WebProNews

Tag: FCC

  • How Will the Repeal of Net Neutrality Affect Small Business?

    How Will the Repeal of Net Neutrality Affect Small Business?

    The issue of net neutrality has permeated the news, talk shows, and discussion boards for a while now. Different sectors have already voiced their concerns about how repealing net neutrality will affect consumers and businesses. Meanwhile, many people are still confused about the magnitude of the issue.

    What is Net Neutrality?

    Net Neutrality, or the Open Internet as it’s also called, works around the premise that all internet service providers (ISPs) should treat and deliver web traffic, content, and applications equally. There were concerns that some providers might slow down broadband connections to rivals or boost speed to content providers that are connected to subsidiaries.

    Regulations passed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during Barack Obama’s presidential term sought to protect net neutrality by classifying the Internet as a “Title II” carrier. Under the Communications Act, ISPs had to disclose data caps and hidden fees and were prevented from interfering with the speed of their competitor’s sites and apps.

    However, the current chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, indicated earlier this year that he planned to undo the existing regulations against ISPs. Pai has long been against the Title II regulations, as he believes it hinders innovation. He also claimed that even before the 2015 regulations were enforced, ISPs did not engage in the practices that the Act prohibits.

    Pai’s campaign to repeal the Net Neutrality law successfully pushed through on Dec. 14, when the organization voted in favor of the repeal.

    What Happens Now?

    The FCC’s decision to rollback the previous administration’s policies on Net Neutrality could lead to several things. Open Internet advocates believe that the repeal could cause the creation of a high-speed internet lane for big internet, established media companies, and rich households. Meanwhile, the rest of consumers and businesses will be relegated to the slow lane. Mobile plans are also expected to be affected due to its built-in data caps. This could lead to telecom companies charging more for access to streaming services or particular websites.

    Image result for net neutrality

    How Will Repeal of Net Neutrality Affect Small Business?

    A lot of people are under the impression that the FCC’s decision to repeal the Communications Act would negatively affect small businesses. The concern is justified as it appears to give more advantages to established or richer companies. How else does the repeal of open internet affect startups?

    • Service Providers Could Choose the Winners and Losers in the Market

    As previously mentioned, one of the main concerns of the repeal is how it gives ISPs the power to throttle web traffic to its competitors or small businesses and allow big companies or ISPs subsidiaries or partners to get faster speed.

    Site speed plays a key role in how companies are ranked in Google’s search engines. Startups are afraid that if their site is being throttled by certain ISPs, their rankings will go down and they have no way of fighting it.

    Throttling will have a big effect on video marketing companies that rely on speed in order to stream videos with limited buffering and interruptions. Established video companies like Netflix can pay the extra cost, but small businesses might not be able to.

    • Competition Will be Split

    The Obama-era FCC regulation ensured that no broadband company can try to outperform other ISPs. This gives all companies, regardless of the size, the capacity to offer the same speed, with no limitations.

    However, some sectors are saying that reversing Title II will split the competition between ISPs and permit them to offer more free data plans or flexible pricing. This is a development that smaller ISPs might not be able to offer to consumers and could potentially cause these companies to flounder. Still others are saying that this can push smaller providers to become more creative and come up with offers that would attract other audiences, thereby giving them the opportunity to diversify and distinguish themselves from their more established counterparts.

    • Small Businesses Will Experience Financial Challenges

    There’s a risk that smaller companies will be unduly burdened when premiums for faster internet and high speeds are levied on them. Depending on how expensive these fees are, startups might experience financial challenges just to promote their business and gain visibility.

    This could also lead to small companies making cuts in other areas just to ensure an online presence. It could lead to salary cuts or slower job growth until the business finally gains a consistent online presence.

    It’s safe to say that the FCC repeal will not be accepted point blank by consumer groups and the business sector. Lawsuits and appeals have already been filed. However, it’s unclear how the repeal will affect consumers and the economy in the long run.

    [Featured image via YouTube]

  • Net Neutrality Upheld: No Blocking, Throttling or Fast Lanes, Cisco Slams

    Net Neutrality Upheld: No Blocking, Throttling or Fast Lanes, Cisco Slams

    The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released their ruling today upholding the FCC’s current Net Neutrality rules.

    The ruling stated:

    But nothing about affording indiscriminate access to internet content suggests that the broadband provider agrees with the content an end user happens to access. Because a broadband provider does not—and is not understood by users to—“speak” when providing neutral access to internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open internet rules.

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the FCC praised the ruling:

    Cisco Slams Ruling:

    “Cisco is disappointed in the DC Circuit’s decision to uphold the FCC’s open Internet rules.

    We believe in an open Internet and that balanced rules to protect consumers and prevent anti-competitive behavior are necessary and appropriate. But uncertain regulation under Title II, as provided for by the FCC and upheld by this court, diminishes the enthusiasm for new investments in broadband networks and limits new innovation and business models.

    This is particularly true at a time when the Internet continues to evolve and innovative new services are coming to market every day, including Internet of Things technologies, telemedicine, distance learning, emergency services, and mobile 5G.

    One bright spot. The FCC rules do recognize that the open internet rules are not appropriate for enterprise networks and specialized services. This will enable new services to obtain the quality of service needed to foster innovation in these areas, and we anticipate that entrepreneurs will explore both of these options going forward.

    The discussion over these issues is not going away because the Internet ecosystem continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace. Policymakers need to remain focused on ensuring that these rules support the development of new technologies and business models.”

    Part of a dissent published in the ruling concluded:

    The ultimate irony of the Commission’s unreasoned patchwork is that, refusing to inquire into competitive conditions, it shunts broadband service onto the legal track suited to natural monopolies. Because that track provides little economic space for new firms seeking market entry or relatively small firms seeking expansion through innovations in business models or in technology, the Commission’s decision has a decent chance of bringing about the conditions under which some (but by no means all) of its actions could be grounded—the prevalence of incurable monopoly.

    I would vacate the Order.

  • FCC Fines Another Company Over Wi-Fi Blocking

    FCC Fines Another Company Over Wi-Fi Blocking

    The Federal Communications Commission has fined an internet provider $750,000 for using Wi-Fi monitoring systems to jam people’s personal hotspots at hotels and convention centers.

    The FCC says that Smart City, described as an Internet and telecommunications provider for conventions, meeting centers, and hotels, was guilty of blocking people’s mobile hotspots in order to force them to pay for Smart City’s Wi-Fi services.

    “It is unacceptable for any company to charge consumers exorbitant fees to access the Internet while at the same time blocking them from using their own personal Wi-Fi hotspots to access the Internet,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. “All companies who seek to use technologies that block FCC-approved Wi-Fi connections are on notice that such practices are patently unlawful.”

    How exorbitant? According to the FCC, Smart City wanted $80 for a single day of Wi-Fi. And if visitors to that particular conference and convention powered by Smart City didn’t pay up, they would find their own Wi-Fi hotspots blocked.

