’t) for broadband Internet access.
Write about what role you think the FCC should have in overseeing the market for broadband Internet access.
On November 21, 2017, FCC chairman Pai unveiled plans to repeal the net neutrality policy in the United States.[149] FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel alleged on December 8 that the FCC was withholding evidence of fraud due to irregularities in its comment period and said the vote should be postponed until after an appropriate investigation.[150]
Many organizations involved in the July 12 Day of Action planned an online protest for December 12.[151] A vote was held on December 14, 2017, with a 3–2 party-line vote approving the repeal.[152][153]
Within minutes after the vote, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced his intent to lead a multi-state lawsuit against the FCC to "stop illegal rollback of net neutrality".[154] Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson also stated his intent to sue.[154] On January 4, 2018, the current version of "Restoring Internet freedom" was published.[22]
Timeline of significant events[edit]
January 12, 2003 – Law Professor Tim Wu coins phrase Net Neutrality while discussing “competing contents and applications.”[155]
June 27, 2005 – Supreme Court decides that “communications, content, and applications are allowed to pass freely over the Internet's broadband pipes.”[156]
September 1, 2007 – Comcast begins interfering with Bittorrent traffic on its network.[157][158]
January 9, 2008 – FCC investigates Comcast traffic policy and treatment of Bittorrent traffic.[159]
August 9, 2010 – Google and Verizon try to cut deal to make larger parts of internet to be exempt from protection from the net neutrality rules from the FCC.[160]
December 21, 2010 – FCC creates Open Internet Rules which “established high-level rules requiring transparency and prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination to protect Internet openness.”[161]
September 23, 2011 – The Federal Register publishes the Open Internet Rules.[162]
January 14, 2014 – The ruling in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) vacates significant parts of Open Internet Order 2010.
May 13, 2014 – FCC releases new proposal including new rules on allowing “fast lanes and slow lanes online.”[163]
June 13, 2014 – FCC investigates large companies such as Netflix for interconnection policies.[164]
July 15, 2014 – FCC opens up on Public Knowledge for public comments, received 1.1 million comments on the first day. Determined that "less than 1% of comments were clearly opposed to net neutrality."[165][166]
September 15, 2014 – FCC receives 3.7 million comments in total. “The FCC's server crashes again as millions more people, companies, and advocacy organizations weigh in on the open internet rules.”[167]
February 26, 2015 – FCC passes the Title II Net Neutrality Rules. “In a 3–2 party-line vote, the FCC passes open internet rules applying to both wired and wireless internet connections grounded in Title II authority.”[168]
June 12, 2015 – Net neutrality rules go into effect.[169]
June 14, 2016 – New rules are upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[170]
January 23, 2017 – President Trump names Ajit Pai as new FCC chairman.[171]
April 26, 2017 – FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announces plan to reverse Title II regulations.[172]
May 1, 2017 – A U.S. appeals court declined to reconsider a rehearing of the FCC’s net neutrality case.[173]
May 18, 2017 – The FCC voted 2–1 to start rolling back net neutrality regulations; this vote marked the beginning of a lengthy process required to modify the existing rules, and it did not actually change said rules.[129]
June 6, 2017 – Amazon, Reddit, Netflix and many other internet organizations announce that they will hold a simultaneous "Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality" on July 12 in a final attempt to convince the Republican-controlled FCC to keep the current net neutrality rules.[174][175][176][177]
July 12, 2017 – The net neutrality 'day of action' occurred, involving many major companies and the original founder of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee.[178]
July 17, 2017 – Comment Date for "Restoring Internet freedom" NPRM.[130]
August 30, 2017 – Reply Comment Date for "Restoring Internet freedom" NPRM.[130]
November 21, 2017 – FCC chairman Ajit Pai unveils plans to repeal the net neutrality policy in the United States. The five person FCC vote for repeal is scheduled for December 14, 2017.
December 14, 2017 – The FCC votes 3 to 2, along party lines, in favor of reversing Title II regulations.[179][180]
Violations[edit]
Many broadband operators imposed various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.[181] Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications. Other broadband providers proposed to start charging service and content providers in return for higher levels of service (higher network priority, faster or more predictable), creating what is known as a tiered Internet. [182]
In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. The FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry to Madison River, initiating an investigation. To avoid litigation, Madison River agreed to make a voluntary payment of fifteen thousand dollars and agreed to not block ports used for VoIP applications or otherwise prevent customers from using VoIP applications.[183] According to the consent decree, "The Parties agree that this Consent Decree does not constitute either an adjudication on the merits or a factual or legal finding regarding any compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of the Act and the Commission’s orders and rules. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree is for settlement purposes only."
In September 2012, a group of public interest organizations such as Free Press, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute filed a complaint with the FCC that AT&T was violating net neutrality rules by restricting use of Apple's video-conferencing application FaceTime on cellular networks to those who have a shared data plan on AT&T, excluding those with older, unlimited or tiered data plans.[184] The FCC response noted that "Although this report does not attempt to engage in any legal interpretations of the Open Internet Order, we do note that the Order treats these mobile broadband networks differently from traditional fixed networks. While both fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose their management practices, mobile broadband providers have greater latitude for blocking devices and applications (as long as they do not compete with the provider's own voice or video telephony services) and discriminating in how they serve traffic, in accordance with reasonable network-management practices."[185]
Attempted legislation[edit]
Main article: Attempted net neutrality legislation in the United States
Arguments associated with net neutrality regulations came into prominence in mid-2002 with nine different bills introduced on this issue between 2006 and 2013.
Positions[edit]
There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law in the United States. Debate over the issue predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors.[186] While opponents claim net neutrality regulations would deter investment into improving broadband infrastructure and try to fix something that isn't broken.[187][188]
In 2014 Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at Harvard Law School suggested that municipal broadband might be a possible solution to net neutrality concerns.[189]
Support of net neutrality[edit]
Organizations that support net neutrality come from widely varied political backgrounds and include groups such as MoveOn.org, Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, AARP, American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Public Knowledge, the Media Access Project, the Christian Coalition, TechNet,[190][191][192] the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Greenpeace, Tumblr, Kickstarter, Vimeo, Wikia, Mozilla Foundation, and others.[193][194][195][196]
Prominent supporters of net neutrality include Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol; Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web; law professor Tim Wu; Netflix CEO Reed Hastings; Tumblr founder David Karp; and Last Week Tonight host John Oliver, who created two full-length Last Week Tonight segments about the issue.[197][198][199][200][201]
In December 2017, 83% of voters supported keeping the rules on net neutrality, including 75% of Republican voters, 89% of Democratic voters, and 86% of independent voters.[202][203]
Proponents of net neutrality, in particular those in favor of reclassification of broadband to "common carrier", have many concerns about the potential for discriminatory service on the part of providers such as Comcast. Common-carriage principles require network operators to serve the public regardless of geographical location, district income levels, or usage. Telecommunications companies are required to provide services, such as phone access, to all consumers on the premise that it is a necessity that should be available to all people equally. If the FCC's ability to regulate this aspect is removed, providers could cease to offer services to low income neighborhoods or rural environments. Those in favor of net neutrality often cite that the internet is now an educational necessity, and as such should not be doled out at the discrimination of private companies, whose profit-oriented models cause a conflict of interest. [204]
Outside of the US several countries have removed net neutrality protocols and have started double charging for delivering content (once to consumer and again to content providers). This equates to a toll being required for certain internet access, essentially limiting what is available to all people, in particular low income households.[205]
Large already well established companies may not be hurt by the cost increase that providers such as Comcast intend to levy upon them, but it would permanently stifle small businesses and the internet's ability to encourage start-ups.[206] Many have pointed out that sites such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon would not have been able to survive if net neutrality hadn't been in place.[207] Concerns abound as to what kind of long term damage would be inflicted on future website innovations, including educational content such as MIT's OpenCourseWare which is a free website offering online video lectures to the public.[208]
Michael Conti, the CEO of Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, suggests that the children's education is at stake and that lessons that incorporate the use of the internet are under risk since charter and public schools may not afford the Internet; in addition, families may not be able to afford Internet at home for their children's educational needs. Students from virtual charter schools, public schools, children with special needs and homeschool children all depend mostly on web instructions, according to Charamonte.[209]
Barbara Stripling, the president of the American Library Association states: "School, public and college libraries rely upon the public availability of open, affordable Internet access for school homework assignments, distance learning classes, e-government services, licensed databases, job-training videos, medical and scientific research, and many other essential services, we must ensure the same quality access to online educational content as to entertainment and other commercial offerings."[209]
Previously existing FCC rules do not prevent telecommunications companies from charging fees to certain content providers in exchange for preferential treatment (the so-called "fast lanes"). Neutrality advocates Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig have argued that the FCC does have regulatory power over the matter, following from the must-carry precedent set in the Supreme Court case Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission.[210]
Net neutrality proponents argue that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise noncompetitive services.[193] Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important for the preservation of current internet freedoms; a lack of net neutrality would allow Internet service providers, such as Comcast, to extract payment from content providers like Netflix, and these charges would ultimately be passed on to consumers.[211][212]
Civil rights organizations, such as the Color of Change, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and more[213] argue that net neutrality is also important for communities of color because it allows for them to tell their own stories and “organize for racial and social justice."[214] Much of the mainstream media does not showcase these minority people, so these organizations believe that it is important to open the Internet into giving these people some sort of broadcast station. By doing so, their voices can be heard, because beforehand ISPs could “block unpopular speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online."[214] As a result, net neutrality has become a social controversy, not just a technological one.
