Marvin Ammori is a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert. He was instrumental to the adoption of network neutrality rules in the US and abroad–having been perhaps the nation’s leading legal advocate advancing network neutrality–and also instrumental to the defeat of the SOPA and PIPA copyright/censorship bills.
Valarie Kaur is a Non-Residential Fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. She is a lawyer, documentary filmmaker, and interfaith organizer who helps communities tell their stories and organize for social change. She has made award-winning films and led multimedia campaigns on civil rights issues: hate crimes, racial profiling, gun violence, marriage equality, immigration detention, and solitary confinement.
Paddy Leerssen is the Open Internet Fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. His work focuses on digital media and communications law, with a particular emphasis on net neutrality policy. He previously held positions at the Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR), and the non-governmental organization European Digital Rights (EDRi).
Thomas Lohninger is a digital rights advocate in Europe mainly focused on net neutrality and surveillance. Together with the SaveTheInternet.eu campaign he coordinated the civil society efforts to push pro net neutrality safeguards within the european telecom single market regulation. He is an expert in the field of net neutrality and worked as Policy Analyst for European Digital Rights.
Today, 126 academics from Europe and around the world published an open letter to European telecom regulators urging them to protect the open Internet in Europe. Regulators are currently working on guidelines that will determine how Europe’s new net neutrality law will be applied in practice.
Though much attention is focused on the court’s vindication of the FCC’s reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II, the court also ensured significant protection of public interest regulations from spurious First Amendment arguments.
In November 2015, T-Mobile, the nation’s third largest provider of mobile Internet access, launched a new service called Binge On that offers “unlimited” video streaming. T-Mobile customers on qualifying plans can stream video from the 42 providers currently in the program – Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Amazon Video, and others – without using their data plans, a practice known as zero-rating.
Today's vote is among the greatest public interest victories in U.S. history. The FCC's strong rules banning blocking, throttling and paid prioritization will help protect innovation, economic growth, and democratic discourse in America.
Over the past two months, millions of people have taken to the streets to challenge our nation’s authoritarian new president.
From the women’s marches that took place across the country and around the world to the mass protests against the Muslim ban and immigration raids, people are resisting the neo-fascist agenda President Trump is unleashing on our nation.
A primary reason why millions have been able to mobilize so quickly is because they have the ability to use the open internet to communicate to the masses and organize a resistance.
In November 2015, T-Mobile, the third largest provider of mobile Internet access in the U.S., launched a new service called Binge On that offers “unlimited” video streaming from selected providers. Customers on qualifying plans can stream video from forty-two providers in Binge On – Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, and others – without using their data plans, a practice known as zero-rating. As currently offered, Binge On violates key net neutrality principles and harms user choice, innovation, competition, and free speech online. As a result, the program is likely to violate the FCC’s general conduct rule.
Cross-posted from the World Wide Web Foundation.
The post below is an open letter to European citizens, lawmakers and regulators, from our founder and Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Professor Barbara van Schewick, and Professor Larry Lessig. Join the conversation in the comments below or on Twitter using #savetheinternet or #netneutrality.
We have four days to save the open Internet in Europe
This report was filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) along with an ex parte letter on February 19, 2015
On Tuesday, October 27, the European Parliament will vote on rules intended to protect network neutrality in the European Union (EU). However, the proposal about to be adopted fails to deliver network neutrality to the EU and is much weaker than current net neutrality rules in the United States. Fortunately, it’s not too late to change course. Members of Parliament can still secure meaningful network neutrality for Europe — if they adopt key amendments on Tuesday.
Tomorrow, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal that will decide the future of the open Internet in Europe. The proposal is supposed to protect net neutrality, the principle that keeps the Internet an open and free platform, but it contains dangerous loopholes that threaten the future of free speech, innovation and democracy in Europe.
Wait, didn't we already win network neutrality?
Tomorrow, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal that will decide the future of the open Internet in Europe. The proposal is supposed to protect net neutrality, the principle that keeps the Internet an open and free platform, but it contains dangerous loopholes that threaten the future of free speech, innovation, and democracy in Europe.
Wait, didn’t we already win network neutrality?
Comcast Corp. v. FCC is a 2010 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast’s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management polices and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software.
