Mozilla Has a Plan to Save Net Neutrality

The Firefox-maker pitches a new idea to prevent Internet “fast lanes.”

National Journal
Brendan Sasso
May 5, 2014, 11:09 a.m.

Moz­illa is ur­ging the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion to en­act new rules to bar In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders from char­ging web­sites for faster ser­vice.

In a fil­ing with the FCC on Monday, the non­profit found­a­tion that makes the Fire­fox Web browser out­lined a new leg­al path to en­act tough net­work-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions.

Chris Ri­ley, a seni­or policy en­gin­eer for Moz­illa, said the group’s pro­pos­al is “groun­ded in a mod­ern un­der­stand­ing of tech­no­logy and mar­kets” and would “help en­sure that the In­ter­net con­tin­ues to be an in­nov­at­ive and open plat­form.”

The fil­ing in­tro­duces a new angle to the de­bate over reg­u­la­tion of In­ter­net ac­cess, but it’s un­clear how in­ter­ested the FCC will be in Moz­illa’s pro­pos­al.

In Janu­ary, the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals struck down the FCC’s old neut­ral­ity rules. FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er wants to re­work the rules in a way that can sur­vive fu­ture court chal­lenges.

His pro­pos­al would bar In­ter­net pro­viders from block­ing any web­sites but (un­like the old rules) would al­low them to charge for spe­cial “fast lanes” in at least some cases. The FCC is set to vote on wheth­er to move ahead with Wheel­er’s pro­pos­al on May 15.

Lib­er­als are out­raged that the FCC would al­low In­ter­net fast lanes, say­ing it would al­low ISPs to pick win­ners and losers and would tilt the In­ter­net in fa­vor of the largest cor­por­a­tions.

Con­sumer ad­vocacy groups are ur­ging the FCC to re­clas­si­fy broad­band In­ter­net ser­vice as a Title II “tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions ser­vice” — a move that would dra­mat­ic­ally ex­pand the FCC’s leg­al au­thor­ity and al­low it to re­in­state strong rules that ban fast lanes. But re­clas­si­fy­ing the In­ter­net un­der Title II of the Com­mu­nic­a­tions Act would prompt a massive back­lash from Re­pub­lic­ans and busi­ness groups, who warn the FCC would be grant­ing it­self new un­checked reg­u­lat­ory powers and would risk stifling the growth of broad­band net­works.

In its fil­ing Monday, Moz­illa pro­posed a third op­tion. The FCC should use the Title II op­tion — but only for the re­la­tion­ship between web­sites and ISPs, not the re­la­tion­ship between con­sumers and ISPs, the group said.

The pro­pos­al would al­low the FCC to bar ISPs from char­ging web­sites for fast lanes while still us­ing the cur­rent light reg­u­lat­ory re­gime for oth­er In­ter­net is­sues that af­fect con­sumers, the group said.

Moz­illa ar­gued that its pro­pos­al is not “re­clas­si­fic­a­tion” be­cause the FCC has nev­er ex­pli­citly defined the re­la­tion­ship between ISPs and Web com­pan­ies.

“With our pro­pos­al, the FCC would be able to shift its at­ten­tion away from au­thor­ity ques­tions once and for all, and fo­cus in­stead on ad­opt­ing clear rules pro­hib­it­ing block­ing and dis­crim­in­a­tion on­line,” Ri­ley wrote in a Moz­illa blog post.

Har­old Feld, a seni­or vice pres­id­ent for the con­sumer group Pub­lic Know­ledge, ap­plauded the pro­pos­al, which he said is a “nov­el idea” for sav­ing net neut­ral­ity.

He said the fil­ing is sig­ni­fic­ant not only be­cause of the sub­stance of the pro­pos­al but also be­cause of who is mak­ing it. The cable in­dustry has been warn­ing against tough reg­u­la­tion, but Moz­illa’s fil­ing shows that power­ful busi­ness in­terests are on the side of net neut­ral­ity, Feld said.

“This cre­ates a new con­stitu­ency that says Title II is not a ‘nuc­le­ar op­tion.’ Title II is a tech­nic­al thing that you’ve got to do,” Feld said.

But Moz­illa’s pro­pos­al may not be much more polit­ic­ally vi­able than the full-scale Title II op­tion.

Ber­in Szoka, pres­id­ent of the liber­tari­an group Tech­Free­dom, said the “prac­tic­al ef­fect of their pro­pos­al would be al­most ex­actly the same as re­clas­si­fic­a­tion of broad­band gen­er­ally.” He said that the idea looks easy on pa­per but that in prac­tice it would be “messy, slow, and un­pre­dict­able.”

“Open­ing the door to Title II at all would still cre­ate sig­ni­fic­ant reg­u­lat­ory un­cer­tainty that would harm broad­band in­vest­ment, and thus make con­sumers worse off,” Szoka claimed.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×