In May 2014, some websites admitted to inserting code that slowed access to their site by users from known FCC IP addresses, as a protest on the FCC's position on net neutrality.[215]
On his show Last Week Tonight, Oliver took on the issue of net neutrality for the first time in 2014, in the show’s first season. The episode went viral with 13 million views on YouTube[216] and prompted 45,000 comments on the FCC website.[217] Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler cites Oliver’s episode as a turning point in the issue of net neutrality. “John Oliver took the ultimate arcane issue, Title II, and made it something that got people interested. And that’s good.”[218] Oliver returned to the issue of net neutrality on his May 7, 2017, episode in response to Chairman Pai’s promise to get rid of the regulation. He prompted viewers to once again comment on the FCC website by buying the domain gofccyourself.com, which garnered 1.6 million contributions.[219]
Opposition to net neutrality[edit]
Opponents to net neutrality include FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai,[220] the FreedomWorks Foundation, [221] the Reason Foundation,[222] Multiple technology companies,[187][223] VOIP pioneers Daniel Berninger and Jeff Pulver, Electronic Frontier Foundation founder John Perry Barlow.[224][225] and Citizens Against Government Waste.[226][227][228] Prominent opponents also include Netscape founder and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Bob Kahn, PayPal founder and Facebook investor Peter Thiel, MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte, Internet engineer and former Chief Technologist for the FCC David Farber, and Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker.[229][230][231][232][233] Organizations and companies that oppose net neutrality regulations include several major technology hardware companies, cable and telecommunications companies, hundreds of small internet service providers, various think tanks, several civil rights groups, and others.[187][234][235][225][224][236]
Opponents argue that net neutrality would benefit industry lobbyists, and not consumers due to the potential of regulatory capture with policies that protect incumbent interests.[237] Former hedge fund manager turned journalist Andy Kessler has argued, the threat of eminent domain against the telecommunication providers, instead of new legislation, is the best approach by forcing competition and better services.[238] One print ad frames the Hands Off the Internet message in pro-consumer terms. "Net neutrality means consumers will be stuck paying more for their Internet access to cover the big online companies' share," the ad claims.[239]
In November 2005, Edward Whitacre Jr., then chief executive officer of SBC Communications, stated "there's going to have to be some mechanism for these [Internet upstarts] who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using", and that "The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment,"[240] sparking a furious debate. SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said that Whitacre was misinterpreted and his comments only referred to new tiered services.[241] Net neutrality laws are generally opposed by the cable television and telephone industries.[242][243]
Net neutrality opponents such as IBM, Intel, Juniper, Qualcomm, and Cisco claim that net neutrality would deter investment into broadband infrastructure, saying that "shifting to Title II means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it."[187][244] Others argue that the regulation is "a solution that won’t work to a problem that simply doesn’t exist".[245]
Critics of net neutrality argue that data discrimination is desirable for reasons like guaranteeing quality of service. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, called the term net neutrality a slogan and opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[229] Vint Cerf, Kahn's co-founder of the Internet Protocol, explains the confusion over their positions on net neutrality, "There’s also some argument that says, well you have to treat every packet the same. That’s not what any of us said. Or you can’t charge more for more usage. We didn’t say that either."[246]
Alternative FCC proposals[edit]
An alternate position was proposed in 2010 by then-FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski, which would narrowly reclassify Internet access as a telecommunication service under Title Two of the Communications Act of 1934. It would apply only six[247] common carrier rules under the legal principle of forbearance that would sufficiently prevent unreasonable discrimination and mandate reasonable net neutrality policies under the concept of common carriage. Incumbent ISP AT&T opposed the idea saying that common carrier regulations would "cram today's broadband Internet access providers into an ill-fitting 20th century regulatory silo" while Google supported the FCC proposal "In particular, the Third Way will promote legal certainty and regulatory predictability to spur investment, ensure that the Commission can fulfill the tremendous promise of the National Broadband Plan, and make it possible for the Commission to protect and serve all broadband users, including through meaningful enforcement".[248]
In October 2014, after the initial proposal was shot down, the FCC began drafting a new proposal that would take a hybrid regulatory approach to the issue. Although this alternative has not yet been circulated, it is said to propose that there be a divide between "wholesale" and "retail" transactions.[249] In order to illustrate clear rules that are grounded by law, reclassification of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 will be involved as well as parts of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Data being sent between content provider and ISPs will involve stricter regulations compared to transactions between ISP's and consumers, which will involve more lax parameters. Restrictions on offering a data fast lane will be enforced between content providers and ISPs to avoid unfair advantages. This hybrid proposal has become the most popular solution among the three options that FCC has reported. However, ISPs, such as AT&T who has already warned the public via tweet "any use of Title II would be problematic", are expected to dispute this solution.[249] The official proposal was rumored to become public by the end of 2014.[250]
Opinions cautioning against legislation[edit]
In 2006 Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent, said "I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity, like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... attacks."[251]
In June 2007, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to new regulations proposed by net neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers" such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."[252] The FTC conclusions were questioned in Congress in September 2007, when Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate interstate commerce, trade and tourism subcommittee, told FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras that he feared new services as groundbreaking as Google could not get started in a system with price discrimination.[253]
In 2011 Aparna Watal, a legal officer at an Internet company named Attomic Labs, has put forward three points for resisting any urge "to react legislatively to the apparent regulatory crisis".[254] Firstly, "contrary to the general opinion, the Comcast decision does not uproot the Commission's authority to regulate ISPs. Section 201(b) of the Act, which was cited as an argument by the Commission but not addressed by the Court on procedural grounds, could grant the Commission authority to regulate broadband Internet services where they render "charges, practices and regulations for, and in connection with" common carrier services unjust and unreasonable."[254] Secondly, she suggests, it is "undesirable and premature to legislatively mandate network neutrality or for the Commission to adopt a paternalistic approach on the issue ... [as] there have been few overt incidents to date, and the costs of those incidents to consumers have been limited."[254] She cites "prompt media attention and public backlash" as effective policing tools to prevent ISPs from throttling traffic. She suggests that it "would be more prudent to consider introducing modest consumer protection rules, such as requiring ISPs to disclose their network management practices and to allow for consumers to switch ISPs inexpensively, rather than introducing network neutrality laws."[254] "While by regulating broadband services the commission is not directly regulating content and applications on the Internet", content will be affected by the reclassification. "The different layers of the Internet work in tandem with each other such that there is no possibility of throttling or improving one layer's performance without impacting the other layers. ... To let the Commission regulate broadband pipelines connecting to the Internet and disregard that it indirectly involves regulating the data that runs through them will lead to a complex, overlapping, and fractured regulatory landscape in the years to come."[254]
Unresolved issues[edit]
As of 2006 the debate over "neutrality" did not yet capture some dimensions of the topic; for example, whether voice packets should get higher priority than packets carrying email or whether emergency services, mission-critical, or life-saving applications, such as tele-medicine, should get priority over spam.[255]
Alternatives to cable and DSL[edit]
Cable companies have lobbied Congress for a federal preemption to ban states and municipalities from competing and thereby interfering with interstate commerce. However, there is current Supreme Court precedent for an exception to the Commerce Power of Congress for states as states going into business for their citizens.[256]
In 2006 it was proposed that neither municipal wireless nor other technological solutions such as encryption, onion routing, or time-shifting DVR would be sufficient to render possible discrimination moot.[257]
Utility company restrictions[edit]
EPB, the municipal utility serving Chattanooga, Tennessee, petitioned the FCC to allow them to deliver internet to communities outside of the 600-square mile area that they service.[258] A similar petition was made by Wilson, North Carolina. According to FCC officials, some residents who lived just outside the service areas of the Chattanooga and Wilson utilities then had no broadband service available.[113] One of the two February 26, 2015, rulings set aside those states' restrictions on municipal broadband, although legal challenges to the FCC's authority to do so were seen as likely.[113]
Repeal plan[edit]
On November 21, 2017, FCC chairman Ajit Pai unveiled plans to repeal the net neutrality policy in the United States.[259] A vote was held on December 14, 2017,[260] and the FCC voted 3–2, along party lines, to repeal the Title II net neutrality.[19][20][21][23]
This decision -- and the previously announced intention to take this decision -- has generated a flurry of activity to restore net neutrality at the state level in spite of this FCC action, including a number of bills introduced into the legislatures in various states to require net neutrality by either (a) state regulation or (b) to obtain a contract with any state (and in some cases) local governmental body.
Executive Orders effective immediately[edit]
Particularly noteworthy are the actions of the governors of Montana (on January 22), New York (on January 24) and New Jersey (on February 5) to issue executive orders mandating that state agencies will only sign contracts for Internet access with companies that make enforceable commitments to abide by net neutrality principles for all their business within the state. These executive orders impact contract negotiations immediately for all contracts that become effective after a certain date -- unless the executive orders are blocked by court action or are rescinded by the governor or state legislature.
Other actions pending[edit]
Other attempts by net neutrality supporters are still pending, awaiting, e.g., court action or votes in legislative bodies. Oregonians for Net Neutrality are trying to collect enough signatures to place this issue on their November 6, 2018, ballot.[261]
As of Monday, January 15, 2018, 50 United States senators endorsed legislative action to reverse the repeal of Title II net neutrality by passing a resolution of disapproval.[262] 51 votes are required to pass the resolution.