In 2005, on the same day the FCC re-classified DSL service and effectively reduced the regulatory obligations of DSL providers, the FCC announced its unanimous view that consumers are entitled to certain rights and expectations with respect to their broadband service, including the right to:
"The diverse mix of organizations and companies coming together to plan a large internet-wide protest was a perfect example of “democracy in action,” Malkia Cyril, the executive director and founder of the Center for Media Justicesays.
"But Barbara van Schewick, a law professor and net-neutrality expert at Stanford University, believes that the FCC's independence has its limits. "Chairman Pai is up for re-nomination," she said, adding that Republican lawmakers were "burnt really badly'' by their repeal of the commission's impending internet-privacy rules earlier this year. "I think that has demonstrated to a lot of members that these are issues that their constituents care about passionately.""
"Malkia Cyril, executive director at the Center for Media Justice, said: “Communities of color across the United States depend on an open Internet to thrive. From resisting police violence to demanding fair wages – the political voice and economic opportunity that the Internet enables must remain protected by Title II net neutrality. Trump’s FCC seeks to wall these communities off from the power of the internet as a mobilizing tool and an equalizer.
"The European Union legislation on open internet access does not specify if zero-rating is allowed.
Instead, the EU lawmakers decided to leave it to national authorities to determine it on a case-by-case basis.
“They kicked the can down the road,” said Thomas Lohninger, long-time activist involved in getting net neutrality enshrined in EU law."
"“A pan-European regulator would be the prime target of every telecom lobbyist on the continent,” said Thomas Lohninger, a digital rights activist.
“Right now Berec is a room of discussion,” the net neutrality activist told EUobserver recently at a digital rights conference in Brussels.
“Berec is the sphere where they agree on the common interpretation, and it's quite fact-based. If Berec's decisions had an immediate impact on the pockets of multi-billion companies, they would certainly pay more attention to it.”
"Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice, said net neutrality protections have expanded freedom of speech by allowing anyone’s online voice to be just as loud as the next person or corporation.
"Our Take: This goes against the TRAI’s own approach to Net Neutrality regulation. In its ruling on differential pricing, the TRAI had noted:
“Intuitively, the case-by-case approach may seem reasonable. However, this approach creates substantial social costs as noted by Barbara Van Schewick in “Network Neutrality and Quality of Service: What a NonDiscrimination Rule Should Look Like,” Stanford Law Review, 2015.
"“Your information is very valuable,” said Scott Shackelford, Chair of the Cyber Security at Indiana University, Bloomington. “A lot of people do not treat it that way. We are very used to these days of giving away our private information without being compensated for it.”
The more of your information that is out there in cyberspace, Shackelford said, the easier it is for you to become a victim of identity theft."
"“There are some that would falsely claim that low-income communities would rather be tracked by AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon in order to get discounts online than have their constitutional right to privacy protected—but that's utterly ridiculous and insulting,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director at the Center for Media Justice."
"The FCC is prohibited from proposing new similar privacy regulations, under the Congressional Review Act, if passed. "So now we have a gap," said Ryan Calo, a law professor at University of Washington. "Presumably, the FTC could enter that gap, but it would require further action.""
Attorney and scholar Morgan Weiland ’06 will present Carleton College’s weekly convocation on Friday, April 22 from 10:50 to 11:50 a.m. in the Skinner Memorial Chapel. A leader in the study of the law and policy around the internet and other emerging technologies, Weiland has been active in policy debates surrounding telecommunications, mass surveillance, and network neutrality.
Carleton convocations are free and open to the public. They are also recorded and archived for online viewing at go.carleton.edu/convo/.
From the First Amendment to Net Neutrality. How Media Regulation Affects What We Say
Does the FCC's recent ruling on net neutrality promise more equal media access? Or will it lead to years of divisive litigation? FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn will discuss implications of the new rules and the role of media regulation in creating a free press; Victor Pickard of the University of Pennsylvania will look at how media regulation choices in the 1940s affect us today; Stanford's Morgan Weiland will explain what the proposed federal shield law means for journalists.
Date/Time: Wednesday, March 25, 12:00 p.m.
Location: Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
A Brave New Era? Or, Back to the Future? Are we in 1934? 1993? Or, 2015? The FCC’s order on the open internet – What did the FCC really do and what will it mean for internet service providers, online music and video companies, e-commerce companies, transit providers and consumers?