    In January, the FCC warned it was going to “aggressively investigate cases of Wi-Fi blocking.

    “In the 21st Century, Wi-Fi, represents an essential on-ramp to the internet. Personal Wi-Fi networks, or ‘hot spots,’ are an important way that consumers connect to the Internet. Willful or malicious interference with Wi-Fi hot spots is illegal,” said the FCC in an Enforcement Advisory.

    “Wi-Fi blocking violates Section 333 of the Communications Act, as amended. The Enforcement Bureau has seen a disturbing trend in which hotels and other commercial establishments block wireless consumers from using their own personal Wi-Fi hot spots on the commercial establishment’s premises. As a result, the Bureau is protecting consumers by aggressively investigating and acting against such unlawful intentional interference.”

    Around that time, the regulatory agency and Marriott reached a $600,000 settlement for blocking customer’s personal Wi-Hi hotspots.

    The FCC states, unequivocally, that this behavior is illegal.

    No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner’s Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties.

    So if you notice this happening, speak up.

    Update: In response, Smart City has issued this statement:

    Our goal has always been to provide world-class services to our customers, and our company takes regulatory compliance extremely seriously. We are not gatekeepers to the Internet. As recommended by the Department of Commerce and Department of Defense, we have occasionally used technologies made available by major equipment manufacturers to prevent wireless devices from significantly interfering with and disrupting the operations of neighboring exhibitors on our convention floors. This activity resulted in significantly less than one percent (1%) of all devices being deauthenticated and these same technologies are widely used by major convention centers across the globe as well as many federal agencies.

    We have always acted in good faith, and we had no prior notice that the FCC considered the use of this standardized, ‘available-out-of-the-box’ technology to be a violation of its rules. But when we were contacted by the FCC in October 2014, we ceased using the technology in question.

    While we have strong legal arguments, we’ve determined that mounting a vigorous defense would ultimately prove too costly and too great a distraction for our leadership team. As a result, we’ve chosen to work cooperatively with the FCC, and we are pleased to have resolved this matter. We are eager to return our energies to providing leadership to our industry and delivering world-class services to our clients.

    Image via Will Folsom, Flickr Creative Commons

  • AT&T / DirecTV Deal Gets Thumbs Up from FCC, with Conditions

    AT&T / DirecTV Deal Gets Thumbs Up from FCC, with Conditions

    After “careful, thorough review,” the Federal Communications Commission has given AT&T and green light to acquire DirecTV. The combined entity will boast about 26 million customers. Say hello to the new largest pay TV company in the US.

    The approval didn’t come without conditions, however.

    Here are all of the conditions the FCC placed on AT&T. They involve the expansions of AT&T’s broadband service –especially in underserved areas, as well as bits about interconnection disclosure and discriminatory usage-based practices. These are the parts that likely satisfied Netflix, which put its backing behind the merger earlier this month.

    – Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) Deployment. Recognizing that the merger reduces AT&T-DIRECTV’s incentive to deploy FTTP service, the Commission adopts as a condition of this merger the expansion of FTTP service to 12.5 million customer locations. This condition also responds to the harm of the loss of a video competitor in areas where AT&T and DIRECTV had directly competed before the merger by providing a pathway for increased competition from services that rely on broadband Internet to deliver video.

     

    – Gigabit Service to E-rate Eligible Schools and Libraries. In addition, to ensure that schools and libraries also benefit from expanded fiber deployment to consumers and institutions, the Commission is also requiring AT&T-DIRECTV to offer gigabit service to any E-rate eligible school or library where AT&T-DIRECTV deploys FTTP service.

     

    – Non-Discriminatory Usage-Based Practices. Recognizing that AT&T is the only major ISP that applies “data caps” across the board to all of its fixed broadband customers and that this merger increases the incentive of AT&T-DIRECTV to use strategies that limit consumers’ access to online video distribution services in order to favor its own video services, the Commission requires AT&T-DIRECTV, as a condition of this merger, to refrain from imposing discriminatory usage-based allowances or other discriminatory retail terms and conditions on its broadband Internet service.

     

    – Internet Interconnection Disclosure Requirements. Recognizing the importance of interconnection to the operation of online video services, the Commission also requires as a condition of this merger that AT&T-DIRECTV submit its Internet interconnection agreements so that the Commission may monitor the terms of such agreements to determine whether AT&T-DIRECTV is denying or impeding access to its networks in anticompetitive ways through the terms of these agreements.

     

    – Discounted Broadband Services for Low-Income Subscribers. While finding that the availability of better and lower priced bundles of video and broadband service is a potential benefit of the merger, the Commission also concludes that the public interest requires us to ensure that a bundle of video and broadband services is not the only competitive choice for low-income subscribers who may not be able to afford bundled services. The Commission accordingly requires as a condition of the merger that AT&T-DIRECTV make available an affordable, low-price standalone broadband service to low-income consumers in its broadband service area.

     

    – Compliance Program and Reporting. Given the important role that these conditions serve in securing the public interest benefits of the merger, the Commission requires that AT&T-DIRECTV retain both an internal company compliance officer and an independent, external compliance officer that will report and monitor, respectively, the combined entity’s compliance with all conditions of the merger.

    Now that the FCC has given the green light, the nearly $49 billion merger is a go. The US Justice Department recently concluded that the deal was not anti-competitive.

    “After an extensive investigation, we concluded that the combination of AT&T’s land-based internet and video business with DirecTV’s satellite-based video business does not pose a significant risk to competition,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer of the Antitrust Division. “Our investigation benefitted from the Division’s close and constructive working relationship with the FCC. The commitments that the proposed FCC order includes, if adopted, will provide significant benefits to millions of subscribers.”

  • Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Others Demand Specific Privacy Rules for ISPs

    Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Others Demand Specific Privacy Rules for ISPs

    In order to obtain the necessary services that the country’s various internet service providers offer, Americans must give up a lot of personal information. And what those companies do with said information should be a concern of every single American.

    Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and seven other Senators have asked the FCC to implement some specific rules concerning how broadband providers deal with user information and privacy.

    The rules govern transparency, customer consent, and data security.

    The nine Senators – Ed Markey, Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken, Patrick Leahy, Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren – praise the FCC for their reclassification of boradband as a telecommunications service in February and choosing to “extend the duty to protect the privacy of information that ISPs collect about their customers because of the carrier-customer relationship.”

    But the Senators have some specific privacy rules they want considered:

    “We call on the Commission to adopt a comprehensive definition of Customer Proprietary Network Information as it pertains to broadband. Every click consumers make online paints a detailed pictures of their personal and professional lives. Accordingly, ISPs should be prohibited from sharing this information without user consent,” reads a letter addressed to the FCC. “Data pertaining to internet usage, online activity, and broadband service payments should be included in the FCC’s definition of CPNI.

    The Senators also call for added transparency rules, saying “ISPs should accurately outline data collection policies in standardized model forms – adopted by the Commission with prior input by stakeholders – that are easy for consumers to access, read, and understand.”

