The latest evidence from Europe suggests the FCC needs to impose net neutrality rules against blocking and application-specific discrimination, said Stanford Law School professor Barbara van Schewick in a meeting with FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, according to an ex parte filing (http://bit.ly/1vHRXu1). “We also discussed how allowing ISPs to charge providers of applications, content and services for access to end users or for enhanced or prioritized access to end users (including paid prioritization and zero-rating) would change the economic environment for innovation and investment in Internet applications, content and services,” van Schewick said. The filing was posted Wednesday by the FCC in docket 14-28.
A five-year program dedicated to paying for internal E-rate connect requests from schools should enable coverage of 10.5 million students in funding year 2015, compared with 3.8 million students without the multiyear program, said an FCC staff report released Tuesday. The FCC approved its E-rate modernization at its July open meeting (CD July 14 p1). The order will provide $1 billion annually for the next five years for Wi-Fi connections within schools and libraries. The report was authored by staff of the Wireline Bureau and the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (http://bit.ly/1uoRcod). The FCC asked interested parties to comment on the data in the report as part of broader comments in docket 13-184 on a Further NPRM on the E-rate program (http://bit.ly/1kcJUAy).
Granting a Mozilla petition to classify remote delivery services as Title II telecom services might not allow the FCC to ban access fees, said Stanford Law’s Barbara van Schewick in a meeting with Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Thursday, said an ex parte filing (http://bit.ly/1oIDQQz). Van Schewick is the faculty director of Stanford Law’s Center for Internet and Society. Because telecom services are defined as being offered for a fee, classifying services offered to edge providers as requested by Mozilla would leave edge providers that don’t charge fees vulnerable to blocking and discrimination by ISPs, van Schewick said. It would be “arbitrary and capricious” to use Title II as a “backstop” for net neutrality rules based on Section 706 of the Communications Act, van Schewick said. “The definitions of telecommunications service and information service are mutually exclusive,” said the filing.
Officials from the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute urged the FCC to reclassify broadband as a Title II service, in a meeting with FCC General Counsel Jonathan Sallet, said a filing posted by the FCC Tuesday. A “bounded, narrow approach under Title II would offer greater certainty and clarity for all stakeholders, and provides the soundest legal basis for strong open Internet protections,” said the filing (http://bit.ly/1AbuRL1) in docket 14-28. OTI also noted the international implications for U.S. publishers and edge providers if the FCC doesn’t clamp down on paid prioritization. “If the US codifies paid prioritization, almost certainly near-monopoly last-mile providers in other countries will quickly seek to extract additional fees from US companies,” the group said.
The government doesn’t have to disclose Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rulings about the telephone metadata collection program authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, ruled Monday. The Electronic Frontier Foundation had sued the Department of Justice, seeking the names of the phone companies helping the government collect call records, according to court documents. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the release of such specifics could compromise national security. “Official confirmation of the existence of or general information about an intelligence program does not eliminate the dangers to national security of compelling disclosure of the program’s details,” Rogers said.
Telecommunications Law Professionals has moved and its new address is 1025 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1011, in Washington, the law firm said Tuesday.
In an apparent first for the FCC, all three legal aides to an FCC commissioner live tweeted numerous times during Friday’s open meeting. Matthew Berry, Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) and Nick Degani (@NickDeganiFCC), aides to Commissioner Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC), all tweeted during the meeting, as did their boss, mostly about the text-to-911 item (see related story), which was the subject of a Pai dissent.
Correction: NATOA’s most recent monthly webinar, on FirstNet, was Aug. 4 (CD Aug 4 p21)
Paid prioritization would hinder innovation in e-government, online voter registration, and online civic engagement, Common Cause representatives including Program Director Todd O'Boyle, Legal Fellow Allison Venuti, and Media and Democracy Fellow Michelle Forelle told an aide to FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Monday, said an ex parte notice (http://bit.ly/1ss3x6K) posted in docket 14-28 Thursday. Non-prioritized Web services would suffer from decreased traffic and utilization, creating a choice for local governments and non-profits of either facing curtailed traffic or paying access charges, the group’s representatives said. Access charges paid by local governments would ultimately be borne by local taxpayers, Common Cause said, while nonprofits may be excluded from the online marketplace of ideas. Communications Act Title II reclassification would offer voters and consumers safeguards, while relying on Section 706 to pass open Internet rules “would leave too much room for negotiation, leading to unacceptable fast lanes,” Common Cause said.
Several groups argued that President Barack Obama’s recent comments on net neutrality (CD Aug 7 p2) differ from the FCC’s rulemaking notice, and asked for Obama’s help. “Your vision of net neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with FCC’s plan, which would explicitly allow for paid prioritization,” the groups said in a letter to the White House Friday (http://mzl.la/1B12X5V). “The only way for the FCC to truly protect an open Internet is by using its clear [Communications Act] Title II authority. Over the next few months, we need your continued and vocal support for fair and meaningful net neutrality rules.” The letter’s signers include the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Consumers Union, Demand Progress, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, MoveOn.org, Mozilla and Public Knowledge. The FCC had declined comment on the allegation of any difference between Obama and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, and the White House has not responded to requests for clarification on where Obama stands. Wheeler has defended his commitment to protecting the open Internet and has said the NPRM asks many questions rather than prescribes any one path.