The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not happy with the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed Net Neutrality rules because they come with built-in loopholes, the most egregious being a clause which allows providers to throttle, block or otherwise interfere with traffic that could consist of “the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”

The movie and recording industries have been attacking Net Neutrality for months, accusing it of providing a copyright-violating-free-for-all.  The FCC seems all-too-willing to adopt that meme, and write a convenient lobbyist-friendly loophole into Net Neutrality policies that would suggest provider interference with broadband networks is bad… except when this or that special interest redefines it as “good and lawful network management.”

For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase — “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” — to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops — to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.

From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way — so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?

The EFF is asking consumers to sign an online petition asking the FCC to yank that exception out of their proposed Net Neutrality rules, and let the industry use existing law enforcement methods to protect copyrighted works.  Of all the industries that seem to do just fine zealously efforting to protect its copyright interests, Hollywood and the music industry don’t need additional special protection clauses inserted into broadband policy law.

Law enforcement can use existing laws to chase crime, and most honest Internet Service Providers would tell you they don’t want to police their users.  Allowing this exception is a convenient backdoor to do what some have wanted all along — to throttle or block high volume network traffic like torrents and newsgroups, this time under the guise of taking a bite out of crime.

While directly appealing to the FCC might be more effective, signing the petition at least gives the EFF the ability to draw media and political attention to a worthy endeavor.

Let’s not repeat the same mistakes certain other major policy initiatives have endured this past year, where good intentions were steamrolled by lobbyists into a loophole-ridden, industry-protectionist horror show.

The best way to ensure an open and free Internet is to literally demand exactly that — no exceptions.

DC Circuit Court

Once again, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is proving to be the best friend corporations have to unravel regulatory policy and consumer protection laws that might violate corporate free-speech or trade rights.  It has become a favored venue for telecommunications providers who want to be rid of pesky prohibitions or reasonable regulation.

After a series of arguments, universally considered disastrous for the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to regulate broadband, the cable operator may want to send flowers to the Court… a lot of them.

Earlier this month, attorneys for the FCC defended their right to tell Comcast it cannot throttle its customers’ broadband speeds.  The FCC maintains it has regulatory authority over broadband service, claiming such power could be inferred from Title I, Section 230(b) of the Communications Act, which states that it is 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.”  From that the FCC wrote a policy statement stating it was, “necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.”  That was the basis for their crackdown against Comcast’s speed throttle.

After the arguments between Comcast and the FCC concluded, court-watchers believe the Commission’s days of broadband oversight are numbered.

Ars-Technica’s Matthew Lasar documented the probable train wreck for those who seek to rein in provider abuses.

At issue is whether the FCC has been granted direct legal authority for Internet regulation by Congress. Comcast, and as it turned out many on the Court, believe the FCC is relying on policy statements, not written law, for their regulatory authority over Internet Service Providers.  The Court transcript says it all:

Randolph

“In looking this over I found a good many situations in which Congress has instructed the FCC to study the Internet,” said Justice A. Raymond Randolph, [appointed to the Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990], “and taxation of transit sales transactions on the Internet, and this, and that, and the other thing. But what I don’t find is any congressional directive to the FCC to regulate the Internet.”

It wasn’t hard for [Comcast attorney Helgi G.] Walker to summon a response to this observation. “That’s right,” she declared.

And with that, Comcast had won. Even before the FCC’s attorney got to the bench, the judges were doing Walker’s job, swatting aside arguments on behalf of the agency’s Order sanctioning the ISP. Pro-FCC briefs to the court had noted that the Supreme Court recognized the Commission’s ancillary authority in its Brand X decision, a crucial ISP access case. Randolph threw this bullet point into the trash icon, referring to the “offhand statement” in Brand X. “And the Supreme Court has moved so far away from that kind of an analysis in today’s modern jurisprudence,” he added, “it seems antiquated.”

By the time Commission lawyer Austin C. Schlick began his rebuttal, Randolph moved in for the kill.