Pending state legislation falls primarily into two general categories: (a) regulation and (b) contracting with state and possibly sub-state entities. Both might be overturned by courts, depending on how the courts rule on the conflict between the state actions and section III.E.7ff of this FCC order regarding, “Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations”: While it's impossible to predict how courts may rule, on the surface this section suggests that state regulations in this area may not be enforceable. And courts may or may not overrule the use of state contracting authority in this area as being equivalent to impermissible regulation.
An effort is underway to overturn this decision in the US Congress under the Congressional Review Act.
Less than an hour after the results were published, the state attorneys general for Washington and New York announced that they were suing the FCC over its decision.[263] Attorneys general for other states announced their intention to join this suit.[264] This suit against the FCC was formally filed on January 16, 2018 in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by the Attorney General of New York on behalf of 21 States and the District of Columbia.[265] On February 5, 2018, Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey announced that New Jersey will join 21 States and D.C. in this lawsuit.[266] The new regulations appeared in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018, giving opponents of the FCC's decision 60 days from that date to prevent the new regulations from going into effect.[267] The multi-state lawsuit was refiled on February 22, including 22 states and the District of Columbia.[268][269]
Summary of state-level net neutrality actions[edit]
The status as of February 26, 2018, of executive orders and pending action at state levels is summarized as follows:[270]
entity
executive order
suing the FCC
other action
bill-number
description
Alaska 2018-01-12 HB277 regulation[271]
2018-01-24 SJRes 12 resolution[272]
2018-01-24 SB 160 regulation[273]
California 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-03 SB-822 regulation[274]
2018-01-22 SB-460 state contracts[275]
Connecticut 2018-01-16[265] 2017-12-29 draft legislation[276]
Delaware 2018-01-16[265]
District of Columbia 2018-01-16[265]
Georgia 2017-12-18 SB 310 regulation[277]
Hawaii 2018-01-16[265] 2017-12-18 draft legislation[278]
Illinois 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-11 draft legislation[279]
Iowa 2018-01-16[265] 2018-02-01 draft legislation[280]
Kansas 2018-02-07 HB 2682 state contracts[281]
Kentucky 2018-01-16[265]
Maine 2018-01-16[265]
Maryland 2018-01-16[265]
Massachusetts 2018-01-16[265] 2017-12-19 SD.2428 regulation[282]
2018-02-06 hearing[283]
Minnesota 2018-01-16[265] 2017-12-19 draft legislation[284]
Mississippi 2018-01-16[265]
Montana 2018-01-22[285]
Nebraska 2018-01-05 Legislative Bill 856 regulation[286]
New Jersey 2018-02-05[287][288] 2018-02-05[288][289] 2017-12-04 A.5257 monitoring[290]
New Mexico 2018-01-16[265] 2017-12-21 SB 39 regulation[291]
2018-01-23 SB 155 regulation[292]
New York 2018-01-24[293] 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-03 S07175 state contracts[294]
2018-01-03 S07183 state & local contracts[295]
2017-12-22 S08882 state & local contracts[296]
2018-01-18 A09057 state & local conracts[297]
2017-01-17 A01958 regulation[298]
New York City 2018-01-22 request for information[299]
North Carolina 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-11 draft legislation[279]
Oregon 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-21 ballot initiative drive[261]
Pennsylvania 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-26 possible executive order[300][301]
2018-02-09 SB 1033 state & local contracts[302][301][303]
Rhode Island 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-10 H 7076 state & local contracts[304]
2018-01-11 S 2008 state & local contracts[305]
South Dakota 2018-02-06 SB 195 state contracts[306]
Tennessee 2018-01-23 SB 1756 state & local contracts[307][308]
2018-01-23 HB 1755 state & local contracts[307][309]
Vermont 2018-02-15[310][311] 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-31 H.680 state contracts[312]
Virginia 2018-01-16[265] 2018-01-09 HB 705 regulation[313]
Washington (state) 2018-01-16[265] 2017-12-13 HB 2282 regulation[314]
2017-12-14 HB 2284 regulation[315]
2018-01-17 SB 6446 state contracts[316]
Wisconsin 2018-01-25 draft legislation[317]
See also[edit]
Commercialization of the Internet
Economic rent
Municipal broadband
Series of tubes
Notes[edit]
Associated Press (2018-01-16), "Nearly two dozen attorneys general sue to block FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules", USA Today, retrieved 2018-02-12
Attorneys general for 21 states and the District of Columbia (2018-01-16), Protective Petition for Review, Case No. 18-1013 (PDF), Attorney General of the State of New York, retrieved 2018-02-01, State of New York, State of California, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, Commonwealth of Kentucky, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Mississippi, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, State of Oregon, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Washington, and the District of Columbia Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission, and United States of America, Respondents.
FCC Restoring Internet Freedom Order (2018): Declaratory ruling, report, and order in the matter of restoring Internet freedom (PDF), U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2018-01-04, retrieved 2018-02-07
Fight for the Future (2018), These states are fighting for net neutrality. Is yours one of them?, retrieved 2018-02-11
Kang, Cecilia (2018-01-11), "States Push Back After Net Neutrality Repeal", New York Times, retrieved 2018-02-12, Lawmakers in at least six states, including California and New York, have introduced bills in recent weeks that would forbid internet providers to block or slow down sites or online services. Legislators in several other states, including North Carolina and Illinois, are weighing similar action. ... Bills have also been introduced in Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Washington.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Lohr, Steve (March 30, 2017). "Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says". The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (April 8, 2011). "House Votes Against 'Net Neutrality". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 23 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "AT&T, Comcast Rout Google, Microsoft in Net Neutrality Battle". Bloomberg News. July 20, 2006. Retrieved January 7, 2007.
Jump up ^ "Bill Text – 109th Congress (2005–2006) – THOMAS (Library of Congress)". loc.gov. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Dolasia, Merra (February 12, 2014). "The Debate about Net Neutrality and Why We Should Care". DOGO News.
Jump up ^ Hern, Alex (November 22, 2017). "Net neutrality: why are Americans so worried about it being scrapped?". Guardian News and Media Limited. Archived from the original on November 25, 2017. Retrieved November 27, 2017. In the US, much of the population has essentially no choice over who to buy broadband from, with local monopolies enshrined in law and a nationwide duopoly providing access to high-speed connections for three quarters of the nation.
^ Jump up to: a b Staff (February 26, 2015). "FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c Weisman, Jonathan (February 24, 2015). "As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality". The New York Times. CNBC. Retrieved February 24, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c Lohr, Steve (February 25, 2015). "The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice". The New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Reisinger, Don (April 13, 2015). "Net neutrality rules get published – let the lawsuits begin". CNET. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Federal Communications Commission (April 13, 2015). "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet – A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/13/2015". Federal Register. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Open Internet - FCC.gov". fcc.gov. Federal Communications Commission.
^ Jump up to: a b The Editorial Board (April 29, 2017). "F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It". The New York Times. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Reardon, Marguerite (May 2, 2017). "Net neutrality redux: The battle for an open net continues – The Republican-led FCC is starting to roll back net neutrality rules. Here's what you need to know". CNET. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "Public Comments to the Federal Communications Commission About Net Neutrality Contain Many Inaccuracies and Duplicates". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
Jump up ^ Schneiderman, Eric (2017-11-21). "An Open Letter to the FCC:". Eric Schneiderman. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
^ Jump up to: a b c "FCC Restoring Internet Freedom Docket | Emprata". www.emprata.com. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
^ Jump up to: a b c Fung, Brian (December 14, 2017). "The FCC just voted to repeal its net neutrality rules, in a sweeping act of deregulation". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Newcomb, Alyssa; Kent, Jo Ling (December 14, 2017). "The FCC just scrapped rules regulating equal access to the internet". NBC News. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "FCC ACTS TO RESTORE INTERNET FREEDOM" (PDF) (Press release). Federal Communications Commission. December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Brodkin, Jon (2018-01-04), FCC releases final net neutrality repeal order, three weeks after vote: With repeal officially published, FCC will soon face lawsuits., Ars Technica, retrieved 2018-01-05
^ Jump up to: a b "FCC Releases Restoring Internet Freedom Order". Federal Communications Commission. January 4, 2018. Retrieved March 2, 2018.
Jump up ^ Kang, Cecilia (2018). "Flurry of Lawsuits Filed to Fight Repeal of Net Neutrality". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
Jump up ^ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-92A1.pdf
Jump up ^ Mark S. Fowler and Daniel L. Brenner, A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation, 60 Texas L. Rev. 207 (1982) Archived January 14, 2005, at the Wayback Machine. is the definitive statement of this by the FCC chairman at the time, but this theory has been worked out extensively since.
Jump up ^ "Remarks as Delivered". Artcontext. January 11, 1994. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jump up ^ Jan Krämer, Lukas Wiewiorra, Christof Weinhardt, Net Neutrality in the United States and Europe, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March 2012(2)
Jump up ^ Powell, Michael (February 8, 2004). "Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry" (PDF). Retrieved July 7, 2006.
Jump up ^ "In the Matter of Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated companies" (PDF). Consent Decree DA 05-543. FCC. 2005. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
Jump up ^ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-543A2.pdf%7Cformat=PDF
Jump up ^ United States Court of Appeals. "No. 00-1012" (PDF).
Jump up ^ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf
Jump up ^ Federal Communications Commission (August 5, 2005). "New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet" (PDF). Retrieved July 7, 2006.
Jump up ^ "Before the Federal Communications Commission" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jump up ^ Isenberg, David (August 7, 2005). "How Martin's FCC is different from Powell's". Retrieved July 7, 2006.
Jump up ^ "Policy statement" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
Jump up ^ "Re : Notice of Ex Parte Communication in the Matter of Review of AT&T Inc . and BellSouth Corp Application For Consent to Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74" (PDF). Federal Communications Commissions. December 28, 2006. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jump up ^ Cheng, Jacqui (October 19, 2007). "Evidence mounts that comcast is targeting Bittorrent Traffic". Ars Technica. Condé Nast. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
Jump up ^ Ernesto (August 17, 2007). "Comcast Throttles BitTorrent Traffic, Seeding Impossible". TorrentFreak. TorrentFreak BV. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "EFF tests agree with AP: Comcast is forging packets to interfere with user traffic". Electronic Frontier Foundation. October 19, 2007. Retrieved December 1, 2017.
Jump up ^ "The Associated Press: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic". October 21, 2007. Archived from the original on October 21, 2007. Retrieved December 1, 2017. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
Jump up ^ Kumar, Vishesh (March 27, 2008). "Comcast, BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic". Wall Street Journal.
Jump up ^ Duncan, Geoff (December 23, 2009). "Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications". Digital Trends. Retrieved December 23, 2009.