    One suggested rule involves notification of data breaches.

    “If a network of database is breached in a manner that could compromise the consumer’s privacy or cause the consumer harm, ISPs must notify consumers about the breach and any actions that consumers could take to mitigate potential harm from the breach.

    The senators also call for “clear, user-friendly” complaint processes.

    This is not the first time this contingent of the Senate has written the FCC on matters of broadband. A dew months ago, this same crew wrote the FCC urging a swift death for the Comcast/Time Warner deal.

    Image via Mredden, Wikimedia Commons

  • AT&T, DirecTV Merger Reportedly Nearing Approval

    AT&T, DirecTV Merger Reportedly Nearing Approval

    It appears to be smooth sailing for AT&T in its acquisition of DirecTV, as the merger has reportedly cleared one major hurdle and is about to clear the last.

    Reuters reports that the Department of Justice has already wrapped up its review of the deal. Bloomberg says that the DoJ imposed no conditions on the mega-merger.

    AT&T first agreed to acquire DirecTV for nearly $49 million last May.

    The DoJ’s job in merger reviews is to determine if the deals violate antitrust law – so it looks like AT&T and DirectTV are good on that front. Of course, the DoJ isn’t the only regulatory agency that the companies must assuage. They also have to worry about the Federal Communications Commission and its independent review of whether or not the deal serves the public interest.

    Reuters says that approval is coming very soon – as early as next week. It’s more likely that AT&T had to make concessions with the FCC.

    On June 29th, AT&T said it had had a talk with the FCC, wherein they discussed “the substantial, direct, and verifiable benefits that the AT&T/DIRECTV merger will deliver to tens of millions of consumers.”

    “We also discussed AT&T’s voluntary commitments, described in the record, which will provide the Commission with further assurance that the transaction will serve the public interest and deliver benefits to consumers.”

    Streaming video may play a part in said conditions. Netflix recently raised objections to the merger in its current form, saying that the deal “would result in a combined entity with increased incentive and ability to harm online video distributors and other edge-based Internet content that Applicants view as a threat to their broadband and video programming businesses.”

    The merger would create the biggest pay-TV company in the country.

    It’s possible that AT&T will have to agree to some stipulations protecting online video companies.

    The AT&T/DirecTV deal won’t create the broadband-controlling monster that the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal would’ve created. The FCC basically killed that deal, and Net Neutrality was a major concern.

  • AT&T Fined $100M for Throttling ‘Unlimited’ Plans

    AT&T Fined $100M for Throttling ‘Unlimited’ Plans

    The Federal Communications Commission is set to fine AT&T $100 million for misleading customers about unlimited data plans.

    According to the FCC, “AT&T severely slowed down the data speeds for customers with unlimited data plans and that the company failed to adequately notify its customers that they could receive speeds slower than the normal network speeds AT&T advertised.”

    In other words, AT&T is accused of throttling customers who supposedly had “unlimited” data plans once they hit a certain amount of usage – and not being transparent about this practice.

    “Consumers deserve to get what they pay for,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “Broadband providers must be upfront and transparent about the services they provide. The FCC will not stand idly by while consumers are deceived by misleading marketing materials and insufficient disclosure.”

    According to the FCC’s investigation, millions of AT&T customers suffered slowdowns for an average of 12 days per billing cycle.

    “The notice provided to unlimited data plan customers about the Maximum Bit Rate policy was not sufficient to enable AT&T customers to make informed decisions about their data plans,” the enforcement bureau found.

    “Unlimited means unlimited,” said FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc. “As today’s
    action demonstrates, the Commission is committed to holding accountable those broadband
    providers who fail to be fully transparent about data limits.”

    The fine isn’t final, and AT&T could settle the charges. As expected, AT&T has said it will “vigorously dispute the FCC’s assertions.”

    AT&T faces a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission over the same accusations.

    Image via Mike Mozart, Flickr Creative Commons

  • The AT&T/DirecTV Merger Will Likely Be Approved: Report

    The AT&T/DirecTV Merger Will Likely Be Approved: Report

    It doesn’t appear that federal regulators are going to stand in the way of AT&T’s bid to acquire DirecTV.

    According to sources quoted in the Wall Street Journal both the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission are almost done with their respective reviews, and they are both unlikely to block the deal.

    AT&T agreed to acquire DirecTV for nearly $49 million last May.

    From the WSJ:

    Regulators could still decide to impose conditions on the deal, which would create the largest U.S. pay TV company, but don’t appear to have serious concerns, the people said. Final approval could still be weeks away.

    The Justice Department hasn’t raised issues with the deal and doesn’t plan to block it, the people said. FCC staff are inclined to recommend the commission approve the deal with conditions, but none are expected to be unacceptable to AT&T, people familiar with the process have said.

    Streaming video may play a part in said conditions. Netflix recently raised objections to the merger in its current form, saying that the deal “would result in a combined entity with increased incentive and ability to harm online video distributors and other edge-based Internet content that Applicants view as a threat to their broadband and video programming businesses.”

    “AT&T already has a demonstrated ability to harm OVDs by leveraging its control over interconnection to degrade its own customers’ access to Netflix’s service. AT&T also has shown an interest in using data caps and usage-based pricing methods, which it can apply discriminatorily to advantage its own services. If AT&T is able to slow the development of the
    OVD industry, either by foreclosing access to broadband customers or imposing discriminatory data caps, AT&T would be able to preserve its market advantage by slowing or even reversing the shift toward competitive online video offering and away from bundled video/broadband offerings,” said Netflix in a recent letter to the FCC.

    It’s possible that AT&T would have to agree to some stipulations protecting online video companies.

    “This is a unique opportunity that will redefine the video entertainment industry and create a company able to offer new bundles and deliver content to consumers across multiple screens – mobile devices, TVs, laptops, cars and even airplanes. At the same time, it creates immediate and long-term value for our shareholders,” said AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson upon announcing the merger.

    The AT&T/DirecTV deal, while significant, won’t create the broadband-controlling beheomth that the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal would’ve birthed. The FCC played a role in killing that deal, and Netflix and Net Neutrality was a major concern.

    Image via Keith Allison, Flickr Creative Commons

  • Verizon, Sprint Pay $158M for ‘Cramming’ Bogus Charges

    Verizon, Sprint Pay $158M for ‘Cramming’ Bogus Charges

    The Federal Communications Commission has announced that Verizon and Sprint will pay a combined $158 million to settle “cramming” investigations, wherein the Commission found that the carriers were cramming unauthorized charges onto customers’ bills.

    The majority of such charges came from so-called “premium text services”.

    “For too long, consumers have been charged on their phone bills for things they did not buy,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “We call these fraudulent charges ‘cramming,’ and with today’s agreements we are calling them history for Verizon and Sprint customers.”

