SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
public knowledge
'Colossally Wrong Decision' as Facebook Parent Company Wins Instagram-WhatsApp Antitrust Case
"This court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Nov 19, 2025
Anti-monopoly advocates are warning that a federal judge's ruling in favor of Facebook parent company Meta in a major antitrust case will have negative repercussions for US consumers by allowing Facebook to continue wielding monopoly power in the social media marketplace.
Judge James Boasberg in the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp did not violate US antitrust policy.
Boasberg found that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had not proven Meta holds monopoly power in the personal social networking market, "largely because he folded TikTok and YouTube into the same market and concluded that their popularity reduces Meta’s share below illegal levels," said the American Economic Liberties Project (ALEP).
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, argued that Boasberg's ruling demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about the economics of the social media market.
"The court's opinion reflects a view of the market that is at odds with how digital-platform power operates today," he said. "Meta systematically acquired emerging competitors precisely because direct, head-to-head competition threatened its dominance. Meta’s consolidation strategy deprived consumers of innovative services and prevented the development of a truly competitive social-networking ecosystem."
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of ALEP, described the ruling as a "colossally wrong decision" that "turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it."
"These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family," she said. "By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Hegde added that it should now fall upon US Congress to "step in and break up Big Tech, prohibit addictive surveillance algorithms, and create the conditions for building a better future."
Open Markets Institute policy counsel Tara Pincock said Boasberg's ruling was "profoundly misguided," and accused the judge of blocking the FTC from reversing a mistake it made last decade when it signed off on Meta's purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp.
"Judge Boasberg erred in concluding that Facebook competes with TikTok and YouTube," said Pincock, a former state assistant attorney general in Utah. "I was part of the bipartisan coalition of states that brought this case alongside the FTC in December 2020, and the court’s framing misrepresents what is at stake. This case has never been about generic 'time and attention.' It is about how people connect, communicate, and build communities—and about how a powerful company abused its dominance to protect itself from competition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge's Ruling on Google Search Monopoly Decried as 'Slap on the Wrist' for Tech Giant
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said one critic.
Sep 03, 2025
A federal judge's Tuesday ruling on tech giant Google has drawn criticism from anti-monopoly advocates who say that it let the company walk away without having to give up its economic stranglehold over online searches and advertising.
As reported by The New York Times, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had to share some of its data with competing search platforms, while also placing restrictions on the company's ability to pay to ensure its search engine receives preferential treatment on web browsers and phones.
However, these remedies fell far short of measures requested by the US Department of Justice, which had asked that Google be forced to share more of its data with competitors and to sell off its Chrome web browser.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a scathing assessment of Mehta's ruling, and she urged the government to appeal and push for harsher penalties against Google.
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," she said. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."
She went on to describe Mehta's decision as "bizarre" given that he had "found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era."
Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, accused Mehta of letting Google get away with a "slap on the wrist" given the scale of the damage it has caused.
"Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation, and rob Americans of their right to read, watch, and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history," he said. "Judge Mehta's order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs."
Like Hegde, Lynn also urged the government to appeal the ruling.
Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the freedom of expression advocacy group Public Knowledge, took aim at Mehta for letting Google maintain control of both Chrome and the Android mobile operating system, even though he concluded that Google had abused its market power to stifle competition.
Phillips also suggested that elected officials needed to pick up the slack when it comes to holding giant corporations accountable for their actions.
"Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," she said. "Google's anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice."
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of human rights organization Amnesty International, also weighed in to express disappointment with Mehta's decision.
"This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google's power," said Callamard. "Google's toxic business model is built on pervasive surveillance. By tracking people across the web and monetizing their personal data through targeted advertising, the company has severely undermined our right to privacy."
Google was first sued for antitrust violations by the DOJ in 2020 under the first Trump administration, and then again in 2023 under the Biden administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Charter-Cox $34.5 Billion Megamerger the 'Last Thing' Consumers Need: Watchdog
"However troubling as this merger might be for competition, at least as troubling is what the companies might agree to in order to persuade the Trump administration and the current FCC to approve the deal."