Jump up ^ Cheng, Jacqui (December 22, 2009). "Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million". Ars Technica. Condé Nast. Retrieved December 23, 2009.
Jump up ^ "THE FCC TACKLES NET NEUTRALITY: AGENCY JURISDICTION AND THE COMCAST ORDER". Berkley Technology Law Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jump up ^ "Toy-safety bill advances, No to Internet rationing". The Week. August 8, 2008. Retrieved March 4, 2009.
Jump up ^ Kathleen Ann Ruane (February 20, 2009). "Net Neutrality: The Federal Communications Commission's Authority to Enforce its Network Management Principles" (PDF). Retrieved March 9, 2009.
Jump up ^ Hansell, Saul (August 2, 2008). "F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ "VOIP over cellular connections".
Jump up ^ Nate Anderson (September 21, 2009). "FCC Chairman wants network neutrality, wired and wireless". Retrieved October 6, 2009.
Jump up ^ Tim Greene (October 22, 2009). "FAQ: What's the FCC vote on net neutrality all about?". Archived from the original on June 17, 2013.
Jump up ^ Gross, Grant (April 6, 2010). "Court rules against FCC's Comcast net neutrality decision". Reuters. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
Jump up ^ McCullagh, Declan (April 6, 2010). "Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality". CNET.
Jump up ^ Ann Ruane, Kathleen (April 29, 2013). "The FCC's Authority to Regulate Net Neutrality After Comcast v. FCC" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ Matthew Lasar (May 5, 2010). "FCC on net neutrality: yes we can". arstechnica.com. Condé Nast. Retrieved May 6, 2010.
Jump up ^ "FCC says will act on Web neutrality if needed". Reuters. February 25, 2008.
Jump up ^ "Google Intends to Bid in Spectrum Auction If FCC Adopts Consumer Choice and Competition Requirements". Retrieved August 26, 2009.
Jump up ^ "FCC sets 700 MHz auction rules: limited open access, no wholesale requirement". July 2007. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
Jump up ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20090216170759/http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary02-13-09.pdf
Jump up ^ Gustin, Sam (December 21, 2010). "FCC Passes Compromise Net Neutrality Rules". Wired.
Jump up ^ Bartash, Jeffry (December 22, 2010). "FCC adopts web rules". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on July 17, 2011. Retrieved December 22, 2010.
Jump up ^ "FCC Adopts Net Neutrality Rules". Care2.com. December 21, 2010. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jump up ^ Kang, Cecilia (December 22, 2010). "FCC Approves Net-Neutrality Rules; Criticism is Immediate". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 5, 2017. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Full text of decision" (PDF). USCourts.gov. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Correction" (PDF). USCourts.gov. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
Jump up ^ Robertson, Adi. "Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules". The Verge. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
Jump up ^ Brodkin, Jon. "Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC's anti-blocking rule". Retrieved January 14, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Berkman, Fran (May 20, 2014). "Title II is the key to net neutrality—so what is it?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Krishnan, S. Shunmuga; Sitaraman, Ramesh K. (November 2012). "Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior" (PDF). University of Massachusetts. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
Jump up ^ Nancy Weil (February 19, 2014). "FCC will set new net neutrality rules". Computerworld. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (April 23, 2014). "F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2014.
Jump up ^ Staff (April 24, 2014). "Creating a Two-Speed Internet". The New York Times. Retrieved April 25, 2014.
Jump up ^ Carr, David (May 11, 2014). "Warnings Along F.C.C.'s Fast Lane". The New York Times. Retrieved May 11, 2014.
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (April 23, 2014), In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane, Washington, DC, retrieved April 23, 2014
Jump up ^ Nagesh, Gautham (April 23, 2014), FCC to Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules: Proposal Would Allow Broadband Providers to Give Preferential Treatment to Some Traffic, Washington, DC: Wall Street Journal, retrieved April 23, 2014
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (April 23, 2014). "F.C.C., in a shift, backs fast lanes for web traffic". The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
Jump up ^ Hattem, Julian (April 25, 2014). "NYT blasts net neutrality proposal". The Hill. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
Jump up ^ Gustin, Sam (May 7, 2014). "Net Neutrality: FCC Boss Smacked by Tech Giants, Internal Dissent". TIME. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
Jump up ^ Nagesh, Gautham (May 7, 2014). "Internet Companies, Two FCC Commissioners Disagree With Proposed Broadband Regulations". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
Jump up ^ Edwards, Haley Sweetland (May 15, 2014). "FCC Votes to Move Forward on Internet 'Fast Lane'". Time. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
Jump up ^ Staff (May 15, 2014). "Searching for Fairness on the Internet". The New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (May 15, 2014). "F.C.C. Backs Opening Net Rules for Debate". The New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
Jump up ^ Hu, Elise (July 21, 2014). "1 Million Net Neutrality Comments Filed, But Will They Matter?". National Public Radio. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
Jump up ^ "NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014".
Jump up ^ "Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014" (PDF).
Jump up ^ "Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012".
Jump up ^ "NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012". Retrieved July 3, 2014.
Jump up ^ Christopher Muther (February 2, 2013). "Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient". Boston Globe. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
Jump up ^ Rose Eveleth (September 10, 2014). "Why Netflix Is 'Slowing Down' Its Website Today". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Fight for the Future. "Join the Battle for Net Neutrality". Battle for the Net. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Samuel Gibbs. "Battle for the net: why is my internet slow today?". the Guardian. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ The Christian Science Monitor. "Internet Slowdown Day: Why websites feel sluggish today (+video)". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Sharon Gaudin (September 10, 2014). "Internet Slowdown Day becomes an online picket protest". Computerworld. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ M.H. (September 10, 2014). "Net neutrality: Faux go-slow". The Economist. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
Jump up ^ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). "Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation". The New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
Jump up ^ Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). "The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let's Get It Right". Wired (website). Retrieved January 20, 2015.
Jump up ^ Trump, Donald [@realDonaldTrump] (November 12, 2014). "Obama's attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media" (Tweet). Retrieved December 7, 2017 – via Twitter.
For a more recent commentary on this, see Snider, Mike (November 23, 2016), "Net neutrality, beloved by Netflix, looks headed for the ax under Trump", USA Today, retrieved December 7, 2017
Jump up ^ Weisman, Jonathan (January 19, 2015). "Shifting Politics of Net Neutrality Debate Ahead of F.C.C.Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
Jump up ^ Staff (January 16, 2015). "H. R. _ 114th Congress, 1st Session [Discussion Draft] – To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Internet openness..." (PDF). U. S. Congress. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
Jump up ^ Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility". The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). "F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services". The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Flaherty, Anne (January 31, 2015). "Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that". AP News. Retrieved January 31, 2015.
Jump up ^ Fung, Brian (January 2, 2015). "Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February". Washington Post. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Staff (January 2, 2015). "FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules". AP News. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Lohr, Steve (February 4, 2015). "F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet". The New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
Jump up ^ Wheeler, Tom (February 4, 2015). "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality". Wired. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
Jump up ^ The Editorial Board (February 6, 2015). "Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. – Net Neutrality's Wise New Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2015.
Jump up ^ Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (February 26, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility". The New York Times. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Flaherty, Anne (February 25, 2015). "FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate". AP News. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c Gross, Grant (February 26, 2015). "FCC votes to overturn state laws limiting municipal broadband". CIO Magazine. IDG News Service. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
Jump up ^ Liebelson, Dana (February 26, 2015). "Net Neutrality Prevails in Historic FCC Vote". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
Jump up ^ Ruiz, Rebecca R. (March 12, 2015). "F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
Jump up ^ Sommer, Jeff (March 12, 2015). "What the Net Neutrality Rules Say". The New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
Jump up ^ FCC Staff (March 12, 2015). "Federal Communications Commission – FCC 15–24 – In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet – GN Docket No. 14-28 – Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Sep 10th is the Internet Slowdown". Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Breaking: Grumpy Cat Soars over Comcast Headquarters to say "Don't Mess With The Internet"". Retrieved March 2, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b "Save The Internet". Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Epic Victory at the FCC". Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Pai, Ajit (2017), Pai, Ajit, ed., Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, retrieved January 29, 2018
Jump up ^ "Ajit Pai on net neutrality: "I favor an open Internet and I oppose Title II"". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kang, Cecila. "Trump's F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Selyukh, Alina, David Greene (May 5, 2017). "FCC Chief Makes Case For Tackling Net Neutrality Violations 'After The Fact'". NPR. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ "FCC chair wants to replace net neutrality with "voluntary" commitments". Ars Technica. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Ajit Pai's net neutrality plan is nonsense". The Verge. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
Jump up ^ Restoring Internet freedom (PDF), WC Docket No. 17-108, Federal Communications Commission, retrieved July 26, 2017
^ Jump up to: a b Fiegerman, Seth (May 18, 2017). "FCC votes to move forward with net neutrality rollback". CNN Tech. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c Pai, Ajit; Clyburn, Mignon L.; O'Rielly, Michael (May 17, 2017), "Restoring Internet Freedom with comments from commissioners" (PDF), WC Docket No. 17-108 (Notice of proposed rulemaking), Federal Communications Commission of the United States government, retrieved June 11, 2017
Jump up ^ Singer, Hal (March 1, 2017), 2016 Broadband Capex Survey: Tracking Investment in the Title II Era, Hal Singer, retrieved July 28, 2017
Jump up ^ Editorial Board (April 29, 2017), F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It, The New York Times, retrieved July 28, 2017
Jump up ^ See also Crawford, Susan P. (April 27, 2017), Ajit Pai is siding with the oligarchy -- and misleading Trump's base, Wired, retrieved July 28, 2017
Jump up ^ Clyburn, Mignon L. (May 18, 2017), Pai, Ajit; O'Rielly, Michael, eds., "Dissenting statement of Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn to Restoring Internet freedom" (PDF), WC Docket No. 17-108, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, pp. 67–68, retrieved July 28, 2017