    The FCC describes the scheme as such:

    The monthly charge for these third-party premium text messaging services ranged from $0.99 to $14.00, but typically were $9.99 per month. Verizon retained 30% or more of each third-party charge that it billed, while Sprint received approximately 35% of collected revenues for each of its third-party charges. Numerous consumers have complained to the FCC, other government agencies, and the carriers that they never requested or authorized the third-party services for which they were charged. Customers who called to complain were often denied refunds, and yet, when the FCC requested proof that customers had authorized charges, the carriers were unable to prove that these services were ever requested.

    The majority of the settlement will go toward customer refunds, in fact. Verizon’s $90 million chunk is divided as such: $70 million in refunds, $16 million for state governments, and a $4 million fine to the US Treasury. Sprint’s $68 million portion is divided as such: $50 million in refunds, $12 million to states, and a $6 million fine.

    “Consumers rightfully expect their monthly phone bills will reflect only those sevices that they’ve purchased,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. “Today’s settlements put in place strong protections that will prevent consumers from being victimized by these kinds of practices in the future.”

    With this joint settlement, all four major US carriers will have paid for their “cramming”. Last year, both AT&T and T-Mobile settled for $105 million and $90 million, respectively.

    Both Verizon and Sprint said that they rigorously “protect customers” and already have systems to refund premium text message charges in place.

    Image via Thinkstock

  • Netflix Doesn’t Like the AT&T/DirecTV Merger

    Netflix Doesn’t Like the AT&T/DirecTV Merger

    If AT&T’s proposed merger of DirecTV is approved, it would create the largest pay-TV provider in the country.

    And according to Netflix, the merger in its current form is bad for everyone.

    The streaming company has written a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, urging it to reject the merger “as currently proposed.”

    “The proposed merger would make AT&T the largest MVPD in the country, and potentially lead to its becoming the largest ISP in the country as well. Such market power creates new incentives and abilities to harm entities that AT&T perceives as competitive threats, and will exacerbate the anticompetitive behavior in which AT&T has already engaged. Netflix urges the Commission to reject the merger as currently proposed,” said Netflix counsel Markham Erickson in the letter.

    “If approved by the Commission, this merger would result in a combined entity with increased incentive and ability to harm online video distributors (“OVDs”) and other edge-based Internet content that Applicants view as a threat to their broadband and video programming businesses. Comcast’s withdrawal of its merger application means that, if approved, AT&T would become the nation’s largest multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”). After AT&T’s projected broadband investments, it could become the largest ISP as well. These two dynamics create a powerful incentive for AT&T to protect its investment in DIRECTV’s bundled programming by using its ability to harm OVDs to prevent or delay cord-cutting and cord-shaving.”

    Netflix argues that AT&T has already shows what this looks like.

    “AT&T already has a demonstrated ability to harm OVDs by leveraging its control over interconnection to degrade its own customers’ access to Netflix’s service. AT&T also has shown an interest in using data caps and usage-based pricing methods, which it can apply discriminatorily to advantage its own services. If AT&T is able to slow the development of the
    OVD industry, either by foreclosing access to broadband customers or imposing discriminatory data caps, AT&T would be able to preserve its market advantage by slowing or even reversing the shift toward competitive online video offering and away from bundled video/broadband offerings.”

    So, Netflix isn’t a fan of the merger in its current form – but what would make it happy?

    According to Ars Technica, “Netflix described the conditions it wants imposed upon the merger in a submission last September. In addition to a permanent net neutrality commitment, Netflix asked the FCC to prevent a combined AT&T/DirecTV from charging interconnection fees to Netflix and other content providers. Moreover, ‘the combined entity should be prohibited from excepting its own affiliated services from any data cap applicable to any of its services (whether fixed or mobile), Netflix wrote.”

    The FCC just got done killing Comcast’s proposed Time Warner Cable takeover. Netflix and other streaming services like it played a big part in why the FCC hated that deal.

    “Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation especially given the growing importance of high-speed broadband to online video and innovative new services,” said FCC chairman Tom Wheeler of the Comcast/TWC merger.

    AT&T and DirecTV agreed to a $48.5 billion deal last May.

  • Netflix Was a Big Part of Why Regulators Hated Comcast/TWC Merger

    Netflix Was a Big Part of Why Regulators Hated Comcast/TWC Merger

    By now you’ve probably heard that Comcast has abandoned its push to acquire Time Warner Cable, due to looming concerns that both the Department of Justice’s antitrust division and the Federal Communications Commission were poised to recommend it blocked.

    “Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities, but we structured this deal so that if the government didn’t agree, we could walk away,” said Comcast CEO Brian Roberts.

    Now, both the DoJ and the FCC have issued official statements on the death of the merger, and they both sign a similar tune. A main concern for both the DoJ and the FCC, apparently, was Netflix (& other streaming services, of course) and Net Neutrality.

    Take a look at FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s statement (bolding ours):

    Comcast and Time Warner Cable’s decision to end Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable is in the best interests of consumers. The proposed transaction would have created a company with the most broadband and video subscribers in the nation alongside the ownership of significant programming interests. Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation especially given the growing importance of high-speed broadband to online video and innovative new services. I am proud of our close working relationship throughout the review process with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Our collaboration provided both agencies with a deeper understanding of the important issues of innovation and competition that the proposed transaction raised.

    And here’s what Attorney General Eric Holder had to say:

    The companies’ decision to abandon this deal is the best outcome for American consumers. The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice has demonstrated, time and again, that it can and will defend the interests of the American consumer no matter the complexity of the issue or the size of the opponent. This is a victory not only for the Department of Justice, but also for providers of content and streaming services who work to bring innovative products to consumers across America and around the world. I commend the Antitrust attorneys and investigators whose outstanding work led to this outcome, and I know that the Department of Justice will continue to fight for fair access and free competition in every industry and every market.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Holder had already authorized the DoJ antitrust officials to file a lawsuit against the deal.

    Netflix was vehemently against the merger from the beginning, as the streaming company was forced to pay Comcast a fee for access.

    Netflix said that the merger would’ve “set up and ecosystem that calls into questions what we to date have taken for granted: that a consumer who pays for connectivity to the internet will be able to get the content she requests.”

    It appears the feds agreed.

  • Comcast / Time Warner Cable Merger Is Dead, Officially

    Comcast / Time Warner Cable Merger Is Dead, Officially

    It’s official. Comcast has announced it has abandoned its efforts to acquire Time Warner Cable, in a deal that would’ve been valued at around $45 billion. This follows reports on Thursday that said the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission were both gearing up to recommend against the deal.

    If the merger had been approved, the Comcast-TWC behemoth would’ve controlled 57% of the US broadband market and 30% of the cable market.

    “Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities, but we structured this deal so that if the government didn’t agree, we could walk away. Comcast NBCUniversal is a unique company with strong momentum. Throughout this entire process, our employees have kept their eye on the ball and we have had fantastic operating results. I want to thank them and the employees of Time Warner Cable for their tireless efforts. I couldn’t be more proud of this company and I am truly excited for what’s next,” said Comcast CEO Brian Roberts in a statement.