May 16, 2025
Charter Communications and Cox Communications on Friday announced a $34.5 billion merger that—if approved by the Trump administration—would create the largest cable television and broadband provider by subscribers in the United States, sparking a flurry of monopoly concerns.
Charter, which uses the branding Spectrum, is already the second-largest publicly traded cable company, but coupling with the privately held Cox would push it ahead of the current industry leader, Comcast. According to a statement from the cable giants, the combined company would be known as Cox Communications, with Spectrum as the consumer-facing brand.
"The last thing American consumers need is yet another megamerger, as giant internet service providers and cable companies claim they need to get yet-larger to keep up with their industry peers," said John Bergmayer, legal director at the watchdog Public Knowledge, in a Friday statement.
"More consolidation won't fix the cable industry, and introducing new sets of competitive problems is no way to address existing ones," he continued. "As always with cable mergers, the question is as much a loss of opportunities for content creators and programmers to reach an audience, as the loss of choices to subscribers."
As NBC News—whose parent company is Comcast—reported:
On a Friday call with investors, Charter CEO Chris Winfrey called the deal "good for America" and said it will "return jobs from overseas and create new, good-paying customer service and sales careers."
The commentary comes as corporate deal activity has been slower than expected since President Donald Trump took office.
After Trump won the election, Wall Street rallied as many expected the regulatory environment to loosen and the floodgates to open for dealmakers and corporate leaders. But in the months following the election, companies have been contending with other factors rather than dealmaking, such as the Federal Communications Commission's investigation into diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, and the outcome of Trump's tariffs.
The Charter-Cox deal could face scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr. Journalist George Chidi said on social media that "in a sane world, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the FCC would block the merger of Cox Communications and Charter."
"Do I need to even complete this thought?" Chidi asked. "For the next three years and six months—assuming we are still having actual elections, it's corporate Christmas."
Public Knowledge's Bergmayer said that "however troubling as this merger might be for competition, at least as troubling is what the companies might agree to in order to persuade the Trump administration and the current FCC to approve the deal."
Trump has a long record of forcefully going after his critics, and experts—including Daniel Stockemer, a professor at Canada's University of Ottawa, in a commentary published earlier this month in the journal Politics & Policy—have warned that with his second term, the president is pushing the United States toward autocracy.
"Will the companies drop cable channels critical of this administration, or agree to censor online content or sites that the administration disapproves of—something the loss of Title II and net neutrality makes all the more likely?" Bergmayer wondered. "Given FCC Chairman Carr's proven willingness to use the agency's power to 'further the president's agenda,' and the willingness of companies to agree to get deals done, what could once be dismissed as paranoid speculation becomes frighteningly plausible."
"From walking back—even reversing—company policies designed to promote diversity and inclusion, to pulling back on news coverage critical of the administration, far too many companies have already put the short-term interest of currying favor with the White House over the public interest, and over the interests of their employees and the communities they serve," he added. "Hopefully that does not happen here."
Emarketer analyst Ross Benes told Reuters that "antitrust concerns are legitimate. But in this era of deregulation, the merger would probably pass as long as they don't upset the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Bogus 'Unitary Executive' Theory and the Dismantling of Democracy
We are a nation of laws, and we cannot be ruled by executive fiat.
Feb 20, 2025
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that purports to place independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, under his direct control. Based on the so-called “unitary executive” theory, which claims that any congressional limits on presidential control of every lever of government power are unconstitutional, this action poses a grave threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers—cornerstones of our constitutional system.
This executive order states that the president is charged with ‘faithfully executing the laws.’ This is true. However, the laws of our nation include the existence of independent regulatory agencies, the power of Congress to appropriate funds and direct how they are spent, and protection for certain government employees and officers from arbitrary dismissal.