Jump up ^ Falcon, Ernesto Omar, Ernesto Falcon, Legislative Council, Electronic Frontier Foundation, retrieved July 28, 2017
^ Jump up to: a b Graves, Spencer B.; Falcon, Ernesto (July 25, 2017), $15 minimum wage on Aug. 8 ballot in KCMO plus Trump’s attack on net neutrality, KKFI, retrieved July 28, 2017
Jump up ^ Turner, S. Derek (May 2017), It’s Working: How the Internet Access and Online Video Markets Are Thriving in the Title II Era (PDF), Free Press, retrieved July 28, 2017
Jump up ^ See Turner (2017) and the summary of it in Table 1 in Friends of Community Media Reply Comment in Opposition to Restoring Internet Freedom NPRM, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2017-08-30, retrieved 2017-08-31
Jump up ^ "Startups for Net Neutrality". Engine. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kastrenakes, Jacob (May 24, 2017). "2.6 million comments in, the FCC has changed almost nothing about its net neutrality proposal". The Verge. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Lecher, Colin, Adi Robertson, and Russell Brandom (May 10, 2017). "Anti-net neutrality spammers are impersonating real people to flood FCC comments". The Verge. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Fung, Brian (May 18, 2017). "FCC votes to start rolling back landmark net neutrality rules". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Greer, Evan (May 23, 2017), Comcast tries to censor pro-net neutrality website calling for investigation of fake FCC comments potentially funded by cable lobby, Fight for the Future, retrieved July 27, 2017
Jump up ^ McCauley, Lauren (May 23, 2017), 'You Can't Make This Up': Comcast Threatens Legal Action Against Net Neutrality Proponents, Common Dreams, retrieved July 27, 2017
Jump up ^ Layton, Roslyn (May 23, 2017), Fact And Fiction In 'Battle For The Net', retrieved July 27, 2017
Jump up ^ 'Battle for the Net': Web Guardians Announce Global Day of Action to Defeat Trump's FCC, Common Dreams, June 6, 2017, retrieved July 27, 2017
Jump up ^ Velasco, Haley (July 11, 2017). "Net Neutrality: What happened during the July 12 Internet-Wide Day of Action protest". PC World. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ Sohn, Gigi (June 15, 2017), 4 steps to writing an impactful net neutrality comment (which you should do), Mashable, retrieved July 27, 2017
Jump up ^ "FCC chief plans to ditch U.S. 'net neutrality' rules". Reuters. November 22, 2017. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
Jump up ^ Cameron, Dell. "FCC Commissioner Blasts Her Own Agency for Withholding Evidence of Fraud". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ Jones, Rhett (December 10, 2017). "The Internet blackout for net neutrality is coming and you can help". Gizmodo. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kang, Cecilia (November 21, 2017). "F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in a Victory for Telecoms". The New York Times. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
Jump up ^ Fung, Brian (November 21, 2017). "FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use". Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b Griswold, Alison (December 14, 2017). "The first lawsuit to save net neutrality was announced minutes after the FCC voted to repeal it". Quartz. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ Tim Wu, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination", Columbia University Law School, 2003
Jump up ^ Art Brodsky, "Public Knowledge Statement Regarding NCTA v BrandX Internet", Public Knowledge, June 27, 2005.
Jump up ^ "Comcast Ordered to Stop BitTorrent Traffic Interference - TorrentFreak". TorrentFreak. 2008-07-11. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ "Comcast really does block BitTorrent traffic after all". CNET. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ Harold Feld, "Martin’s Big CES Announcement", Public Knowledge, January 9, 2008
Jump up ^ John Bergmayer, "Theres only one internet", Public Knowledge, August 9, 2010
Jump up ^ https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/openinternet.pdf
Jump up ^ Harold Feld, "Quick Guide Upcoming Net Neutrality Rules Challenge", Public Knowledge, September 23, 2011
Jump up ^ Michael Weinberg, "How the FCCs Proposed Fast Lanes Would Actually Work", Public Knowledge, May 13, 2014
Jump up ^ Sam Gustin, "Netflix Pays Verizon in Streaming Deal", Time, April 28, 2014
Jump up ^ Michael Weinberg, "Officially Explaining the Importance of an Open Internet", Public Knowledge, July 15, 2014
Jump up ^ Bob Lannon, Andrew Pendelton, "What can we learn from 800000 Public Comments on the FCCs net Neutrality Plan", Sunlight Foundation, September 2, 2014
Jump up ^ Wilhelm, Alex. "The FCC Received 3.7 Million Net Neutrality Comments". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ Michael Weinberg, "Landmark Day for Net Neutrality", Public Knowledge, September 15, 2014
Jump up ^ FCC.gov, "Open Internet", FCC,
Jump up ^ Alina Selyukh (June 14, 2016). "U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Net Neutrality Rules In Full". NPR.
Jump up ^ Fiegerman, Seth. "Trump names new FCC chairman". CNN Tech. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kastrenakes, Jacob (April 26, 2017). "FCC announces plan to reverse Title II net neutrality". The Verge. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Harris, Andrew M., Todd Shields (May 1, 2017). "FCC Net Neutrality Case Rehearing Rejected by Appeals Court". Bloomberg Technology. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Roberts, Jeff John (June 6, 2017). "Amazon Just Changed the Net Neutrality Debate". Fortune. Retrieved June 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Major web companies and public interest groups announce Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality". Fight For The Future. June 6, 2017. Retrieved June 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Join the Day of Action for Net Neutrality on July 12". Battle For The Net. Retrieved June 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ Fingas, Jon (June 6, 2017). "Amazon, ACLU back net neutrality 'day of action' on July 12th". Engadget. Retrieved June 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ Lecher, Colin. "Here's how the internet's net neutrality day of action is unfolding". The Verge. Retrieved July 12, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kang, Cecilia (December 14, 2017). "F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ "The FCC just killed net neutrality". The Verge. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ NETWORK NEUTRALITY, BROADBAND DISCRIMINATION, Tim Wu Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003
Jump up ^ "NET NEUTRALITY: tiered internet". www.ocf.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-543A2.html
Jump up ^ Brian X. Chen (September 18, 2012). "Groups Prepare to Fight AT&T Over FaceTime Restrictions". The New York Times. Retrieved October 26, 2012.
Jump up ^ Federal Communications Commission (August 20, 2013). "AT&T/FaceTime Case Study" (PDF). Retrieved February 2, 2018.
Jump up ^ Lessig, L. 1999. Cyberspace’s Architectural Constitution, draft 1.1, Text of lecture given at www9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
^ Jump up to: a b c d http://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_ecosystem_letter_FINAL_12.10.14.pdf
Jump up ^ Tribune, Chicago. "The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it".
Jump up ^ Crawford, Susan (April 28, 2014). "The Wire Next Time". The New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
Jump up ^ Broache, Anne (March 17, 2006). "Push for Net neutrality mandate grows". CNET News. Archived from the original on June 12, 2006. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
Jump up ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 12, 2006. Retrieved December 13, 2006.
Jump up ^ Sacco, Al (June 9, 2006). "U.S. House Shoots Down Net Neutrality Provision". CIO.com. Archived from the original on July 2, 2006. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
^ Jump up to: a b "What Is Net Neutrality?". The American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Team Internet". Fight for the Future. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce" (PDF). March 1, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 24, 2006. Retrieved December 26, 2008.
Jump up ^ Mitchell. "A Major Victory for the Open Web". The Mozilla Blog. Mozilla. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Davidson, Alan (November 8, 2005). "Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality". Blogspot.com. Retrieved January 25, 2013.
Jump up ^ Tim Berners-Lee (June 21, 2006). "Net Neutrality: This is serious". Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the Decentralized Information Group. Archived from the original on July 20, 2011.
Jump up ^ Belvedere, Matthew J. (February 24, 2015). "Tumblr CEO: Net rules like Bill of Rights".
Jump up ^ "Net Neutrality: How Open-Internet Activists Won Big". NBC News.
Jump up ^ Tim Berners-Lee. "Net Neutrality: This is serious". Archived from the original on December 27, 2008.
Jump up ^ Neidig, Harper (December 12, 2017). "Poll: 83 percent of voters support keeping FCC's net neutrality rules". The Hill. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Opposes Repealing Net Neutrality | Program for Public Consultation". www.publicconsultation.org. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
Jump up ^ "What Net Neutrality Means for Students and Educators - NEA Today". NEA Today. 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ "In Developing Countries, Google and Facebook Already Defy Net Neutrality – MIT Technology Review". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Entrepreneurs Explain How The End of Net Neutrality Would Mean Their Startups Don't Exist". Techdirt. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Net Neutrality and the Future of the Internet". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ "MIT OpenCourseWare – Free Online Course Materials". mit.edu. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Chiaramonte, Perry (January 24, 2014). "Educators fear net neutrality reversal will increase cost of learning". Fox News.
Jump up ^ [1] Archived January 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney (June 8, 2006). "No Tolls on The Internet". Columns.
Jump up ^ Morran, Chris (February 24, 2015). "These 2 Charts From Comcast Show Why Net Neutrality Is Vital". The Consumerist. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
Jump up ^ Rao, Sameer (April 27, 2017). "Digital Equity Groups Explain How FCC Chair's Net Neutrality Rollback Will Hurt Communities of Color". Color Lines. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now". Save The Internet. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ McMillan, Robert (May 16, 2014). "Websites Throttle FCC Staffers to Protest Gutting of Net Neutrality". Wired. Retrieved May 16, 2014.
Jump up ^ Balto, David (May 5, 2017). "What John Oliver won't tell you about net neutrality". The Hill. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Hu, Elise (June 3, 2014). "John Oliver Helps Rally 45,000 Net Neutrality Comments To FCC". NPR. Archived from the original on June 24, 2015. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Macri, Giuseppe (January 6, 2016). "FCC Chairman: Comedian John Oliver Helped Drive Net Neutrality". Inside Sources. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Johnson, Ted (May 15, 2017). "John Oliver Skewers Critics in Latest Plea for Net Neutrality". Variety. Retrieved May 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Oral Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai". Federal Communication Commission. February 26, 2015. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Net neutrality is bad policy for the U.S. and bad policy for the world". Freedom Works Post. July 16, 2012. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
Jump up ^ "The Fear-Based Campaign to Control the Net". Reason Foundation. May 4, 2017. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Intel, IBM and Cisco team up to fight net neutrality by reclassifying the internet". The Inquirer.
^ Jump up to: a b "Internet Pioneers Decry Title II Rules – Light Reading".
^ Jump up to: a b Jenkins, Holman W.; Jr (February 27, 2015). "The Net Neutrality Crack-Up". The Wall Street Journal.
Jump up ^ "The Sky is Not Falling, and the World isn't Going to End". Citizens Against Government Wast. December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
Jump up ^ Anne Veigle, "Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds," Communications Daily, July 20, 2006.
Jump up ^ SaveTheInternet.com, "One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet," at http://www.savetheinternet.com/=press11 Archived September 19, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. (last visited August 4, 2006).