    Time Warner Cable CEO Robert Marcus also weighed in on the decision, saying,

    “We have always believed that Time Warner Cable is a one-of-a-kind asset. We are strong and getting stronger. Throughout this process, we’ve been laser focused on executing our operating plan and investing in our plant, products and people to deliver great experiences to our customers. Through our strong operational execution and smart capital allocation, we are confident we will continue to create significant value for shareholders. I’m extremely proud of the professionalism, dedication and resiliency our 55,000 employees have shown over the past year and thank them for their continued commitment to Time Warner Cable.”

    Comcast’s line for over a year had been that the acquisition is “pro-consumer, pro-competitive, strongly in the public interest, and approvable” – but in the end the regulatory bodies in charge of reviewing the merger did not agree.

    The deal was unpopular from the start, as consumer advocates argued that the company would be anti-competitive and bad for customers.

    “Should the transaction survive the FCC’s and DOJ’s reviews, we believe that Comcast-TWC’s unmatched power in the telecommunications industry would lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and poorer quality services for Americans – inhibiting US consumers’ ability to fully benefit from modern technologies and American businesses’ capacity to innovate and compete on a global scale,” wrote Senators Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Edward Markey, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, and Richard Blumenthal in a recent letter to the DoJ and FCC.

    This final decision comes on the heels of reports that the FCC had proposed a “hearing designation order” for the merger review – a move that signaled the deal was fast approaching dead.

    “In effect, that would put the $45.2 billion merger in the hands of an administrative law judge, and would be seen as a strong sign the FCC doesn’t believe the deal is in the public interest,” wrote the Wall Street Journal.

    The FCC wasn’t the only regulatory agency with doubts about the merger. Antitrust officials at the Department of Justice were reportedly ready to recommend killing the merger, citing concerns that the two companies would create an entity that would ultimately be too large and harm consumers.

    Here’s a final way to look at it – with this, the two most-hated companies in America will not be joining forces.

    So, who’s going to try to buy Time Warner Cable now?

    Image via Steven Depolo, Flickr Creative Commons

  • Comcast Is Giving Up on Its TWC Deal: Report

    Comcast Is Giving Up on Its TWC Deal: Report

    Comcast is planning to kill its proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable before the feds can kill it first.

    Bloomberg is quoting sources who say that Comcast is ready to back away from the merger, which would be valued at around $45 billion.

    This comes on the heels of reports that the FCC had proposed a “hearing designation order” for the merger review – a move that signaled the deal was fast approaching dead.

    “In effect, that would put the $45.2 billion merger in the hands of an administrative law judge, and would be seen as a strong sign the FCC doesn’t believe the deal is in the public interest,” wrote the Wall Street Journal.

    The FCC isn’t the only regulatory agency with doubts about the merger. Antitrust officials at the Department of Justice were reportedly ready to recommend killing the merger, citing concerns that the two companies would create an entity that would ultimately be too large and harm consumers.

    Comcast met with reps from both the DoJ and the FCC to try to iron out a deal – compromises to make the merger happen – but it appears those talks went nowhere.

    But as Bloomberg points out, the FCC pill was much tougher to swallow than the one from the Justice Department, however bitter it may have been:

    While the DOJ has to present a case in court to block the deal, an FCC hearing referral could prove to be the bigger obstacle to Comcast’s bid to expand its cable and Internet footprint. The last time the FCC staff proposed sending a merger to a hearing was over AT&T Inc.’s bid to buy T-Mobile USA Inc. in 2011, prompting the companies to drop the deal. The Justice Department had already brought a lawsuit seeking to block the merger.

    Comcast’s line for over a year has been that the acquisition is “pro-consumer, pro-competitive, strongly in the public interest, and approvable.” We’ll see if Comcast is soon signing a different tune. A final decision on whether to abandon the deal could come as early as Friday.

    Image via Steven Depolo, Flickr Creative Commons

  • Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken Among Six Senators Urging a Swift Death for the Comcast/Time Warner Merger

    Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken Among Six Senators Urging a Swift Death for the Comcast/Time Warner Merger

    In a letter addressed to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and Attorney General Eric Holder, six Senators are urging the blockage of Comcast’s proposed merger with Time Warner Cable. The letter comes just one day before representatives from Comcast and Time Warner Cable are set to meet with DoJ antitrust officials in the hopes of saving a deal that appears to be on shaky ground.

    “Should the transaction survive the FCC’s and DOJ’s reviews, we believe that Comcast-TWC’s unmatched power in the telecommunications industry would lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and poorer quality services for Americans – inhibiting US consumers’ ability to fully benefit from modern technologies and American businesses’ capacity to innovate and compete on a global scale,” write Senators Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Edward Markey, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, and Richard Blumenthal.

    “Since the proposal was announced last year, we have heard from consumers across the nation, as well as from advocacy groups, trade associations, and companies of all sizes, all of whom fear that the deal would harm competition across several different markets and would not serve the public interest,” says the letter.

    “We’ve also heard from constituents in our home states who are rightfully frustrated about their increasingly high cable and Internet bills and are concerned that the proposed acquisition will only drive those prices higher. Unfortunately, with only a handful of cable and Internet providers dominating the market, consumers are often left with little choice but to pay the price a given provider demands and have little say over what content is made available to them.”

    If the merger were to go through, the Comcast-TWC behemoth would control 57% of the US broadband market and 30% of the cable market.

    But it’s far from a sure thing. In fact, recent reports have indicated that the Department of Justice is poised to recommend blocking the deal. Upon hearing that news, Comcast and Time Warner Cable rushed into action and are set to meet face-to-face with regulators for the first time since they proposed the deal. It is expected that Comcast will attempt to make concessions to satisfy regulators, some of whom are as wary as the Senators.

    Comcast’s official line has always been that the deal is not anti-competitive.

    “Comcast’s merger with Time Warner Cable will ensure that a responsible and committed steward delivers advanced video and high-speed data services and innovation to these customers. The proposed transaction is pro-consumer, pro-competitive, strongly in the public interest, and approvable,” says the company.

    “We urge you to defend American competition and innovation and ensure the Americans have affordable access to high-quality telecommunications services. We hope you’ll take a stand for US consumers and businesses and reject Comcast’s proposed acquisition of TWC,” say the Senators.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons, h/t Ars Technica

  • Comcast, TWC Will Meet with Regulators to Try to Save Deal

    Comcast, TWC Will Meet with Regulators to Try to Save Deal

    With their proposed merger on shaky ground, representatives from Comcast and Time Warner Cable are planning to meet with Justice Department officials in the hopes of negotiating a pathway for the deal to proceed.

    This will be the first such meeting between the cable companies and regulators since the merger was announced.

    The Wall Street Journal Reports that Comcast will likely offer concessions to assuage wary antitrust officials at the DoJ. From the WSJ:

    The Wednesday meeting with antitrust officials could be the first of many, but it isn’t clear whether the companies can offer concessions that will satisfy regulators.

