Google, Facebook strike back against FCC plans to reshape the Internet

Some 150 tech companies sent a letter to the FCC, saying proposed rules would undermine 'net neutrality,' which has fueled the exponential growth of the Internet, they say.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/File
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai testify on Capitol Hill in Washington in March. The FCC is considering new rules that could affect 'net neutrality.'

After years of setbacks, the supporters of “net neutrality” have begun a full-throated counterattack this week. On Wednesday, 150 tech companies including Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Netflix asked the Federal Communications Commission to preserve a core principle that has guided the Internet’s exponential growth since its advent decades ago.

At issue are new FCC rules announced last month that allow Internet providers such as Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to treat some content on the Internet differently. For example, they can create "fast lanes" that will move content across the Internet more quickly, but companies like Google and Facebook will have to pay to use it. This, critics say, is a violation of net neutrality, in which all content – whether it's a Netflix stream or an e-mail to grandma – is treated the same.

Internet providers such as Comcast say it's common sense that companies that make more demands on their networks – like Netflix – should pay more for quicker service. Critics say this would turn the Internet – one of the greatest engines of innovation and freedom in the 21st century – into the playground of the highest bidders.

So far, tech companies have been curiously quiet as the FCC has moved toward granting Comcast, Verizon, and the rest their wishes. But the open letter marks tech companies' growing concerns. The proposed new rules represent “a grave threat to the Internet,” these companies wrote.

“The innovation we have seen to date happened in a world without discrimination,” the letter continued. “An open Internet has also been a platform for free speech and opportunity for billions of users…. Instead of permitting individualized bargaining and discrimination, the Commission’s rules should protect users and Internet companies ... against blocking, discrimination, and paid prioritization, and should make the market for Internet services more transparent.”

The commission’s new rules came after federal courts struck down the FCC’s previous regulations, which protected an open Internet. In January, a federal judge ruled the FCC lacked the statutory power to forbid Verizon from creating a fast lane. In 2010, another federal judge ruled the agency could not forbid Comcast from slowing down certain file-sharing sites that were deluging its networks.

But Wednesday's letter, as well as the intensity of protests from consumer and social advocates in recent weeks, have begun to have an effect on the FCC’s board of five commissioners. Two of the Democrats on the commission have begun to express doubts about the proposal – though neither has rejected it.

On Wednesday, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel called for the agency’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, to postpone next week’s vote on the new rules.

“His proposal has unleashed a torrent of public response,” Ms. Rosenworcel said Wednesday in a speech in Washington. “Tens of thousands of e-mails, hundreds of calls, commentary all across the Internet. We need to respect that input and we need time for that input. So while I recognize the urgency to move ahead and develop rules with dispatch, I think the greater urgency comes in giving the American public opportunity to speak right now, before we head down this road.”

The other Democrat on the commission, Mignon Clyburn, also noted the overwhelming negative response to the proposed new rules, citing more than 100,000 letters from a host of Americans “to keep the Internet free and open.”

“There is no doubt that preserving and maintaining a free and open Internet is fundamental to the core values of our democratic society,” Mr. Clyburn wrote in a blog post on the FCC site Wednesday. “[And] I have an unwavering commitment to its independence.”

An FCC spokesman said Wednesday that Chairman Wheeler intended to keep the May 15 vote to move the proposal forward. According to FCC rules, the commission can no longer accept public input a week before next Wednesday’s vote, which means lobbyists and other interested parties may no longer offer opinions beginning Thursday.

Wheeler has rejected claims that the new rules gut net neutrality. The commission would allow a fast lane in “commercially reasonable” circumstances, which would be subject to a case-by-case review.

The two Republicans on the commission support the end of the net neutrality principle and support the idea that its demise will spur to greater investment in the Internet’s hard-wire networks.

“When Congress told us to encourage broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment, it also established the policy of the United States to ‘preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet ... unfettered by Federal or State regulation,’ ” said Ajit Pai, one of the commissioners, in a February statement. “Whatever the Commission does as it moves forward, it must take that statutory command to heart.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to