^ Jump up to: a b Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (January 9, 2007). An Evening with Robert Kahn. Computer History Museum. Archived from the original (WMV) on September 28, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2008. Partial transcript: Hu-Berlin.de Archived September 28, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ NET NEUTRALITY AND CONSUMER WELFARE faculty.chicagobooth.edu
Jump up ^ "Back to the Future with Peter Thiel".
Jump up ^ "Marc Andreessen on net neutrality – Marginal REVOLUTION". May 23, 2014.
Jump up ^ Negroponte, Nicholas (August 13, 2014). "Nicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense".
Jump up ^ "Intel, IBM and Cisco team up to fight net neutrality by reclassifying the internet – TheINQUIRER".
Jump up ^ http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5
Jump up ^ Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle," The Washington Post, July 26, 2006.
Jump up ^ Thierer, Adam (December 21, 2010) Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation?, CBS News
Jump up ^ Kessler, Andy (June 26, 2006). "Give Me Bandwidth..." The Weekly Standard. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
Jump up ^ "Hands Off the Internet," full page print ad in The Washington Post, May 24, 2006
Jump up ^ "At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"". Information Technology/Online Extra. BusinessWeek. November 7, 2005.
Jump up ^ "SBC Head Ignites Access Debate". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Verizon, AT&T: Net neutrality not OK for wireless". CNET. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ "Telecom Industry Owns Congress So Can Net Neutrality Really Be Saved?". Carbonated.TV. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ "Tech and Manufacturing Companies Warn Against Title II".
Jump up ^ "FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"". February 25, 2015.
Jump up ^ "5 insights from Vint Cerf on bitcoin, net neutrality and more".
Jump up ^ Anderson, Nate (May 6, 2010). "Virgin Queen meets broadband: a third way for net neutrality". Ars Technica. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ Lasar, Matthew (July 19, 2010). "Few neutrals in debate over "third way" net neutrality plan". Ars Technica. Retrieved October 19, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b EDWARD WYATT. "F.C.C. Considering Hybrid Regulatory Approach to Net Neutrality". The New York Times. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ Cox, Kate (October 31, 2014). "FCC To Propose New "Hybrid" Approach To Net Neutrality".
Jump up ^ Livingstone, Adam (May 30, 2006). "BitTorrent: Shedding no tiers". BBC News. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Staff Report" (PDF). ftc.gov. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Senate Chair Takes on FTC in Net Neutrality Fight". PCMAG. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Watal, Aparna A Co-regulatory Approach to Reasonable Network Management
Jump up ^ "Is Net Neutrality Bad for National Preparedness?" Archived February 8, 2007, at the Wayback Machine., K. A. Taipale, Center for Advanced Studies in Sci. & Tech. Policy Research Brief No. 06-14 (June 2006).
Jump up ^ Fung, Brian (2014-02-03). "Cable companies want to block cities from building fiber networks. Here's how the FCC could intervene". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-12-17.
Jump up ^ Various (August 31, 2006). "Scenarios for the Network Neutrality Arms Race" (PDF). web.si.umich.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 7, 2008. Retrieved September 6, 2006.
Jump up ^ States, stand down! Let community broadband innovate, Gigaom Inc, July 27, 2014, Craig Settles
Jump up ^ "FCC chief plans to ditch U.S. 'net neutrality' rules". Reuters. November 22, 2017. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ Kang, Cecilia (November 21, 2017). "F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in a Victory for Telecoms". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b News desk, news partner (2018-01-21), Oregon Net Neutrality Initiative Filed With State Secretary: Oregonians for Net Neutrality will need nearly 90,000 signatures to get their initiative on the November 2018 ballot., Across Oregon Patch, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ Fung, Brian (2018-01-15). "The Senate's push to overrule the FCC on net neutrality now has 50 votes, Democrats say". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-01-22.
Jump up ^ "The Latest: States warming up net-neutrality lawsuits". ABC News. Associated Press. December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
Jump up ^ "California, Washington and NY to take action after net neutrality vote". CNet. Retrieved December 15, 2017. "State attorneys general line up to sue FCC over net neutrality repeal". Ars Technica. Retrieved December 15, 2017. "After FCC Abandons Net Neutrality, States Take Up the Fight". Wired. Retrieved December 15, 2017. Brodkin, Jon [@jbrodkin] (December 14, 2017). "So far, lawsuit against FCC looks like it will include NY, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, and more likely to come..." (Tweet) – via Twitter. Glaser, April (December 15, 2017). "Here Are the States That Are Planning to Sue to Protect Net Neutrality". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved December 16, 2017. "10 states and counting are suing Trump for censoring the internet". Retrieved December 16, 2017. "New Mexico joins multi-state lawsuit in the repeal of net neutrality rules". KOB 4. Retrieved December 17, 2017. http://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times. "Connecticut joins multi-state net-neutrality lawsuit". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2018-01-22.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Associated Press (2018-01-16); Attorneys general for 21 states and the District of Columbia (2018-01-16)
Jump up ^ [2]
Jump up ^ Snider, Mike (February 22, 2018). "22 states and DC are suing the FCC in last-ditch effort to preserve net neutrality". USA Today. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
Jump up ^ "23 state AGs refile lawsuit challenging net neutrality repeal". CNET. 2018-02-22. Retrieved 2018-02-28.
Jump up ^ https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/petition.pdf
Jump up ^ Fight for the Future (2018)
Jump up ^ REPRESENTATIVES KAWASAKI, Parish, Tuck, Fansler, Drummond, Gara, Kreiss-Tomkins, Spohnholz (2018-01-16), Broadband Internet: neutrality / regulation, HB 277, Alaska state legislature (published 2018-01-12), retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) Granger, Erin (2018-01-26), "Alaska legislator introduces net neutrality bill", Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, retrieved 2018-02-11
Jump up ^ SENATORS WIELECHOWSKI, Gardner, Begich, Olson, Costello, Hughes, Wilson (2018-01-24), A RESOLUTION Urging the United States Congress to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's order ending net neutrality. (PDF), Alaska state legislature, retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ SENATOR BEGICH (2018-01-24), An Act relating to the regulation of broadband Internet; and making certain actions by broadband Internet service providers unlawful acts or practices under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (PDF), SB 160, Alaska state legislature, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Senator Wiener (Principal coauthors: Senators Allen, Dodd, Hill, McGuire, Monning, and Skinner) (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bloom, Bonta, Chiu, Friedman, Kalra, and Mullin) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Ting) (2018-01-03), "Broadband Internet access service", California Legislative Information, SB-822, California legislature, retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Senator De León (2018-01-22), "Communications: broadband Internet access service", California Legislative Information, SB-460, California legislature, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Donahue, Casey (2017-12-29), "Duff To Introduce Connecticut Net Neutrality Legislation In 2018", Norwalk Daily Voice, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Senators Jones II of the 22nd, Henson of the 41st, Tate of the 38th, Jordan of the 6th, Seay of the 34th; et al. (2018-01-24), Internet Service Provider; engaged in provision of broadband Internet access service; shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, SB 310, Georgia General Assembly (published 2017-12-18), retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Koebler, Jason (2017-12-18), A Hawaiian Politician Is Introducing a Bill That Would Encourage Creation of Locally Owned Broadband Networks: "One option is to reject corporate internet service providers altogether, and control the internet ourselves.", Motherboard, retrieved 2018-02-12
^ Jump up to: a b Kang (2018)
Jump up ^ Local teen helping lawmakers draft a net neutrality bill, Ceder Rapids, IA: KCRG - TV9, 2018-02-01, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Representatives Parker, Clayton, Curtis, Highberger, Ohaebosim and Probst, Prohibiting state contracts with internet service providers that do not adhere to net neutrality principles, HB 2682, Kansas Legislature, retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) Neal, David (2018-02-07), 'Net Neutrality' bill introduced in Kansas House, Working Journalist Press, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Barbara A. L'Italien, Andres X. Vargas, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Diana DiZoglio and other members of the General Court (2017-12-19), An Act protecting consumers by prohibiting blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization in the provision of internet service, SD.2428, retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Eggerton, John (2018-02-01), "NECTA: Federal Net Neutrality Legislation Is Answer: Was scheduled to testify before Massachusetts special committee on net neutrality", B&C: The business of television, New Bay Media, retrieved 2018-02-12, The hearing came a day after New Jersey's governor signed an executive order mandating net neutrality in government contracts, and its attorney general announced it would be the 22nd state joining a suit to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rule deregulation.
Jump up ^ Van Berkel, Jessie (2017-12-19), Two Minnesota legislators say they will push to protect net neutrality in wake of FCC decision: A previous measure aimed at protecting data privacy, Minneapolis, MN: Star Tribune, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Stapleton, Corey (2018-01-22), Executive order providing for Internet neutrality principles in state procurement (PDF), Executive Order No. 3-2018, Office of the Governor of Montana, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Morfeld, 46 (2018-01-05), A BILL FOR AN ACT relating to telecommunications and technology; to amend sections 86-125 and 86-580, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska; to adopt the Internet Neutrality Act; to change requirements for communications providers under the Nebraska Telecommunications Regulation Act; to change provisions relating to financial assistance from the Nebraska Internet Enhancement Fund; to harmonize provisions; to provide an operative date; to provide severability; and to repeal the original sections. (PDF), Nebraska Legislature, retrieved 2018-02-12
Jump up ^ Augustyn, Arthur (2018-02-05), Murphy signs executive order for net neutrality, NJBiz, retrieved 2018-02-12 Governor Philip D. Murphy (2018-02-05), Future contracts for Internet and broadband will be awarded only to ISPs that adhere to “net neutrality” (PDF), Executive Order No. 9, State of New Jersey, retrieved 2018-02-14
^ Jump up to: a b Brodkin, Jon (2018-02-05), ISPs must follow net neutrality in New Jersey, governor declares: ISPs can’t block or throttle traffic if they sell broadband to state agencies., Ars Technica, retrieved 2018-02-14
Jump up ^ Racioppi, Dustin (2018-02-05), "NJ to join net neutrality legal challenge against Trump administration", North Jersey, retrieved 2018-02-17
Jump up ^ Assemblywoman ANNETTE QUIJANO District 20 (Union), Assemblyman WAYNE P. DEANGELO District 14 (Mercer and Middlesex) Assemblyman RAJ MUKHERJI District 33 (Hudson), Assemblyman JAMEL C. HOLLEY District 20 (Union), Assemblyman TIM EUSTACE District 38 (Bergen and Passaic) Assemblyman JAMES J. KENNEDY District 22 (Middlesex, Somerset and Union) (2018-01-06), New Jersey Net Neutrality Act (PDF), New Jersey Legislature (published 2017-12-04), retrieved 2018-02-12 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Howie C. Morales (2017-12-21), Prohibited broadband Internet service acts, SB 39, New Mexico Legislature, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ Howie C. Morales (2018-01-23), Broadband access unfair trade practices, SB 155, New Mexico Legislature, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ Andrew Cuomo (2018-01-24), Executive order ensuring net neutrality protections for New Yorkers (PDF), Executive order No. 175, State of New York Executive Chamber, retrieved 2018-02-13, order and direct New York State's government ... not to enter into any contracts for Internet service unless the ISPs agree to adhere to net neutrality principles.