Executive orders are not the law—they are statements of policy, and memos from the president about how the Executive Branch conducts its internal affairs. By attempting to use executive orders to override actual laws—the kinds that are passed by Congress, not issued on a whim from the Resolute Desk—the Trump administration is effectively asserting that it stands above the law. Indeed, that it is the law. But the role of the executive branch is not to decide what the law is, or to pick and choose which ones it likes, but to carry out and enforce the law, as written. Donald Trump is a high-ranking government employee—not a king. If there are laws he does not like, he can work with Congress to change them.
Donald Trump is a high-ranking government employee—not a king.
A nebulous and broad understanding of the phrase ‘executive power’ cannot prevail over duly enacted statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by presidents of both parties, over the course of decades. The U.S. Constitution did not change its meaning when President Trump took office. That this ‘unitary executive’ theory has made its way from the fringes of academia to the halls of power, and that it has even been accepted by some credulous judges, does not mean that it is right. Many legal observers have pointed out the shoddy scholarship and selective history that underpins it. We are a nation of laws, and we cannot be ruled by executive fiat.
In the order, the Trump administration purports to seize for itself the power Congress delegated to independent regulatory agencies, and as written, declares the White House’s interpretation of the law as ‘authoritative,’ with no mention of the courts. Of course, the president is not, and never has been, the final arbiter of what is lawful. Lawyers working for the government owe their allegiance to the American people, not to President Donald J. Trump. The many government lawyers who have already resigned rather than follow illegal or unethical directives from Trump's appointed political operatives are an inspiration, despite how frightening a hollowed-out Department of Justice might seem.
As for independent regulatory agencies, in addition to being the law of the land, they are often good policy. While I have sometimes disagreed with decisions taken by the FCC or FTC, under both Republican and Democratic control, I understand the importance of expert agencies that are free from day-to-day political interference. The FCC’s control over broadcast licenses, and its unenviable role of coordinating spectrum use between different industries and other government agencies, among other things, means it should be free to try to come to the best answer – not the one with the loudest political support. This applies to enforcement activities as well. Under the Biden administration, for instance, the FTC frequently investigated politically powerful companies, to the ire of many prominent Democrats and Democratic donors.
While I have sometimes disagreed with decisions taken by the FCC or FTC, under both Republican and Democratic control, I understand the importance of expert agencies that are free from day-to-day political interference.
President Trump, like other presidents have done, is free to express his views as to what the agencies should prioritize, and to nominate like-minded commissioners as vacancies arise. But, as directed by Congress, and reflected in commissioners' protection from being fired due to policy or political differences with the president, such agencies must make the final call on policy decisions.
The notion that independent agencies are ‘unaccountable’ is, on its face, absurd. The president nominates all agency commissioners, including ones of the opposite party, and names the Chair from among them. Agencies regularly answer to Congress, which controls their budget, and enacts the statutes that spell out the limited scope of their authority. Independent agencies cannot issue regulations without following the strict guidelines of the Administrative Procedure Act, and their rules and enforcement actions are regularly challenged in the courts, and occasionally reversed by Congress.
The wisdom of having independent agencies and tenure protections for certain government officials has been confirmed in recent weeks by the disastrous and irresponsible actions of the lawless Trump administration. One president should not be able to nullify statutes passed into law by past presidents and past Congresses with the stroke of a sharpie. Congress must re-assert its central constitutional role. Further, one hopes that federal judges and Supreme Court justices who, in the past, have lent their support to an imperial vision of the presidency, can see where this is going and act to limit the ability of the president to subvert our democracy and constitutional order.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Blow to Open Internet, Federal Appeals Strikes Down Biden FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," said one advocate.
Jan 02, 2025
Citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that stripped federal agencies of their regulatory powers, an all-Republican panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Thursday ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to reinstate net neutrality rules.
The panel ruled that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service," which is more heavily regulated under the Communications Act, and said the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit telecommunications companies from blocking or throttling internet content and creating "fast lanes" for certain web companies that pay a fee.
Last April the FCC voted to reinstate net neutrality rules, which were first introduced under the Obama administration but were repealed by former Republican FCC Chair Ajit Pai, who was appointed by President-elect Donald Trump.