    Looming over any discussion about merger remedies will be the concessions Comcast made in 2011 to win approval to acquire control of NBCUniversal. People familiar with the current review process say the Justice Department and the FCC have been examining whether Comcast has fully complied with those earlier commitments.

    Last week, Bloomberg reported that antitrust officials at the Department of Justice were ready to recommend killing the merger, citing concerns that the two companies would create an entity that would ultimately be too large and harm consumers. The Federal Communications Commission is also looking into the merger, and has plenty of concerns of its own, according to reports.

    Comcast’s official line is that the deal is not anti-competitive.

    “Comcast’s merger with Time Warner Cable will ensure that a responsible and committed steward delivers advanced video and high-speed data services and innovation to these customers. The proposed transaction is pro-consumer, pro-competitive, strongly in the public interest, and approvable,” says the company.

    Image via Steven Depolo, Flickr Creative Commons

  • Regulators Ready to Kill Comcast / TWC Merger: Report

    Regulators Ready to Kill Comcast / TWC Merger: Report

    One of the regulatory agencies looking over the proposed Comcast / Time Warner Cable merger may be about to give it the thumbs down, citing concerns over potential harm to customers.

    Bloomberg cites the ubiquitous “people familiar with the matter” in saying that antitrust lawyers at the Department of Justice are poised to recommend against the merger.

    From Bloomberg:

    Attorneys who are investigating Comcast’s $45.2 billion proposal to create a nationwide cable giant are leaning against the merger out of concerns that consumers would be harmed and could submit their review as soon as next week, said the people.

    The antitrust lawyers will present their findings to Renata Hesse, a deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust, who will decide, along with the division’s top officials, whether to file a federal lawsuit to block the deal, they said.

    The Justice Department lawyers have been contacting outside parties in the last few weeks to shore up evidence to support a potential case against the merger, one of the people said.

    The other agency reviewing the deal, the Federal Communications Commission, is not sold either, according to reports. The deal, which looked like a sure thing a year ago, is in serious danger of falling apart. Some have already proclaimed it dead.

    Bloomberg has news on that front, too, saying “officials at the antitrust division and the Federal Communications Commission, which is also reviewing the deal, aren’t negotiating with Comcast about conditions to the merger that would resolve concerns.”

    Comcast’s official line on the merger is that it is pro-consumer and pro-competition.

    Comcast’s merger with Time Warner Cable will ensure that a responsible and committed steward delivers advanced video and high-speed data services and innovation to these customers. The proposed transaction is pro-consumer, pro-competitive, strongly in the public interest, and approvable. It will deliver better services and technology to Time Warner Cable’s subscribers and result in no reduction of choice for consumers. Following the acquisition and possible divestiture of some subscribers, Comcast subscribers will represent essentially the same share of nationwide MVPD subscribers as Comcast’s shares following the Adelphia and AT&T Broadband transactions in a much more competitive and dynamic marketplace. This transaction will create a world-class technology and media company, differentiated by its ability to deliver ground-breaking products on a superior network while leveraging a national platform to create operating efficiencies and economies of scale.

    Last month, the fourth-largest cable provider agreed to acquire the sixth-largest as Charter Commutations offered $10,4 billion for Bright House Networks. If the Comcast / Time Warner Cable deal were to go through, the #1 and #2 providers in the US would combine to form a behemoth. The two remain the most despised companies in America.

    Image via Steven Depolo, Flickr Creative Commons

  • FCC Net Neutrality Rules Released, Blasted By Commissioners

    FCC Net Neutrality Rules Released, Blasted By Commissioners

    The Federal Communications Commission has released its new net neutrality rules after announcing them two weeks ago. The rules followed a call from President Obama in November to reclassify Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would make it a utility. The new rules call for broadband to be considered a telecommunications service, and providers are to be regulated.

    This prompted a wide array of responses from various parties of interest, including a press release written in morse code from Verizon.

    The new release caused the FCC site to crash, and as of the time of this writing, it’s displaying a message that says:

    The normal FCC website is temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties. We are working to restore the full FCC website back to normal as soon as possible.

    Te PDF, however, is viewable here (via Re/code):

    FCC-15-24A1

    The site seems to be going on and off, so if you keep trying, you might be able to bring it up.

    Since the release of the document, a policy summary of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai’s “statement dissenting from the FCC’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet” has been released. Here’s what it says:

    For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet—one unfettered by government regulation. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? It is flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told it to do so.

    The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.

    One facet of that control is rate regulation. For the first time, the FCC will regulate the rates that Internet service providers may charge and will set a price of zero for certain commercial agreements.

    The Commission can also outlaw pro-consumer service plans.If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.

    Consumers should expect their broadband bills to go up. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. One estimate puts the total at $11 billion a year.

    Consumers’ broadband speeds will be slower. Compare the broadband market in the U.S. to that in Europe, where broadband is generally regulated as a public utility. Today, 82% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps broadband speeds. Only 54% of Europeans do. Moreover, in the U.S., average mobile speeds are 30% faster than they are in Western Europe.

    This plan will reduce competition and drive smaller broadband providers out of business. That’s why the plan is opposed by the country’s smallest private competitors and many municipal broadband providers. Monopoly rules from a monopoly era will move us toward a monopoly.

    The Internet is not broken. We do not need President Obama’s plan to “fix it.”

    The plan in front of us today was not formulated at the FCC through a transparent notice-and-comment rulemaking process. As The Wall Street Journal reports, it was developed through “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House.” Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a “parallel version of the FCC.” Their work led to the President’s announcement in November of his plan for Internet regulation, a plan which “blindsided” the FCC and “swept aside . . . months of work by [Chairman] Wheeler toward a compromise.”

    The plan has glaring legal flaws that are sure to keep the Commission mired in litigation for a long, long time.

    A legal summary of Pai’s statement has also been released. Here’s what that one says:

    In adopting President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet, the FCC violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

    The FCC never proposed the rules being adopted, violating the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement. In last year’s Notice, the FCC proposed rules under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Every single proposal and every single tentative conclusion in last year’s Notice was tailored to avoid reclassifying broadband as a Title II service. Yet that’s exactly what the FCC does in this Order.

    No one could have anticipated the number or nature of the hoops the Order would jump through to reclassify broadband. Nor could anyone have anticipated the Order’s 49 separate forbearance decisions; its decision to subject interconnection to Title II as a “component” of broadband Internet access service; its decision to amend agency rules regarding mobile broadband; or its adoption of an omnivorous “Internet conduct” standard, the scope of which remains uncertain.

    The FCC cannot rely on President Obama’s YouTube directive to the agency cure these deficiencies. The President’s video was not approved by FCC commissioners, published in the Federal Register, or subject to public comment.

    President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet also violates the Communications Act.

    Neither the text of the Act nor FCC precedent allows the agency to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. In 1996, President Clinton and Congress decided that “any” service that “provides access to the Internet” would be an information service. In turn, the FCC has never classified an Internet Service Provider as a telecommunications carrier. Instead, the FCC has determined each and every time since the Clinton Administration’s Stevens Report that Internet access always involves more than meretransmission—and thus is an information service.

    Section 332 of the Communications Act independently bars the FCC from reclassifying mobile broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service.

    The text, structure, and Congressional intent all make clear that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act does not give the FCC any independent authority.

    The Order invents an entirely new method of forbearance analysis that doesn’t adhere to the forbearance criteria in the Act or the FCC’s precedents.

    Pai appeared on Fox business to talk about this more:

    The FCC has also released a dissenting statement from Commissioner Michael O’Reilly. HIs is seventeen pages long, so I’ll direct you to his tweets, which include a link.

    Some words from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler:

    So what’s everybody else saying about it all? Here’s a quick glance at Twitter:




  • Did The FCC Get Net Neutrality Right?

    Did The FCC Get Net Neutrality Right?

    As you may have heard, the FCC announced that it has set rules on net neutrality and an open Internet, which it says “will protect free expression and innovation on the Internet and promote investment in the nation’s broadband networks.”

    Do you think they got it right or do there need to be changes? Let us know what you think.

    Back in November, President Obama urged the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would make it a utility, and the FCC has done so. Broadband is considered a telecommunications service, and providers are to be regulated.

    The FCC says in its announcement:

    The FCC has long been committed to protecting and promoting an Internet that nurtures freedom of speech and expression, supports innovation and commerce, and incentivizes expansion and investment by America’s broadband providers. But the agency’s attempts to implement enforceable, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet have been twice struck down by the courts.

    Today, the Commission—once and for all—enacts strong, sustainable rules, grounded in multiple sources of legal authority, to ensure that Americans reap the economic, social, and civic benefits of an Open Internet today and into the future. These new rules are guided by three principles: America’s broadband networks must be fast, fair and open—principles shared by the overwhelming majority of the nearly 4 million commenters who participated in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding.

    Absent action by the FCC, Internet openness is at risk, as recognized by the very court that struck down the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet rules last year in Verizon v. FCC.

    Broadband providers have economic incentives that “represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment,” as affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court upheld the Commission’s finding that Internet openness drives a “virtuous cycle” in which innovations at the edges of the network enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in broadband infrastructure that, in turn, spark new innovations at the edge.

    However, the court observed that nearly 15 years ago, the Commission constrained its ability to protect against threats to the open Internet by a regulatory classification of broadband that precluded use of statutory protections that historically ensured the openness of telephone networks. The Order finds that the nature of broadband Internet access service has not only changed since that initial classification decision, but that broadband providers have even more incentives to interfere with Internet openness today. To respond to this changed landscape, the new Open Internet Order restores the FCC’s legal authority to fully address threats to openness on today’s networks by following a template for sustainability laid out in the D.C. Circuit Opinion itself, including reclassification of broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act.

    With a firm legal foundation established, the Order sets three “bright-line” rules of the road for behavior known to harm the Open Internet, adopts an additional, flexible standard to future-proof Internet openness rules, and protects mobile broadband users with the full array of Open Internet rules. It does so while preserving incentives for investment and innovation by broadband providers by affording them an even more tailored version of the light-touch regulatory treatment that fostered tremendous growth in the mobile wireless industry.

    The new rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband, and prohibit broadband providers from blocking access to legal content, apps, services, or non-harmful devices. They also prohibit providers from impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, apps, services, or non-harmful devices. Providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful Internet traffic “in exchange for consideration of any kind”. In other words, no fast lanes. ISPs are banned from prioritizing content and services of affiliates.

    You can find the full announcement here (PDF).

    The matter is far from settled. Republicans in Congress have reportedly proposed legislation to throw out the Title II restrictions on providers.

    Here’s what people are saying on Twitter:




    Naturally, plenty of companies are weighing in with their comments. Here are Verizon’s:

    If you click the link for the “translated’ version, you’re taken to a news release dated for 1934 in a font that looks like this:

    You get the idea.

    AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi said:

    To be sure, one must have principles and a philosophy of government’s proper role. But a democracy cannot function when either side lapses into rigidity. Or worse, when political advantage becomes more important than the nation’s best interest.

    In our little world, and in my decades of interaction with it, I’ve felt, and still feel, that the FCC has tried to stay focused on solving problems and avoided turning issues into dogma. Every chairman in my memory, including the current one, has faced political stampedes of one sort or another. Yet the agency has always tried to find a middle ground and a consensus win. They’ve understood that a win, unlike a fight, is the product of reaching out to both sides, and working in a bipartisan way to find a solution. A win is the product of compromise, thoughtful policy, and a genuine desire to find the answer to a complex set of issues.

    We had such a situation – and a bipartisan win – in the 2010 net neutrality rule. Unfortunately, this was undone by a court decision, facing us with the same situation a second time. Today, an Administration and an FCC that appeared headed toward another bipartisan win on net neutrality were driven instead to a partisan fight. The 3-2 FCC vote, along party lines, for sweeping new regulation of the Internet, is a rejection of the compromise win and an embrace, however reluctant, of the political fight. It’s unfortunate that this single issue, more than any other, has over the course of ten years caused a divisive spirit to spread to an agency that has long sought unanimity on significant long term issues, and generally found it. A 5-0 decision doesn’t leave a lot of room for either side to continue the argument, while a 3-2 decision, particularly on issues of such broad scope, is an invitation to revisiting the decision, over and over and over.

    Full statement here.

    Sprint’s response:

    Sprint has been a leader in supporting an open Internet and commends the FCC for its hard work in arriving at a thoughtful, measured approach on this important issue. We believe balanced net neutrality rules with a light regulatory touch will benefit consumers, while fostering mobile broadband competition, investment and innovation in the United States. We look forward to reviewing the FCC order and continuing to work with policymakers to ensure consumers benefit from an open Internet.

    Here’s the latest from T-Mobile:

    Netflix, which has been a very vocal member of the debate says:

    “The net neutrality debate is about who picks winners and losers online: Internet service providers or consumers. Today, the FCC settled it: Consumers win.

    Today’s order is a meaningful step towards ensuring ISPs cannot shift bad conduct upstream to where they interconnect with content providers like Netflix. Net neutrality rules are only as strong as their weakest link, and it’s incumbent on the FCC to ensure these interconnection points aren’t used to end-run the principles of an open Internet.

    Given the lack of competition among broadband providers, today’s other FCC decision preventing regulations that thwart local investment in new broadband infrastructure also is an important step toward ensuring greater consumer choice. These actions kick off a new era that puts the consumer, not litigious corporate giants, at the center of competition policy.”

    The ACLU says, “This is a victory for free speech, plain and simple. Americans use the internet not just to work and play, but to discuss politics and learn about the world around them. The FCC has a critical role to play in protecting citizens’ ability to see what they want and say what they want online, without interference. Title II provides the firmest possible foundation for such protections. We are still sifting through the full details of the new rules, but the main point is that the internet, the primary place where Americans exercise their right to free expression, remains open to all voices and points of view.”

    Mozilla says, “This is an important victory for the world’s largest public resource, the open Web. Net neutrality is a key aspect of enabling innovation from everywhere, and especially from new players and unexpected places. Net neutrality allows citizens and consumers to access new innovations and judge the merit for themselves. It allows individual citizens to make decisions, without gate-keepers who decide which possibilities can become real. Today’s net neutrality rules help us protect this open and innovative potential of the Internet.”

    The FCC received over 4 million public comments over the past year, which the commission used to help “shape” its rules.

    Do you consider the FCC’s rules to be a win for the Internet? Let us know.

    Image: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (Wikimedia Commons)

  • FCC: Broadband Internet Must Hit 25Mbps, or ISPs Can’t Call It Broadband

    FCC: Broadband Internet Must Hit 25Mbps, or ISPs Can’t Call It Broadband

    If your ISP doesn’t provide download speeds of 25Mbps, it can no longer tell you you’re getting broadband internet.

    The Federal Communications Commission has just voted to change the definition of “broadband”, raising the minimum download speed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps.

    “We are never satisfied with the status quo. We want better. We continue to push the limit, and that is notable when it comes to technology,” FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. “As consumers adopt and demand more from their platforms and devices, the need for broadband will increase, requiring robust networks to be in place in order to keep up. What is crystal clear to me is that the broadband speeds of yesteryear are woefully inadequate today and beyond.”

    As you would assume, internet service providers have vehemently opposed the new rules, as it limits the numbers of services they can pass off as “broadband” to customers. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association claims that internet customers neither need or want to pay for such speeds, and that establishing a new benchmark for what constitutes broadband is both “arbitrary and capricious”, considering the fact that the new rule is simply a definition change.

    In other words, the FCC is not forcing ISPs to offer certain speeds. What it is doing, however, is making sure companies can’t call super slow connections “broadband”.

    According to the FCC, the new rules still leave many Americans without internet that can be classified as broadband – especially those living in rural areas.

    Hopefully, this decision will push ISPs into increasing internet speeds for many Americans. Apart from that, the ruling could have a significant impact in other areas, for instance the pending Comcast/Time Warner merger.

    Image via FCC, Twitter

  • FCC to Businesses: Blocking Wi-Fi Is 100% Illegal

    FCC to Businesses: Blocking Wi-Fi Is 100% Illegal

    The Federal Communications Commission has stated, unequivocally, that businesses which interfere with consumers’ Wi-Fi are in direct violation of the law.

    “In the 21st Century, Wi-Fi, represents an essential on-ramp to the internet. Personal Wi-Fi networks, or “hot spots,” are an important way that consumers connect to the Internet. Willful or malicious interference with Wi-Fi hot spots is illegal,” says the FCC in a new Enforcement Advisory.

    “Wi-Fi blocking violates Section 333 of the Communications Act, as amended. The Enforcement Bureau has seen a disturbing trend in which hotels and other commercial establishments block wireless consumers from using their own personal Wi-Fi hot spots on the commercial establishment’s premises. As a result, the Bureau is protecting consumers by aggressively investigating and acting against such unlawful intentional interference.”

    The FCC’s notice comes in response to a recent case involving the Marriott hotel chain. The company was fined $600,000 for blocking customers’ personal Wi-Fi hotspots at a Nashville, Tennessee location.

    The FCC refers to the case specifically, saying,

    “In 2014, the Enforcement Bureau conducted an investigation, culminating with a Consent Decree, into this kind of unlawful activity by the operator of a resort hotel and convention center.2In that case, Marriott International, Inc. deployed a Wi-Fi deauthentication protocol to deliberately block consumers who sought to connect to the Internet using their own personal Wi-Fi hot spots. Marriott admitted that the customers it blocked did not pose a security threat to the Marriott network and agreed to settle the investigation by paying a civil penalty of $600,000.”

    And according to the FCC, it’s been getting more and more complaints regarding Wi-Fi blocking in other businesses across the country.

    The FCC makes it pretty clear what’s illegal:

    No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner’s Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties.

    So, for now, this is definitive. If you think your Wi-Fi is being jammed – complain.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan Criticized, Is Reportedly Being Considered By FCC

    Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan Criticized, Is Reportedly Being Considered By FCC

    Earlier this week, President Obama urged the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. He said that ultimately, it’s their decision as they’re an independent agency, but added that four million people publicly commented, asking the agency to “make sure that consumers – not the cable company – gets to decide which sites they use.”

    Where do you stand on the issue? Let us know in the comments.

    The White House laid out a four-point plan for protecting net neutrality:

    In an article called “61% Oppose Federal Regulation of the Internet,” Rasmussen Reports says:

    Americans really like the online service they currently have and strongly oppose so-called “net neutrality” efforts that would allow the federal government to regulate the Internet.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of American Adults agree the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does radio and television. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree and think the Internet should remain open without regulation and censorship. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

    According to that, 19% believe more government regulation is the best way to protect Internet users and 56% think more free market competition is the best protection. 25% are undecided, it says.

    Republican Senator Ted Cruz wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post on the subject under the title “Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom.”

    “The next generation of Internet-connected devices, apps and services will generate trillions of dollars of global economic growth in the years ahead. And Americans are perfectly poised to take maximum advantage — if the government doesn’t take those opportunities away in the form of crushing taxes, rules and regulations,’ wrote Cruz. “Yet the threats from Washington to stifle freedom, entrepreneurship and creativity online have never been greater. Washington politicians want the money, and they want more and more control over our speech.”

    He went on to discuss “four basic principles,” which he said should guide policy makers “in a bipartisan manner, to preserve America’s leadership role in developing the future of the Internet.”

    These include “abandon[ing] the idea of further taxing Internet access and sales,” “dismiss[ing] all plans to give nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy,” “promoting growth in the technological sector,” and “recognizing that our constitutional rights are digital rights, too”.

    He also referred to the Internet as a haven for entrepreneurial freedom and “The American Dream 2.0”.

    Mark Cuban is also voicing opposition to Obama’s plan. When asked if he’s concerned about the potential for small businesses to be stifled by internet providers, he told Business Insider, “I’m more concerned the government will f— it up.”

    Asked if he was worried internet providers would hurt startups, he told them, “Hell no. Since when have incumbent companies been the mainstays for multiple generations? There will be so much competition from all the enhancements to wireless that incumbent ISPs will have to spent their time fighting cord cutting.”

    Cuban also tweeted additional thoughts at Chris Dixon:

    It’s worth noting that Cuban claims to have voted for Obama in ’08.

    According to a report from The Huffington Post, which contradicts an earlier one from The Washington Post, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is open to Obama’s plan, and that he “told a gathering of business representatives and public interest groups that he was taking the president’s comments under advisement and that he would need the groups’ support in the coming fight over net neutrality.”

    Obvoiusly there are a lot of opinions about how net neutrality should be handled. Here’s what others are saying:


    Do you think Obama’s plan is the right or wrong way to go? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via YouTube