Jump up ^ Sen. Parker (2018-01-03), AN ACT to amend the public service law and the state finance law, in relation to state contracts being only with internet service providers compliant with net neutrality and establishes a revolving fund for the establishment of municipal internet service providers; and making an appropriation therefor, S07175, New York Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ Sen. Carlucci (2018-01-03), AN ACT to amend the public service law and the state finance law, in relation to instituting internet service neutrality, S07183, New York Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13, Develop and maintain a statewide plan for the monitoring of internet service providers, including the annual certification that internet service providers comply with the internet service neutrality requirements ... . [W]here a contract that includes internet connection services is to be awarded by a state agency, public authority, public library or municipal corporation ... such ... contract shall require that such internet connection services are compliant with the internet service neutrality ... .
Jump up ^ M. of A. FAHY, MORELLE, BARRETT, ORTIZ, MAGNARELLI, GOTTFRIED, ENGLEBRIGHT, THIELE, SIMON, D'URSO, GLICK, LUPARDO, JAFFEE, ZEBROWSKI, SANTABARBARA, COLTON, CAHILL, JENNE, GALEF, MOSLEY, ARROYO, SEAWRIGHT, PICHARDO, LIFTON, TITONE, BRABENEC, BRINDISI, DINOWITZ, VANEL, STIRPE, L. ROSENTHAL, STECK, ABINANTI -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. CROUCH, HOOPER, McDONALD (2017-12-22), AN ACT to amend the public service law and the state finance law,in relation to instituting internet service neutrality, S08882, New York State Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13, Develop and maintain a statewide plan for the monitoring of internet service providers, including the annual certification that internet service providers comply with the internet service neutrality requirements ... . The state finance law is amended by adding ... internet service neutrality requirements in certain procurement contracts ... that includes internet connection services ... awarded by a state agency, public authority, public library or municipal corporation... . CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ M. of A. Cahill (2018-01-18), AN ACT to amend the public service law and the state finance law, in relation to state contracts being only with internet service providers compliant with net neutrality and establishes a revolving fund for the establishment of municipal internet service providers; and making an appropriation therefor, S09057, New York State Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ M. of A. Pretlow (2017-01-17), AN ACT to amend the public authorities law, the public service law, and the executive law, in relation to reforming the telecommunications sector of the New York economy, by creating a broadband authority, authorizing statewide cable franchises for the purposes of competitive cable service, promoting the wide-spread development of high-capacity broadband internet access, and increasing the availability and quality of services in this key economic development area and ensuring the safety, reliability and affordability of telecommunications services, S01958, New York State Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ NYC Connected Truth in Broadband Request for Information, Mayor's office of the Chief Technology Officer for The City of New York, 2018-01-22, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ Cineas, Fabiola (2018-01-26), Pa. Could Be the Next State to Force Net Neutrality by Executive Order, Philadelphia, PA: BizPhilly, retrieved 2018-02-13
^ Jump up to: a b Heckel, Matt (2018-02-02), Lawmaker urges Pa. governor to sign executive order on net neutrality, Harrisburg, PA: WYTV-33, retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ FARNESE, BLAKE, SCHWANK, TARTAGLIONE and COSTA (2018-02-09), An Act providing for disclosure requirements for broadband Internet access service providers, for prohibitions and for contracts, grants and tax credits; and imposing civil penalties, SB 1033, Pennsylvania General Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13, a Commonwealth agency or political subdivision may not contract with or award grants or tax credits to a provider that fails to comply with this act. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Farnese, Lawrence M., Jr. (2018-01-22), Senator Larry Farnese Introduces Legislation To Protect Net Neutrality In Pennsylvania, Public., retrieved 2018-02-13
Jump up ^ Representatives Kennedy, Abney, Shekarchi, Serpa, and Marshall (2018-01-18), An act relating to public utilities and carriers -- Internet service providers -- net neutrality (PDF), H 7076, Rhode Island General Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13, where a contract that includes Internet connection services is to be awarded by a state agency, public authority or municipality pursuant to a competitive bidding process or a request for proposal process, such competitive bidding process or request for proposal and the subsequent awarded contract shall require that such Internet connection services are compliant with the Internet service neutrality requirements CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Senators DiPalma, Pearson, Calkin, Goldin, and Miller (2018-01-11), An act relating to public utilities and carriers -- Internet service providers -- net neutrality, S 2008, Rhode Island General Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-13 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Senators Nesiba, Frerichs, Heinert, Kennedy, and Killer and Representatives Ring, Bartling, Bordeaux, Hawley, Lesmeister, McCleerey, and Wismer (2018-02-06), Establish certain provisions regarding the state procurement process for internet, data, and telecommunications services, SD SB195, Legiscan, retrieved 2018-02-14 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Jump up to: a b Buie, Jordan (2018-01-23), Democrats propose legislation to preserve net neutrality in Tennessee, Tennessean, retrieved 2018-02-14
Jump up ^ Senate Minority Leader Lee Harris, D-Memphis (2018-01-23), Tennessee Neutrality and Internet Consumer Protection Act (PDF), SB 1756, Tennessee General Assembly, retrieved 2018-02-14
Jump up ^ Rep. John Ray Clemmons, D-Nashville (2018-01-23), Tennesseee Neutrality and Internet Consumer Protection Act (PDF), HB 1755, retrieved 2018-02-14
Jump up ^ Landen, Xander (2018-02-15), Scott signs executive order on net neutrality, Vermont Digger, retrieved 2018-02-16
Jump up ^ Governor Philip. B Scott (2018-02-16), Executive Order: Internet Neutrality in State Procurement (PDF), EO 02-18, retrieved 2018-02-16
Jump up ^ Representatives Stevens of Waterbury, Sibilia of Dover, Hill of Wolcott, Baser of Bristol, Belaski of Windsor, Botzow of Pownal, Brumsted of Shelburne, Carr of Brandon, Chesnut-Tangerman of Middletown Springs, Christie of Hartford, Cina of Burlington, Colburn of Burlington, Connor of Fairfield, Conquest of Newbury, Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford, Dakin of Colchester, Donovan of Burlington, Dunn of Essex, Gannon of Wilmington, Gonzalez of Winooski, Haas of Rochester, Head of South Burlington, Houghton of Essex, Howard of Rutland City, Jickling of Randolph, Kitzmiller of Montpelier, Lanpher of Vergennes, Lucke of Hartford, McCormack of Burlington, Morris of Bennington, Mrowicki of Putney, Noyes of Wolcott, Ode of Burlington, O’Sullivan of Burlington, Pajala of Londonderry, Read of Fayston, Scheu of Middlebury, Stuart of Brattleboro, Sullivan of Dorset, Troiano of Stannard, Walz of Barre City, Webb of Shelburne, Weed of Enosburgh, and Yantachka of Charlotte (2018-01-31), An act relating to protecting consumers and promoting an open Internet in Vermont (PDF), Vermont Legislature, retrieved 2018-02-14 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Lee J. Carter (2018-02-13), Broadband services; prohibited features, Virginia's Legislative Information System (published 2018-01-09), retrieved 2018-02-14
Jump up ^ Representatives Hansen, Cody, Goodman, Pettigrew, Tarleton, Fey, DeBolt, Bergquist, Springer, Santos, McBride, Smith, Chapman, Slatter, Peterson, Wylie, Fitzgibbon, Morris, Stonier, Lytton, Sawyer, Robinson, Tharinger, Kagi, Pellicciotti, Dolan, Orwall, Valdez, Haler, Kilduff, Senn, Frame, Sells, Kirby, Stanford, Blake, Reeves, Clibborn, Macri, Kloba, Appleton, Stambaugh, Jinkins, Ormsby, Ryu, Hayes, Pollet, Doglio, Ortiz-Self, Riccelli, and McDonald (2018-01-08), AN ACT Relating to protecting an open internet in Washington state; and adding a new chapter to Title 19 RCW (PDF), HB 2282 (published 2017-12-13), retrieved 2018-02-14 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Smith, Cody, Tarleton, DeBolt, Springer, Santos, McBride, Chapman, Wylie, Fitzgibbon, Peterson, Morris, Stonier, Kagi, Senn, Kirby, Stanford, Blake, Reeves, Kilduff, Clibborn, Macri, Pettigrew, Orcutt, Stambaugh, Ormsby, Ryu, Hayes, Pollet, Doglio, Ortiz-Self, Riccelli, McDonald, Jinkins, Gregerson (2018-01-29), Protecting consumers by prohibiting blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization in the provision of internet service in Washington state., HB2284, Washington State Legislature (published 2017-12-14), retrieved 2018-02-14, TED - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ {{Citation | author = Carlyle, Hunt, Keiser, Kuderer | publication-date = 2018-01-17 | title = Ensuring consumers rights to internet transparency | series = SB 6446 | publisher = Washington State Legislature | url = http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6446&Year=2017 | accessdate = 2018-02-14} | quote = The department, the office of the chief information officer, and all other state agencies are prohibited from entering into contracts with vendors offering broadband internet access services unless the vendor commits to providing equal connection for all users to lawful internet content, applications, and services ... . }
Jump up ^ Lawmakers introduce bill to preserve net neutrality rules in Wisconsin, Eau Claire: WQOW, 2018-01-25, retrieved 2018-02-14, Representative Jonathan Brostoff and Senator Chris Larson are circulating legislation that would keep the protections from net neutrality in Wisconsin. ... The bill circulated by Larson and Brostoff would prohibit internet service providers from unnecessarily blocking content, slowing service, or otherwise unreasonably disadvantaging Wisconsin consumers. ... U.S. Senate democrats said they will force a vote later this year on the U.S. Federal Communications commission's reversal of net neutrality rules and will try to make it a key issue in the 2018 congressional elections.
Further reading[edit]
Gilroy, Angele A. (November 22, 2017). The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks (PDF). Washingon, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
Timothy B. Lee (May 2, 2014). "Beyond net neutrality: the new battle for the future of the internet". Vox.com. Washington, DC: Vox Media.
External links[edit]
Federal Communication Commission:"OpenInternet" website
Internet Policy: Who's Pulling the Strings against network neutrality in the United States
A video on net neutrality
Australian ISPs say net neutrality is an American problem
Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles – An interview with Robert McChesney
Verizon & Google Enter Reported Deal for Tiered Internet Use, Is Net Neutrality in Jeopardy? – video report by Democracy Now!
NNSquad The Network Neutrality Squad, an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet's users to help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions
Abandoning "Net Neutrality," FCC Chair Backs Two-Tiered Internet Fees – video report by Democracy Now!
[hide]
v
t
e
Net neutrality in North America
Sovereign states
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Dependencies and
other territories
Anguilla
Aruba
Bermuda
Bonaire
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Curaçao
Greenland
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Montserrat
Puerto Rico
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Martin
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saba
Sint Eustatius
Sint Maarten
Turks and Caicos Islands
United States Virgin Islands
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States&oldid=836970137"
Categories:
Internet in the United States
Net neutrality by country
United States telecommunications policy
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.
Use mdy dates from December 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Français
Tiếng Việt
Edit links
This page was last edited on 17 April 2018, at 22:59.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values: padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.2em;padding-top:0;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em;background:green;color:white;font-size:150%;border-bottom:2px #fefefe solid;