The ruling cited by the 6th Circuit panel was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine last year. Under the decades-old legal precedent, judges have typically deferred to federal agencies' reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed an issue.
"Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC's vacillations" between imposing and repealing net neutrality rules, said the judges on Thursday.
The ruling serves as "a reminder that agencies are going to be neutered across any and all industries," said one observer.
John Bergmayer, legal director for the free expression and digital rights group Public Knowledge, said that by "rejecting the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, the court has ignored decades of precedent and fundamentally misunderstood both the technical realities of how broadband works and Congress' clear intent in the Communications Act."
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," added Bergmayer. The decision could harm the FCC's ability to protect against everything from broadband privacy violations to threats to universal service programs for low-income and rural households.
Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel for another media justice group, Free Press, said the ruling was "just plainly wrong at every level of analysis."
"In April, the FCC issued an order that properly restored the agency's congressionally granted oversight authority to protect people from any [internet service provider] discrimination and manipulation. That commonsense FCC order tried to ensure that the companies providing America with the essential communications service of this century don't get to operate free from any real oversight," said Wood.
Companies and industry groups that sued over the regulations, including the Ohio Telecom Association, "baselessly claim that any regulation will hurt their bottom line," Wood added. "Treating broadband like a common-carrier service does nothing to dampen or dissuade private investment in this crucial infrastructure. And the question for any court interpreting the Communications Act must be what is in the public's best interest, not just one industry sector's financial interests."
The groups, along with FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, called on Congress to take legislative action to protect internet users and small web businesses from discrimination.
"Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair. With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law," Rosenworcel said.
Congress must "clarify the FCC's authority—and responsibility—to protect the Open Internet and broadband users," said Bergmayer.
Bergmayer also noted that the ruling leaves states' ability to enforce their own net neutrality laws in place, and said the group "will continue to look to states and local governments to help lead on broadband policy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unacceptable': Court Blocks Net Neutrality Rules During Legal Battle
"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one," said one campaigner. "The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure."
Aug 01, 2024
Net neutrality advocates on Thursday sharply condemned a U.S. appellate court decision blocking implementation of the Biden administration's broadband policy while a legal challenge launched by the telecommunications industry moves forward.
Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel joined with Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks in April to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act—undoing damage done during the Trump administration.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are fighting to stop the FCC's order. After temporarily delaying the rules last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit just granted a stay. Oral arguments aren't expected until October or November.
"The 6th Circuit's stay will leave Americans without critical net neutrality protections and leave the Federal Communications Commission without its rightful authority over broadband," warned U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a joint statement Thursday.
"We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."
"That is unacceptable," added the senators, who have led the fight for reviving net neutrality rules in Congress. "We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."
Advocacy groups were similarly critical. John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, said that "it is unfortunate that the court granted the ISPs' request for a stay of the FCC's net neutrality rules. These rules would bar broadband providers from throttling connection speeds, blocking websites, and discriminating in favor of preferred internet traffic."
"Millions of Americans have expressed support for these rules by submitting comments with the FCC urging the agency to enact these protections," he noted. "Consumers need net neutrality rules as well as the other consumer benefits provided by the FCC's recognition that broadband is a 'telecommunications' service, including online privacy, public safety and national security, and affordable, competitive broadband service."
"Despite this court's action, we remain confident that the FCC's rules—and classification of broadband as a telecommunication service under Title II of the Communications Act—will ultimately be upheld, just as they were before—or that Congress will step in to reinstate these popular and necessary protections," Bergmayer added.
Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood also characterized the stay as unfortunate but stressed that "we believe that the litigation to follow will dispel these unfounded phone-and cable-company arguments about Title II's supposed harms and about the commission's authority to classify broadband providers properly under the statute."
"Industry lobbyists and other net neutrality opponents have argued, loudly but cynically, that the Trump-era repeal somehow spurred broadband deployment and speed increases, claiming that the rules' presence impairs those upgrades. This is nonsense, as Free Press has shown time and time again by examining the companies' own financial statements and investor briefings," he highlighted. "Today's order unfortunately accepts the false premise that the FCC's rules prevent broadband providers from rolling out new products. ISPs make such claims only in court; they never make them to their investors."
