(EFF) -- [This week], we heard from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about its plans to devastate Network Neutrality.  Instead of responding to the millions of Americans who want to protect the free and open Internet, the FCC instead is ceding to the demands of a handful of massive ISPs, like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

EFF will be analyzing the full plan when it is released.  But based on what we know so far, it’s clear that Chairman Pai is seeking to reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order that established clear but light touch protections for Internet users and Internet innovation. The FCC’s new approach invites a future where only the largest Internet, cable, and telephone companies survive, while every start-up, small business, and new innovator is crowded out—and the voices of nonprofits and ordinary individuals are suppressed. Costs will go up, as ISPs take advantage of monopoly power to raise rates on edge providers and consumers alike. And the FCC’s proposed plan adds salt to the wound by interfering with state efforts to protect consumer privacy and competition.

The FCC abdicates a fundamental responsibility—but Internet users won’t. Today, and every day, we will fight to defend net neutrality. Tell Congress that lawmakers must act to defend our open Internet.



U.S. SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN STATEMENT ON NET NEUTRALITY  - “Rolling back net neutrality rules will allow internet service providers to create an uneven playing field in the online marketplace for services and ideas. We must work to ensure that the internet does not become a two-tiered system, with fast lanes for some and slow lanes for others. Net neutrality is a principle that is at the heart of an accessible and free internet, and I believe we need to protect innovators, entrepreneurs and consumers and keep the internet open for everyone.”


Net Neutrality

Network neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services—is a principle that must be upheld to protect the future of our open Internet. It's a principle that's faced many threats over the years, such as ISPs forging packets to tamper with certain kinds of traffic or slowing down or even outright blocking protocols or applications.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempted to combat these threats with a set of Open Internet rules. But its efforts were full of legal and practical holes. In 2014, after a legal challenge from Verizon, those rules were overturned, and the FCC set about drafting a new set of rules better suited to the challenge.

It was clear that the FCC was going to need some help from the Internet. And that’s exactly what happened. Millions of users weighed in, demanding that the FCC finally get net neutrality right, and issue rules that made sense and would actually hold up in court. EFF alone drove hundreds of thousands of comments through our online portal DearFCC.

As a direct result of that intense public activism and scrutiny, the FCC produced rules that we could support—in part because, in addition to the bright line rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of Internet traffic, they include strict “forbearance” restrictions on what the FCC can do without holding another rulemaking.

There’s no silver bullet for net neutrality. The FCC order plays a role by forbidding ISPs from meddling with traffic in certain ways. But transparency is also key: ISPs must be open about how traffic is managed over their networks in order for both users and the FCC to know when there’s a problem. Local governments can also play a crucial role by supporting competitive municipal and community networks. When users can vote with their feet, service providers have a strong incentive not to act in non-neutral ways.

We want the Internet to live up to its promise, fostering innovation, creativity, and freedom. We don’t want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals with a few companies and inhibiting new competition, innovation and expression.



Share This Article