values: padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;padding:0.3em 0.2em 0.5em;

values: Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet

values: Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border:1px solid #78866b;

values:
/wiki/Tiered_service
mw-redirect
Tiered service

values: Telecommunications policy of the United States

values: Edit section: Early history 1980 – early 2000s

values:
/wiki/Public_utilities
mw-redirect
Public utilities

values:
/wiki/Dial-up_modem
mw-redirect
Dial-up modem

values:
/wiki/Information_service
mw-redirect
Information service

values: Edit section: FCC promotes freedom without regulation (2004)

values:
/wiki/US_Treasury
mw-redirect
US Treasury

values: Edit section: CLEC, dial-up, and DSL deregulation (2004–2005)

values:
/wiki/USTA_v._FCC
mw-redirect
USTA v. FCC

values: National Cable & Telecommunications Association

values: Edit section: FCC attempts at enforcing net neutrality (2005–2010)

values:
/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)
mw-redirect
BitTorrent (protocol)

values:
/wiki/Kevin_J._Martin
mw-redirect
Kevin J. Martin

values:
/wiki/Network_neutrality
mw-redirect
Network neutrality

values: Edit section: FCC's conditions for spectrum auction (2008)

values: Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission

values: United States 2008 wireless spectrum auction

values: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

values: Edit section: FCC Open Internet Order (2010)

values: Edit section: Narrowing of the FCC's authority (2014)

values: Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014)

values: Edit section: Deliberations about reclassification as common carriers (2014–2015)

values:
/wiki/Internet_service_providers
mw-redirect
Internet service providers

values:
/wiki/Tiered_Internet
mw-redirect
Tiered Internet

values:
/wiki/U._S._Congress
mw-redirect
U. S. Congress

values: List of bills in the 114th United States Congress

values: Edit section: Net neutrality and the Trump administration (2017)

values:
/wiki/Obama_administration
mw-redirect
Obama administration

values:
nofollow
https://www.comcastroturf.com/
external text

values:
nofollow
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
external text

values:
/wiki/Washington_Attorney_General
mw-redirect
Washington Attorney General

values: Edit section: Timeline of significant events

values: Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014)

values: Madison River Communications (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/New_America_Foundation
mw-redirect
New America Foundation

values:
/wiki/Vinton_Cerf
mw-redirect
Vinton Cerf

values:
/wiki/John_Oliver_(comedian)
mw-redirect
John Oliver (comedian)

values:
/wiki/Content_providers
mw-redirect
Content providers

values: Edit section: Opposition to net neutrality

values:
/wiki/David_Farber
mw-redirect
David Farber

values:
/wiki/SBC_Communications
mw-redirect
SBC Communications

values:
/wiki/Common_carriage
mw-redirect
Common carriage

values:
/wiki/Tweet_(Twitter)
mw-redirect
Tweet (Twitter)

values: Edit section: Opinions cautioning against legislation

values: Edit section: Alternatives to cable and DSL

values: Edit section: Utility company restrictions

values: Edit section: Executive Orders effective immediately

values: Edit section: Summary of state-level net neutrality actions

values:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.cnbc.com/id/102452486

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.fcc.gov/openinternet

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0190-8286

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331

values:
/wiki/Michael_Powell_(attorney)
mw-redirect
Michael Powell (attorney)

values: Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown

values:
nofollow
external text
http://opencrs.com/document/R40234

values:
nofollow
external text
http://nyti.ms/1jPG7Uj

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.roughtype.com/?p=2069

values:
/wiki/Wired_(website)
mw-redirect
Wired (website)

values:
/wiki/Washington_Post
mw-redirect
Washington Post

values:
/wiki/The_Huffington_Post
mw-redirect
The Huffington Post

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet

values:
nofollow
https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality

values:
nofollow
external text
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

values:
/wiki/The_Consumerist
mw-redirect
The Consumerist

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5

values:
nofollow
external free
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=press11

values:
nofollow
external free
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5

values:
nofollow
http://CAS-Research-Brief-0614.info/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1091-2339

values:
nofollow
external free
http://www.washingtontimes.com

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values: Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40616.pdf

values:
/wiki/Federal_Communication_Commission
mw-redirect
Federal Communication Commission

values:
nofollow
http://www.openinternet.gov/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.nnsquad.org/
external text

values: Net neutrality in Antigua and Barbuda (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in the Bahamas (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Barbados (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Belize (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Costa Rica (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Cuba (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Dominica (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in the Dominican Republic (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in El Salvador (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Grenada (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Guatemala (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Haiti (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Honduras (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Jamaica (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Mexico (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Nicaragua (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Panama (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Saint Kitts and Nevis (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Saint Lucia (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Trinidad and Tobago (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Anguilla (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Aruba (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Bermuda (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Bonaire
mw-redirect
Net neutrality in Bonaire

values: Net neutrality in the British Virgin Islands (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in the Cayman Islands (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Curaçao (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Greenland (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Guadeloupe (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Martinique (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Montserrat (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Puerto Rico (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Saint Barthélemy (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in the Collectivity of Saint Martin (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Saint Pierre and Miquelon (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Saba
mw-redirect
Net neutrality in Saba

values: Net neutrality in Sint Eustatius (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in Sint Maarten (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in the Turks and Caicos Islands (page does not exist)

values: Net neutrality in the United States Virgin Islands (page does not exist)

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:United States telecommunications policy

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Use mdy dates from December 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Neutralité du réseau aux États-Unis – French

values: Tính trung lập Internet ở Hoa Kỳ – Vietnamese

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States rootpage-Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States skin-vector action-view