"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one. The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure," Wood continued. "While we hit a procedural hurdle today, Free Press is determined to see the FCC's decision go into effect. The 6th Circuit will still need to evaluate the ISPs' and FCC's arguments in full when it reviews the case on the merits. We're confident that we will ultimately prevail in this case, even in the wake of this disappointing outcome and even in light of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at weakening federal agencies' oversight."
Rosenworcel was also determined to defend the FCC's decision, declaring Thursday that "the American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today's decision by the 6th Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Should Celebrate': FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules
"Today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people," said one advocate.
Apr 25, 2024
Open internet advocates on Thursday applauded the Federal Communications Commission's long-anticipated vote to revive net neutrality rules and reestablish FCC oversight of broadband.
The 3-2 vote along party lines to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act came seven months after FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced the push in the wake of the U.S. Senate confirming Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks joined Rosenworcel and Gomez to launch the rulemaking process last year and finalize the policy change on Thursday. Commissioner Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington both aligned with the powerful telecom industry by opposing the effort to prevent internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful online content.
Demand Progress Education Fund senior campaigner Joey DeFrancesco said the revival "has been desperately needed" since former FCC Chair Ajit Pai—an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump—led the "disastrous decision" in 2017 to gut a 2015 agency policy codifying the principle that has been foundational to the internet since its inception.
"Internet access is not a luxury, but a necessity to participate in society and survive in our modern economy," DeFrancesco stressed. "The FCC's new rule will ensure the commission has the full ability to expand broadband and the authority to ensure access to an open internet."
"The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "everyone should celebrate today's FCC vote."
"Public support for net neutrality is overwhelming, and people understand why we need a federal watchdog to protect everyone's access to the most essential communications platform of our time," he noted. "The FCC heard the outcry and did its job: delivering on promises to stand with internet users and against big telecom companies and their trade groups, which have spent untold millions of dollars to spread lies about net neutrality and thwart any oversight or regulation."
Aaron praised Rosenworcel and her staff for leading the restoration effort, as well as Starks and Gomez for working with her to reverse the Trump FCC's move and ensure "that the agency can once again protect internet users whenever big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon attempt to harm them."
"Big cable and phone companies won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that these companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination," he emphasized. "This is what democracy should look like: Public servants responding to public sentiment, taking steps to protect just and reasonable services and free expression, and showing that the government is capable of defending the public interest."
Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and current Common Cause special adviser, was similarly enthusiastic, saying that "if I weren't out of the country today, I would be personally at the FCC jumping up and down, saluting the majority for reinstituting the network neutrality rules that were so foolishly eliminated by the previous commission."
"Our communications technologies are evolving so swiftly, affecting so many important aspects of our individual lives, that they must be available to all of us on a nondiscriminatory basis. And they must advance the public interest, protecting consumers, fostering competition, and providing us all the news and information we need as we fight to maintain our democracy," he continued. "We still have much to do; but today, let's celebrate a huge step forward."
The vote notably comes during an election year—and as Democratic President Joe Biden, a net neutrality supporter, is gearing up for a November rematch against Trump.
"The internet is crucial to civic engagement in the United States today. It functions as a virtual public square where social justice movements organize and garner support," said Common Cause's Ishan Mehta. "The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, also piled on the praise, proclaiming that "today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people."
"We are thrilled that the FCC now has the authority it needs to protect consumers, promote the exercise of First Amendment rights online, and ensure that everyone has access to high-quality, affordable internet," she said. "However, we urge the commission not to exercise its authority to preempt consistent state laws that grant consumers additional protections."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, also celebrated the vote while stressing that the commission's work is far from over. In addition to warning of court fights to come, he said that "broadband providers will continue attempting to rebrand their old plans for internet fast and slow lanes, hoping to sneak them through."
"The FCC will need to diligently enforce its rules," Bergmayer argued, "including clarifying that discrimination in favor of certain apps or categories of traffic 'impairs' and 'degrades' traffic that is left in the slow lane, and that broadband providers cannot simply take apps that people use on the internet every day and package them as a separate 'nonbroadband' service."
