To try to stop the Network Neutrality rules established earlier this year, big cable has filed suit against the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Advocates have drafted a brief to let the court know that the people are not willing to give up Network Neutrality. In a matter of days, that brief will be filed with the court.

We urge you to read the brief and sign on to show your support. Then spread the word on social media, email, and word of mouth, so we can present the brief with as many signatures as possible.

From the Net Neutrality Brief website:

Without Net Neutrality, the big cable companies would control the Internet, and make it harder for us to access information that doesn't align with what's best for the companies' bottom lines or that disagrees with their political leanings. If Net Neutrality weren't the norm, we might even have been blocked from engaging in the online activism that helped secure the Net Neutrality rules that we're now working to defend! 

Read the brief. Sign the brief. Spread the word.

We are pleased to bring you a guest post from Levi C. Maaia, president of Full Channel Labs and a graduate research fellow at the Center for Education Research on Literacies, Learning & Inquiry in Networking Communities (LINC) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Levi is a strong advocate for local, family owned businesses and an open Internet without government or corporate gatekeepers.

The Other Half of Net Neutrality Regulation

The Internet was originally founded on principles of public service and education. In the past two decades, tremendous commercial potential has also been realized and the Internet is now the engine behind our new global economy. This potential, however, is predicated on the network’s original open and neutral methods of communication. 

Properly implemented net neutrality regulation has the potential to maintain a level online playing field for all 21st century industries, which rely on the Internet for all types of electronic communications and financial transactions. However, Chairman Wheeler's recent plan to enforce net neutrality through the invocation Title II authority ignores practices by some content providers that threaten the economic viability and expansion of affordable high-speed and gigabit access. A notable example of this practice is how online content is delivered under the ESPN3 brand.  

ESPN3 is an online-only sports television network owned by The Walt Disney Company and the Hearst Corporation. Unlike with other online video services such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video – where consumers choose to pay for content and access it directly – ESPN3 streaming content is available only to customers of ISPs that pay per-subscriber fees to ESPN for each of their Internet customers. If an ISP refuses to pay these fees for some or all of its user base, all of its customers are blocked from accessing ESPN3’s online content. Through the imposition of this legacy cable TV licensing approach ESPN3 is attempting to force ISPs into negotiating content deals in the same way that cable TV providers must do for broadcast retransmission consent and cable network licensing fees.  

In light of the recent FCC decision to restore some local telecommunications authority in Tennessee and North Carolina, it is time to examine the details. Join leading telecom attorneys Jim Baller and Marty Stern as they host a live BroadbandUS.TV webcast on March 13th to discuss Title II, network neutrality, and new possibilities for munis.

The event begins at 1 p.m. ET and is titled FCC Takes Charge - Net Neutrality and Muni Broadband: New Title II Rules for Broadband Access and Preempting State Limits on Municipal Networks. Registration is available at the BroadbandUS.TV website. More info about the event:

In this special edition of Broadband US TV we examine two historic decisions from the FCC: The decision to classify broadband access as a Title II service, and the preemption of state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that placed limits on municipal broadband networks.  We’ll dive into these issues with two panels of prominent players and experts on both sides of these white hot issues.  Hear details about the rulings, predictions on implementation and court challenges, and what these rulings are likely to portend for broadband in America over the next year and beyond.  On the muni broadband panel, our own Jim Baller, lead counsel to Chattanooga and Wilson before the FCC, will go from host to panelist and mix it up with our other guests.  We’ll be sure not to cut him any slack.

Guests will be:

Title II and Broadband  -- Pipedream or New Reality                                     

• Craig Aaron, President, Free Press 
• Chris Lewis, VP, Government Affairs, Public Knowledge
• Sarah Morris, Senior Policy Counsel, New America Foundation, Open Technology Initiative 
• Hank Hultquist, VP, Federal Regulatory, AT&T
• Barbara Esbin, Outside Counsel, American Cable Association
• Jonathan Banks, Senior VP, Law and Policy, US Telecom Association 

Kevin Taglang, recently published an excellent explanatory post for the Benton Foundation entitled What Section 706 Means for Net Neutrality, Municipal Networks, and Universal Broadband. He provides just the right amount of detail to get one up top speed on the upcoming decision and why it promises to be so influential. Additionally, he summarizes many federal programs relating to Internet access.