“May it please the Court,” Schlick began. “Ms. Walker hasn’t attempted to defend the actual network practices that were employed here, and so I won’t spend time just… ”

Sentelle

[Justice David] Sentelle cut him off. “Well, her position is that she doesn’t have to,” he tersely noted. “She’s here to say that you don’t have any business inquiring into those practices, ergo we don’t either.”

That’s true, Schlick conceded. “Right,” Sentelle warned. “So you may want to move on to something that’s at issue then, Counsel.”

And that was largely that.  The Court is very likely to hand down a ruling that strips the FCC of its ability to regulate or oversee broadband service in the United States.  Even Schlick knew what has forthcoming:

By the end of the discussion Schlick was bargaining with the judges. “If I’m going to lose I would like to lose more narrowly,” he confided. “But above all, we want guidance from this Court so that when we do this rule-making, if we decide rules are appropriate we’d like to know what we need to do to establish jurisdiction.”

“We don’t give guidance,” Randolph grumbled, “we decide cases.”

Comcast should have bought lunch for everyone.

So now public policy groups and advocates of FCC oversight over broadband, particularly as it relates to Net Neutrality, are scrambling to figure out what to do next.

It comes down to four possible outcomes:

1. One of the parties appeals the case;
2. Corporate control of broadband without oversight is assured, as the FCC is stripped of any regulatory authority;
3. The FCC manages to find some other wording from laws Congress passed that justifies lawmakers wanted the agency to oversee and regulate broadband services;
4. Congress passes new laws specifically enacting broadband regulatory authority for the FCC.

Of course, today’s bland authority over broadband comes as a result of legislative compromise from the great regulatory battles over telecommunications during the Clinton Administration.  Providers argued less is more, and have grudgingly accepted limited FCC authority over some of their services, except when a challenge threatens to cost them control or a lot of money.

With a hostile reception at the Court, and the FCC’s “surrender first, fight later” legal argument, an appeal may only delay the inevitable.  The FCC does have plenty of Congressional directives to review which may permit it to enact Net Neutrality protection, but another provider lawsuit opposing Net Neutrality is inevitable.  In fact, without the passage of a clear, concise federal law providing the Commission with explicit broadband regulatory authority enacting Net Neutrality and other protections, the aptly-numbered “2” is the likely outcome for consumers.

Thankfully, Rep. Edward Markey’s (D-MA) Internet Freedom Preservation Act would solve much of this problem, by forbidding Internet service providers from doing anything to “block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade” access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device.

Getting it passed in a Congress mired in division is another matter.  The best way to overcome that is a strong showing of support for Markey’s legislation in calls and letters to your members of Congress, and that you are carefully watching their votes on this issue.

Under stiff opposition from the nation’s broadcasters, the Federal Communications Commission has dropped a proposal to reallocate a significant chunk of the UHF broadcast television spectrum to wireless communications companies.

As Stop the Cap! recently reported, the wireless industry sought the reallocation to broaden the bandwidth available for wireless broadband services.  The proposal would have paid broadcasters to adopt a new “cell tower”-like model of repeater antennas to provide broadcast television in more localized areas, reducing distant signal reception.  This would permit stations to be packed closer together with less chance of interference with each other.  Broadcasters reacted angrily to the proposal, suggesting it would limit reception and the launch of additional channels and communications services available from their new digital television service.  It would also cause a nightmare for consumers less than a year after the end of most analog television transmissions.

For now, the FCC will adopt a voluntary strategy allowing stations to relinquish spectrum and receive compensation.

The wireless industry was not happy with the decision, and the industry’s trade and lobbying group weighed in.

“The record overwhelmingly demonstrates there’s a need for additional spectrum for mobile broadband services,” said CTIA President and CEO Steve Largent. “We continue to believe that all spectrum should be on the table for potential reallocation, including the almost 300 MHz allocated for broadcast television use, which is spectrum most favorable to mobile broadband. We look forward to working with the Commission and the broadband team to consider mechanisms to put spectrum to its highest use.”

Robert F. McDowell

Two Republicans serving on the Federal Communications Commission told attendees at Saturday’s Tech Policy Summit that “usage-based pricing” for wireless broadband could be a solution to congested cell phone data networks.