"The FCC must also ensure that practices that are not expressly prohibited but still unreasonably interfere with the ability of end users to freely use the internet, or of edge providers to freely compete, are disallowed," he added. "These practices include discriminatory zero-rating and network interconnection practices."
Like Leventoff, he also recognized the vital role of states with stricter policies, saying that those "with excellent net neutrality and broadband consumer protection statutes, like California, can be a nationwide model for other states and the FCC to adopt to strengthen their own rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Campaigners Cheer FCC Plan to Vote on Restoring Net Neutrality Rules
"A healthy democracy requires a well-informed and educated public, but that's not possible without an open and accessible internet."
Apr 03, 2024
Open internet advocates on Wednesday welcomed the Federal Communications Commission's plan to vote on reestablishing FCC oversight of broadband and restoring net neutrality rules on April 25.
"The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential," said FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, who announced the restoration effort in September, shortly after the U.S. Senate confirmed Anna Gomez to a long-vacant seat on the five-member commission. The following month, the pair joined with Commissioner Geoffrey Starks to start the rulemaking process.
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair," Rosenworcel explained Wednesday. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet."
The three Democratic commissioners aim to reverse a deeply unpopular rollback that happened under former Republican President Donald Trump by reclassifying broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act and preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking legal content, creating fast lanes, and throttling speeds.
"We've been fighting for this moment since Trump's FCC threw out strong Title II rules and abandoned net neutrality back in 2017—and really for nearly 20 years since net neutrality first came under threat," Free Press Action co-CEO Craig Aaron
said of the upcoming vote. "We welcome and celebrate the FCC's decision to move ahead and make sure that internet users will again be protected against harms by big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon."
"Under these strong but flexible FCC rules, every ISP will be responsible for making resilient networks available to people on just and reasonable terms," he noted. "And they won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that the phone and cable companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination."
Aaron warned that "without this clear authority over broadband access, the FCC is vastly weakened in its ability to protect internet users from ISPs' privacy invasions, promote broadband competition and deployment, and take action against hidden junk fees, data caps, and billing rip-offs."
Public Knowledge legal director John Bergmayer similarly applauded the commission's effort, stressing that "broadband is now a necessity for work, education, entertainment, healthcare, social connection, and civic engagement."
"Title II classification is the foundation of net neutrality," Bergmayer said. "With this legal tool, the FCC can reassert its role as the nation's top cop on the broadband beat. It will help the FCC more fully address digital redlining, ensuring that broadband access is not denied or degraded to low-income areas, or based on people's race or other protected characteristics."
"It will give the FCC clearer authority to promote network reliability and resiliency, so that users have a consistent internet experience that is ready for times of crisis and recovers quickly from outages," he continued. "It will also help the FCC combat cyber attacks and address other national security risks that could cripple our increasingly internet-dependent economy and society."
"Title II is also a pro-competition tool. It will help the FCC streamline the deployment of new broadband networks and reduce barriers to competition," Bergmayer added.
The FCC's vote is scheduled to happen just months away from the November presidential election, in which Trump is expected to again face Democratic President Joe Biden, who called for restoring net neutrality with a 2021 executive order.
"The internet is a gateway to democracy for many and every voter has the right to a free and fair internet. From looking up information about candidates to finding polling sites, this net neutrality proposal will make it easier for every voter to participate in our modern democracy," said Common Cause Media & Democracy Program director Ishan Mehta.
"We strongly encourage the FCC to restore net neutrality and return control of the internet to the people," he added. "Especially in a major election year, the FCC must do all it can to protect every voter's right to basic information online."
Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, now a special adviser to Common Cause, agreed that the pending rules are especially important for those participating in elections.
"A healthy democracy requires a well-informed and educated public, but that's not possible without an open and accessible internet," he said. "We look forward to strengthening a healthy communications ecosystem for all voters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Takes 'Great Step' Toward Restoring Net Neutrality Rules
One expert called the move "a no-brainer to the millions of Americans who want the FCC to work to ensure that all of us are connected to quality, affordable, open, and secure broadband networks."