Join the Google Hangout here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c6a83iagabmjrqv1ut0h33gfvhk
On Wednesday, May 7th at 6:30 p.m. EST, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) will host a panel discussion on recently proposed net neutrality rules from the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The panel, moderated by Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post, will include:
The Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 14 through Saturday, November 16 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Textualism and the Role of Judges.
From local issues like the BART protests to national and international movements like Occupy and the Arab Spring, individuals and organizations are increasingly utilizing the Internet, social networking, and mobile devices to communicate and connect. This diverse panel from academia, public interest, and private practice, will discuss the opportunities and challenges for free speech as it increasingly moves from the town square to the networked world. Co-sponsored by the California State Bar Cyberspace Committee and the Stanford Center for Internet and Society
Evgeny Morozov and Andrew McLaughlin will debate the sincerity, utility and repercussions of America's commitment to a free Internet. They will discuss the desireability of network neutrality and network regulation in the context of US foreign policy, the ways to balance user privacy with the growing needs of law enforcement agencies; and the emerging threats to freedom of expression that are inherent in the technical design as well as the business imperatives of today's Web.
Barbara van Schewick is an Associate Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, an Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Electrical Engineering at Stanford's Department of Electrical Engineering and the Director of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. Van Schewick's research focuses on the economic, regulatory, and strategic implications of communication networks. In particular, she explores how changes in the architecture of computer networks affect the economic environment for innovation and competition on the Internet, and how the law should react to these changes.
"Veronica B.: Look at it this way. Imagine Amazon started a larva farm too, and they could pay for faster internet speeds, get on an internet fast lane, and advertise to their customers in a way that Patrick or any startup bug business couldn’t. See the problem? Okay, the edible bug-growing business might not be a priority for Amazon at the moment, but did you think Amazon would ever buy a grocery chain until they bought wholefoods? 10 years ago, did you think Google would get into self-driving cars?
This week on CounterSpin: FCC chair Ajit Pai has announced his plans to gut net neutrality; the former Verizon lawyer and Jeff Sessions staffer declared his intentions at a private event in DC. So the victory activists fought for—having broadband recognized as a public utility like the telephone, and not some sort of corporate gift—is in jeopardy. What does this mean for all of us who rely on an open internet, and in particular for communities of color, for whom the web’s relatively even playing field is crucial for communication and organizing?
"In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules that regulators. In a statement, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the ruling “ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalled innovation, free expression and economic growth.” RT America correspondent Manila Chan reports that the DC Circuit Court upheld the ruling despite heavy resistance from the telecom industry.
Morgan Weiland delivers Convocation at Carleton College entitled "Network Neutrality: A Perspective from the Frontline in the Battle for Free Speech in the Digital Era" on April 22, 2016.
The battle for net neutrality seemed like it was over — but the regulations left a loophole open. Unsurprisingly, ISPs quickly started exploiting it, offering "zero rating" services to do an end-run around true net neutrality. Last week's guest Marvin Ammori joins us again this week, to discussthe true and imperfect state of net neutrality, and the many games internet providers play.
From the First Amendment to net neutrality, How does media regulation affect what we say? The Sixth Annual Rebele Symposium addressed this topic with Mignon Clyburn, Victor Pickard, and Morgan Weiland. Ted Glasser and Christine Larson moderated the event.
When the FCC announced recently that it would adopt new regulations for the Internet – regulations commonly known as Net Neutrality – the announcement was widely cheered by champions of free speech and denigrated by those who feared this was government overreach. One columnist went so far as to say that Net Neutrality would let the government monitor religious leaders and their communications.
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to approve new net neutrality regulations. If the new rules are adopted, internet service will be regulated like a public utility, a move that will prevent companies from manipulating internet traffic.
It will be a major victory both for President Obama and for a swarm of internet companies that vocally supported net neutrality—everything from Netflix to Twitter, to Mozilla, Tumblr, and Etsy.
Professor Barbara van Schewick explains why meaningful network neutrality rules are critical to the future of the U.S. economy.
Learn more about Barbara and her scholarship at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/barbara-van-schewick
You can follow her on Twitter at @vanschewick.
*Originally recorded in December 2014
Full video also available on YouTube.