“Pricing freedom has to be essential, because a small number of users take up the majority of bandwidth. So charging some of the heavy users for that bandwidth makes sense,” Commissioner Robert McDowell said during a panel discussion at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show.

“I think it’s time to let that happen,” he added. “Net neutrality proponents say it should be an all-you-can-eat price. But that will lead to gridlock.”

The discussion, Inside the FCC’s Communications Agenda, focused on the FCC’s agenda in light of the Obama Administration’s new policy initiatives and the current the impact technology has on regulatory policy.

McDowell was responding to industry reports that Verizon was prepared to abandon all-you-can-eat pricing for wireless data on its forthcoming 4G LTE wireless network, even though it doesn’t actually have such a plan in place at the time the panel discussion was held.

McDowell believes that since private money is constructing the networks capable of delivering LTE service, the company has a right to charge what it pleases for service, reducing demand with a correspondingly higher price for those who use the network more than others.

Meredith Atwell Baker

Consumer advocates argue that current profits in the wireless industry provide ample resources to build and upgrade networks without overcharging consumers with expensive usage based pricing designed to make customers think twice before using the service they pay good money to receive.  Unlimited use pricing is favored by consumers as well.  Most providers abandoned “all you can eat” plans at least a year ago.  Every wireless broadband plan carries some limitations somewhere in the fine print, particularly for plans that are designed for mobile netbooks or laptops.  Virtually all of them either limit usage to 5GB per month or throttle the user who exceeds that amount down to dial-up speeds for the rest of the month.

Meredith Attwell Baker, the newest Republican FCC Commissioner, seemed slightly out of her element in discussing the issue of consumption billing.

As panel moderator Kim Hart reported for The Hill newspaper, Baker has some novel ideas for easing congestion on wireless broadband networks.

“Maybe we move back to a world where people pay for roaming,” she said.

Stop the Cap! reader John writes to let us know Teresa Dixon Murray from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, who broke the story about Verizon’s mysterious $1.99 data usage charge is back again with an update.

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

Dixon Murray

But Murray considers Verizon’s response more clever than truthful.  And the charges just keep on coming.  So are the comments piling up below Murray’s article on The Plain Dealer website reporting more mysterious charges.

Verizon’s response to the Federal Communications Commission claimed Verizon doesn’t charge customers who accidentally hit the mobile web button on their phones, because Verizon exempts the home page those phones first reach.  Murray points out Verizon forgot to tell the Commission that’s the policy now, after the bad press, but wasn’t the policy earlier when thousands of others were being billed as well.

But no matter, because Murray suggests Verizon has found all-new ways to sock those $1.99 fees on unsuspecting consumers.

Take my case. I got a new phone the first week of November and within 24 hours after I activated it, Verizon said I had incurred a $1.99 data usage charge. Never mind that I hadn’t actually used the phone yet.

Verizon said it accidentally eliminated the mobile Web blocks I had when it activated the new phone. Puh-leez.

So Verizon re-blocked my phone lines. Yet, the company says it recorded online access on Nov. 8, Nov. 14 and Nov. 21. Chris, a supervisor from Pittsburgh, is dumbfounded. He confirmed my phones are blocked. He doesn’t know how this is happening. He’s supposed to get back to me.

While I’m waiting, I’m making a few notes, actually a lot of notes, to give to the FCC.

Amazing that these billing errors always seem to work out in Verizon’s favor.  Maybe the cat has been using the phone to browse when you weren’t looking.  Maybe Verizon can continue to reap the rewards of collecting $1.99 from subscribers who feel it’s not worth the time and effort to protest the charges with a customer service representative.

This is ripe for one of those class action lawsuits where the lawyers make the big money and you get a coupon for a free cell phone case with your next purchase at a Verizon store.  Before that happens, Murray suggests you file a complaint with the FCC yourself.  Also, please do take the time to make the call to Verizon Wireless and demand credit if you’ve been hit with this charge.  It will cost them more than $1.99 just to handle your call, and you’ll probably get something more tangible than the outcome of a class action lawsuit.  It never hurts to ask them for additional discounts or free features to keep you a satisfied customer.

File A Complaint With the Federal Communications Commission