We already know that February 26th will be an historic day in telecommunications. On that day, the FCC's decision on new network neutrality rules and municipal broadband networks has the potential to literally change millions of lives. The decision will impact education, economic development, jobs, healthcare, communications, utilities - you name it. 

Taglang fittingly describes the series of findings from the FCC as a three act play. Read the text of the play, anticipate the conflict, see how the characters clash, and you will be the dramaturge. 

Act I: The FCC Considers U.S. Broadband and Finds It Lacking:

In addition to other factors, the FCC looked at the way we defined broadband (4 Mbps/1 Mbps), what capacity is needed to align with the way households use broadband (as in multiple devices simultaneously), and how ISPs market their services (25 Mbps as a minimum downstream acceptable). 

Accessibility rates showed divergent results based on urban and rural geography. The agency reassessed what is needed in schools for students and staff. The result was a decision to redefine broadband as 25 Mbps/3 Mbps and, once the agency determined that, the landscape changed dramatically. In January, the FCC adopted the Broadband Progress Report for 2015 [PDF], which asked what is advanced telecommunications capability now and are all Americans able to access that capacity?

From the arcticle:

This event was cancelled when Reddit chose not to list it on the calendar. We will be happy to do an AMA if there is sufficient interest in the future.

On February 26th, from 6 - 7 p.m. EST, join Chris on Reddit for an Ask Me Anything forum. We encourage you to chat in with your questions. He is ready to answer all your inquiries about municipal networks, community broadband, and the FCC action expected that day.

As our readers know, the FCC anticipates rendering a vote on Docket 14-28, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet. First on the agenda, however, will be the Chattanooga and Wilson petitions. If the Commission decides in favor of allowing these cities to expand despite Tennessee and North Carolina barriers, as Chairman Tom Wheeler has advocated, state barriers prohibiting or discouraging local telecommunications authority may be on the way out.

Chris will have front row seat at the FCC proceedings, so get your questions ready! We will update this post with the link to our AMA when it is ready. In the meantime, start thinking up questions!

Chris Mitchell spoke on TPR’s “The Source” about FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s support of Title II reclassification and future prospects for networks like The San Antonio Area Broadband Network (SAABN). 

Guests discussed how TV and Cable Lobbyists were able to create barriers to networks, whether the FCC has the power to preempt rules that limit competition, and why telecom giants like Comcast should not be able to make certain deals or degrade Internet speeds based on whether content providers pay extra money.

San Antonio was one of the founding members of Next Century Cities and has been working to link major institutions and the city’s medical center through CPS Energy’s existing fiber.

Listen to the interview:

Last fall, MPR's "Daily Circuit" interviewed Chris regarding President Obama’s net neutrality plan and how it could shape the future of the Internet.

Chris discussed why Obama’s request that Internet service be reclassified under Title II is necessary, but not sufficient to solve current market problems. Chris explained that right now consumers have very few choices, and big telecom is using its monopoly power to disadvantage competitors. 

Title II requires telecommunications companies to charge reasonable rates to everyone, rather than implementing “fast lanes” for certain companies.

Chris was joined by Chester Wisniewski, senior security advisor at Sophos. The interview was hosted by MPR’s Tom Crann.

Listen to the interview.

In 1927 Congress created the Federal Radio Commission, endowed with the power to assign wavelengths. It began aggressively doing so, booting hundreds of small stations off the air, to produce “clear channels” for the big firms—wide-open zones where they could broadcast with no interference. Amateur time was over, as the FRC explicitly warned in a memo: “There is not room in the broadcast band for every school of thought, religious, political, social, and economic, each to have its separate broadcasting station, its mouthpiece in the ether.”