User:Joe q 5150/sandbox

Net neutrality and the Trump administration (2017)

In January 2017, newly inaugurated president Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai as the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Pai had previously been nominated to fill one of the required Republican seats on the commission by President Obama under the recommendation of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.[122] Pai, who objected to the 2015 Open Internet Order, quickly began to roll back some of the policies that had been implemented by the FCC during the Obama administration, and halted an investigation into the use of zero-rating by U.S. wireless providers. After his appointment, Pai stated that he planned to "modernize" FCC policies to "match the reality of the modern marketplace", but was unsure over whether the FCC would continue to enforce the net neutrality rules or Title II classification of broadband services.[123][124]

In an interview on May 5, 2017, with NPR, Pai stated his argument against net neutrality enforcement rules to be only about focusing on fixing actual anti-competitive behavior that Internet providers show as opposed to just "regulating against hypothetical harms".[125] Another argument he makes against this is that when the government inserts itself into the Internet’s issues then it stifles its innovation and growth. He argues that it is impossible to predict all outcomes, and although some might be bad, it is not a good idea to put such strict restrictions on everyone when there are only a few companies who would harm consumers or innovators. He believes that strict net neutrality rules would "prohibit a number of pro-competitive business arrangements" and "would reduce investments".[125]

In April 2017, it was reported that Pai had proposed that the net neutrality rules and Title II classifications be rolled back, that ISPs should instead "voluntarily" commit to the principles, and that violations of them should be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC as unfair or deceptive business practices.[126][127] On April 29, 2017, a clearer understanding of the latest net neutrality compromise proposal was described.[14][15]

On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to move forward with Pai’s Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on "Restoring Internet freedom"[128] by rolling back net neutrality regulations.[129] The official "Comment Date" was July 17, 2017, with the "Reply Comment Date" being August 16, 2017.[130]

The primary argument in this NPRM is that the Title II Order (on net neutrality) has pushed the major telecoms to reduce their capital expenditures (CapEx) in new infrastructure, thereby threatening the future of the nation. For this, they cite the approx. $1 billion reduction from 2014 to 2015 in CapEx reported by the United States Telecom Association and similar figures from industry consultant Hal Singer.[131] Broadband capital expenditures by U.S. broadband providers ($ billions, 1996-2015)

However, the accompanying plot of the USTelecom data cited (but not plotted) in the NPRM raises questions about whether the Title II Order generated a major reduction in Telecom Capex following the FCC's 2015 Title II Order on net neutrality: Roughly three quarters of the annual changes between 1996 and 2015 were larger. That change could easily be attributed to any number of other changes. The New York Times claimed that the majority on the FCC had to cherry-pick their data to support their conclusion.[132][133] In her dissent to this NPRM, Commissioner Clyburn wrote, “I have yet to see a credible analysis that suggests that broadband provider capital expenditures have declined as a result of our 2015 Open Internet Order. ... Using the same logic that the NPRM uses, one could suggest that the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service in 2002 resulted in an even more precipitous drop in broadband provider investment.”[134]

Falcon, Legislative Council for the Electronic Frontier Foundation[135] claimed that no such claims of CapEx reductions have been made in official reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),[136] He said that major companies can be sued by investors who assert that they lost money because of misleading information in an SEC filing, and no such penalties apply to potentially misleading statements to Congress or the public.[136]

Falcon's claim is supported by an analysis by Turner of Free Press in a report that includes 26 figures and tables, 21 of which were extracted from SEC filings and three of the remaining five came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Capital Expenditures Survey.[137] The change since the Title II Order was negative for only 5 of Turner's 24 tables, and the mean and median change over the 24 tables for which it seemed reasonable to extract a typical annualized percentage change were 8.1% and 5.2%, respectively.[138]

Over 1,000 startups and investors signed an open letter to Pai[139] opposing the proposal. The FCC received over 21 million comments from the public,[140][16][18] though it has since become clear that millions of these comments were fraudulent.[141][18] After the commenting period, the FCC voted along party lines to repeal the 2014 rules.[142][19]

To investigate the suggestion that some of the anti-net neutrality comments might be fraudulently using the names of real people without their knowledge, Fight for the Future created a web site called comcastroturf, claiming [on May 23, 2017], "Someone has submitted nearly half a million anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC, many of which appear to be completely fake — using stolen names and addresses", and inviting the reader to see if comments had been filed by someone else in his / her name. On May 23, Fight for the Future reported they had 'received a cease and desist order from Comcast’s lawyers, claiming that Comcastroturf.com ... violates Comcast’s “valuable intellectual property.” The letter threatens legal action if the domain is not transferred to Comcast’s control. “This is exactly why we need Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, “If Ajit Pai’s plan is enacted, there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like Comcastroturf.com that are critical of their corporate policies”.'[143][144]

In early May, Forbes reported that, "a group of activists, under the banner Battle for the Net, unveiled a campaign to generate letters to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complain about zero rating offerings, or free data programs." Forbes claimed that, "All of the groups sponsoring this petition are funded by Google, who is likely upset because zero rating is a way for startups to circumvent Google’s demands. Zero rating eradicates the idea that paid ads on search engines are the only way to gain visibility online."[145]

In early June, Battle for the Net, a coalition spearheaded by Fight for the Future, Free Press Action Fund, and Demand Progress, announced a "massive day of action" for July 12.[146] Over 50,000 websites, including multinational corporations, participated in what Fight for the Future called "the largest online protest in history".[147]

On June 15, 2017, Gigi Sohn, who had previously served as a top counselor to then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, published "4 steps to writing an impactful net neutrality comment (which you should do)":[148]

Write about yourself and how the net neutrality rules have affected you. Write about what you understand you are buying when you purchase broadband Internet access. Write about the choices you have (or don’t) for broadband Internet access. Write about what role you think the FCC should have in overseeing the market for broadband Internet access.

On November 21, 2017, FCC chairman Pai unveiled plans to repeal the net neutrality policy in the United States.[149] FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel alleged on December 8 that the FCC was withholding evidence of fraud due to irregularities in its comment period and said the vote should be postponed until after an appropriate investigation.[150]

Many organizations involved in the July 12 Day of Action planned an online protest for December 12.[151] A vote was held on December 14, 2017, with a 3–2 party-line vote approving the repeal.[152][153]

Within minutes after the vote, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced his intent to lead a multi-state lawsuit against the FCC to "stop illegal rollback of net neutrality".[154] Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson also stated his intent to sue.[154] On January 4, 2018, the current version of "Restoring Internet freedom" was published.[22].

US Senate to Force Vote (2018) With the end to net neutrality rules setting to end on June 11, 2018 the United States Senate has the proper amount of backing to force a vote on net neutrality. The vote is being forced under Senate rules that went into effect in 1996 called the Congressional Review Act. Senate Democrats feel that they have enough support within their party and with the help of Republican member Susan Collins. Because of the absence of Republican Senator John McCain, a vote of 50-49 would secure the victory for the proponents of net neutrality. A possible vote on the FCC ruling could be sometime in the week ending 5-19-2018. If passed the challenge would then have to go to the House of Representatives, and then on to the President if it were to pass through the House of Representatives.