Oct 19, 2023
Open internet advocates applauded on Thursday as Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission voted to begin reestablishing FCC oversight of broadband and reviving net neutrality rules rolled back under former President Donald Trump.
"Today's vote is an important start to restoring internet freedom and openness," said Public Knowledge president and CEO Chris Lewis. "Over the next few months, the FCC and the public at large will have an opportunity to look carefully at the benefits of having broadband included in the communications networks that fall under FCC authority."
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced her plan to ensure broadband is treated as a public utility last month. Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks on Thursday joined her in voting for the related notice of proposed rulemaking, which was opposed by Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington.
"The notice of proposed rulemaking adopted today seeks comment on classifying fixed and mobile broadband internet service as an essential 'telecommunications' service under Title II of the Communications Act," the FCC explained. "The proposal also seeks to restore clear, nationwide open internet rules that would prevent internet service providers [ISPs] from blocking legal content, throttling speeds, and creating fast lanes that favor those who can pay for access."
Lewis asserted that "this commonsense classification is a no-brainer to the millions of Americans who want the FCC to work to ensure that all of us are connected to quality, affordable, open, and secure broadband networks."
The FCC previously voted in favor of net neutrality rules in 2015, under former President Barack Obama. Those regulations were rolled back in 2017, when the FCC was led by Ajit Pai—a former telecom industry lawyer and an appointee of Trump, the GOP's 2024 presidential front-runner.
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order encouraging the FCC to restore net neutrality rules. However, such efforts were stalled by a divided commission—until the U.S. Senate finally confirmed Gomez to a long-vacant seat early last month.
"When Trump's FCC Chair Ajit Pai led the repeal of net neutrality and rolled back Title II classification for broadband access, it was a huge win for the telecom industry and its executives," Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz said Thursday. "We applaud the FCC for not giving up this fight in the face of the seemingly endless effort by corporate giants and their lobbyists to block commonsense and broadly popular open internet protections."
"By restoring Title II oversight, the FCC can prevent net neutrality violations at the hands of powerful ISPs, as well as expand affordable broadband access and stop dangerous privacy abuses," she continued. "Given the widespread public support for these reforms, it's vital the FCC continue to move decisively toward reinstating strong Title II protections, and that members of Congress stand with their constituents by publicly supporting this effort."
Free Press co-CEO Jessica J. González similarly stressed that "Pai ignored the overwhelming public consensus" with the rollback and "people across the country are demanding these open internet safeguards, which will allow the FCC to ensure that everyone in the United States—no matter their location, political persuasion, race or income—has affordable, reliable, and safe internet connections free from discrimination, blocking, or other ISP manipulation."
"In a last-ditch attempt to win over public opinion, these companies are bankrolling a disinformation campaign designed to paint the agency's popular Obama-era rules as bad for business and the American way," she noted. "But no amount of lies from the broadband industry and their congressional allies will change the fact that we need a watchdog protecting internet users' interests and defending their right to an open and affordable internet."
"Broadband providers and their spin doctors are deeply out of touch with people across the country who are fed up with high prices and poor customer service," González argued. "We need a referee on the field to call fouls and issue penalties when broadband companies are being unfair."
Lewis emphasized that "now is the time for the public to take action," and pledged that Public Knowledge will be "filing detailed comments in the record on behalf of the public interest in the coming months."
"Many commenters have focused only on net neutrality protections, however, there are many important protections that Title II authority brings on behalf of the public, from network reliability, outage, and public safety standards, to looking at the important values of universal service, privacy, and competition and fair pricing," he said. "We are already creating resources for those who are unfamiliar with the many benefits of placing broadband under FCC authority."
"We encourage all members of the public to make their voice heard at the FCC and in Congress where legislators are watching closely," he added. "Your senators and representatives need to know that you support FCC authority over broadband to protect open, secure, and affordable broadband access."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy