The change comes as broadband and cellphone providers expand their efforts to deliver video and other content to consumers. Now, all that is legal as long as companies post their policies online. Internet providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast had to treat all traffic equally. They couldn't slow down or block websites and apps of their choosing. Nor could they charge Netflix and other video services extra to reach viewers more smoothly. The rules also barred a broadband provider from, say, slowing down Amazon's shopping site to extract business concessions. With net neutrality rules gone, AT&T and Verizon can give priority to their own movies and TV shows, while hurting rivals such as Amazon, YouTube and startups yet to be born. The battle isn't entirely over, though. Some states are moving to restore net neutrality, and lawsuits are pending. Also, the Senate voted to save net neutrality, though that effort isn't likely to become law. For now, broadband providers insist they won't do anything that would harm the "internet experience" for consumers. Most currently have service terms that specify they won't give preferential treatment to certain websites and services, including their own. However, companies are likely to drop these self-imposed restrictions; they will just wait until people aren't paying a lot of attention, said Marc Martin, a former FCC staffer who is now chairman of communications practice at the law firm Perkins Coie. Any changes now, while the spotlight is on net neutrality, could lead to a public relations backlash. Companies are likely to start testing the boundaries over the next six months to a year. Expect to see more offers like AT&T's exemption of its DirecTV Now streaming TV service from customers' mobile data limits. Rival services like Sling TV and Netflix count video against data caps, essentially making them more expensive to watch. Although the FCC issued a report in January 2017 saying such arrangements, known as "zero rating," are probably anti-consumer, the agency did not require companies to change their practices right away. After President Donald Trump appointed a new chairman to the FCC, the agency reversed its stance on zero rating and proceeded to kill net neutrality. Critics of net neutrality, including the Trump administration, say such rules impeded companies' ability to adapt to a quickly evolving internet. But consumer advocates say that the repeal is just pandering to big business and that cable and phone giants will now be free to block access to services they don't like. They can also set up "fast lanes" for preferred services -- in turn, relegating everyone else to "slow lanes." Tech companies such as Netflix, Spotify and Snap echoed similar concerns in regulatory filings. Martin said broadband providers probably won't mess with existing services like Netflix, as that could alienate consumers. But they could start charging extra for services not yet offered. For instance, they might charge more to view high-resolution "4K" video, while offering lower-quality video for free. The fees would be paid by the video services, such as Hulu, and could be passed along to consumers in higher subscription rates. More than 20 states sued the government to stop the repeal, as did the public-interest group Free Press and the think tank Open Technology Institute and Firefox browser maker Mozilla. Washington and Oregon now have their own net neutrality laws, and a bill is pending in California's legislature. That's another reason companies are likely to move slowly, at least at first. "They don't want to add fuel to the fire," Martin said.<doc-sep>Two pivotal developments this week could dramatically expand the power and footprint of major telecom companies, altering how Americans access everything from political news to "Game of Thrones" on the Internet. Monday marks the official end of the U.S. government's net neutrality rules, which had required broadband providers such as AT&T, Charter and Verizon to treat all Web traffic equally. The repeal is part of a campaign by Ajit Pai, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to deregulate the telecom industry in a bid to boost its investments — particularly in rural areas. "I think ultimately it's going to mean better, faster, cheaper Internet access and more competition," Pai said in an interview. Others disagree and will challenge Pai in court, while many states are fighting back with their own laws, further muddling the situation. One day after the net neutrality changes, a federal judge is set to rule on Tuesday on whether AT&T can buy Time Warner. AT&T, already the country's second-largest wireless network, stands to gain a content trove from Time Warner that includes HBO and CNN — leading the Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit, to argue that the company could harm its rivals. The two events in Washington could lead to further consolidation of wireless, cable and content giants, public-interest advocates say. And they fear that behemoths like AT&T might someday prioritize their own TV shows and other content over rivals'. Internet service providers, or ISPs, deny that they would engage in such a practice — yet consumer watchdogs worry that consumers would have little legal recourse if they did. "I think this could be a one-two punch to consumers and online competition," said Gene Kimmelman, the president of Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group. "The combination of no net neutrality and video consolidation creates new bottlenecks that empower the traditional media industry to raise prices and limit online competition." But Pai, who has visited 26 states and two territories, said he heard a different message from consumers as the government's net neutrality rules expire. His trips to places such Dahlonega, Ga., a city of roughly 6,500, illustrated that Americans feel they are "on the wrong side of the digital divide" and lack broadband options, he said in an interview in his eighth-floor office at the commission. "They are not concerned that Internet service providers are going to block access to lawful content." The expiring net neutrality protections, adopted at the FCC under President Barack Obama in 2015, for years prevented the likes of AT&T and Comcast from slowing Web connections, blocking access to sites and services, or charging content companies for faster delivery of streaming movies or videos. Such arrangements, known as online "fast lanes" in the eyes of critics, threatened hefty tolls that only the largest businesses could afford to pay, net neutrality advocates warned. Beginning Monday, however, the U.S. government no longer explicitly prohibits those practices. Internet service providers are required only to publish information about how they manage their networks. Violations of their promises — or behaviors that threaten competition or consumers — now fall under the watch of the Federal Trade Commission, not the telecom-focused FCC. When they adopted their repeal in December, Pai and his GOP allies argued that it would spare telecom giants from heavy-handed regulations that could crimp investments in broadband expansion. Democrats quickly charged that Pai had ignored roughly 22 million comments that flooded the agency as part of its official deliberations. Many of the commenters urged the FCC to preserve the government's net neutrality protections, which had treated ISPs similar to utilities. Pai said "misinformation" was behind some of the visceral online reaction he faced. "Some of the politicians who've been grandstanding on this issue have been misinforming the public," the chairman said, pointing to Senate Democrats who tweeted for months that an end to net neutrality would cripple Web speeds. For now, companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have said they would not block or throttle Web access or charge more for faster delivery of online content. "We're all going to wake up on Monday, and we're all going to be able to stream cool shows off Netflix or Hulu or YouTube," pledged Jonathan Spalter, the leader of USTelecom, a trade group for the telecom industry. Broadband providers, he said in an interview, had been "unfairly and inappropriately the target of this angst or fear." Pai also stressed that the FTC — the agency now in charge of policing whether telecoms abuse their power — is "going to be a powerful tool for weeding out any anti-competitive conduct." But some of the staunchest advocates of net neutrality protections insist the telecom industry's commitments to not block or charge more for the delivery of some content are insufficient, while the FTC lacks the expertise and authority to hold them to account. "I don't believe them when they say they're not going to do anything and they're going to honor net neutrality," Rep. Frank Pallone, N.J., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an interview. "That may be true next week, but over time I suspect they will start violating." Some neutrality advocates — with the backing of about two dozen state attorneys general — are shifting their attention to federal court, which is soon to hear challenges claiming that Pai acted arbitrarily in overturning the Obama-era rules. The case could "keep ISPs honest, so to speak, so they wouldn't make drastic changes on day one" after the repeal, said Michael Beckerman, the president of the Internet Association, which represents tech giants like Facebook and Google and is participating in a lawsuit. A more urgent battle is brewing in several states, which are passing their versions of net neutrality rules in defiance of the federal repeal. Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have adopted open-Internet laws, while governors in an additional six states have sought to address the matter through executive orders. In California, lawmakers hope a proposal making its way through the legislature could force the U.S. Congress to settle the issue with a long-elusive federal standard. "If that puts upward pressure on the federal government to enact robust net neutrality rules, then that's a good thing," said Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator and the bill's chief author. In response to the state action, USTelecom is "exploring legal action," said Spalter, citing the FCC's order explicitly preempting states from acting on net neutrality. At the FCC, Pai said the agency is "keeping all options on the table." "I'm confident that our decision is the one that best vindicates consumers concerns going forward, and protects them in the Internet economy that we have, and promotes a stronger economy for them going forward," he said. A few blocks away from the FCC, another legal battle is crescendoing: the Justice Department's war with AT&T over its $85 billion bid to buy Time Warner, announced in October 2016. DOJ lawyers have argued that AT&T's deal would lead to higher prices for consumers, especially if the combined company withheld popular channels, like CNN or TNT, until other cable providers paid higher rates to carry them. In response, AT&T has labored to poke holes in the government's economic analysis. Company attorneys also said during trial that AT&T has an incentive to ensure those channels are carried widely. No matter the outcome of the AT&T case, meanwhile, either side could appeal. AT&T declined to comment on net neutrality or the lawsuit. The verdict on the merger could have broad significance. Siding with AT&T might clear the way for more consolidation, while siding with the government could cause telecom giants to think twice about buying companies in new lines of business. Even now, federal policymakers have a full dossier of proposed megamergers to review, including the combination of wireless carriers Sprint and T-Mobile. "It is a period of profound change," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, one of Pai's chief critics, "and we are also watching a lot of the big get even bigger." But Republicans at the FCC maintain that existing law is sufficient to guard against misbehavior, even as telecom companies gobble one another up. "One of the concerns I see animating the AT&T case ... is this putting together of distribution and content," Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said in an interview. "But what I can tell you is, if an ISP reaches an agreement to act in a non-neutral way by blocking, throttling or discriminating against traffic, or anti-competitively affiliating its content above another business, that's a per se violation" of antitrust laws.<doc-sep>
Net neutrality is officially no longer the rule of the land. The internet traffic rules put in place under former President Barack Obama and celebrated by open internet advocates have been undone, with Monday marking the first day of the new regulatory system voted on by the Federal Communications Commission in December. The now-defunct rules required companies that provided internet service to consumers to abide by a series of rules that prevented them from blocking lawful websites, manipulating internet speeds or striking deals with companies like Google and Facebook for so-called “internet fast lanes.” The news rules now leave the policing of how internet service providers handle web traffic to the Federal Trade Commission, which is tasked with making sure internet providers don’t engage in “anti-competitive” behavior. Here’s how the @FCC’s new market-based regulation of the Internet will protect consumers, promote innovation, and encourage better, faster, cheaper Internet access. @CNET: https://t.co/uXX9K3beqe — Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) June 11, 2018 The setback is doing little to quell the enthusiasm of net neutrality advocates, who have been rallying around efforts to implement similar rules at the state level. There’s also a resolution by Democrats in Congress — with some Republican support — to undo the FCC’s decision and re-implement the Obama-era rules that has passed the Senate but faces long odds in the House of Representatives. “Congress can still overrule the FCC and restore net neutrality,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight For the Future, which has advocated for strong net neutrality rules. “We're going to make them.” Over the past six months, tech companies, small businesses, consumers and lawmakers have tried to prevent Monday’s repeal from happening, but to no avail. At least 22 states have filed suit with the FCC over the repeal and many have passed their own net neutrality laws. Those laws will be challenged by the FCC, which claims its rules preempt those at the state level. Many large internet service providers, including Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, have pledged to not block or discriminate against traffic. Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman, led the repeal of the net neutrality rules and continued to argue that the new system will be better for consumers and provide companies with incentive to invest in more broadband internet access. “Our framework will protect consumers and promote better, faster internet access and more competition,” Paid wrote in an op-ed published on CNET on Sunday. Net neutrality advocates have heard that argument before and don’t buy it. They counter that internet providers will slowly and quietly begin manipulating the internet with moves that will change the web from a level playing field to one tilted in favor of big companies. “The internet’s death will be slow,” Greer said. “You probably won’t even notice it happening at first. That’s what makes it so sinister.” Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democratic FCC commissioner who has been an outspoken net neutrality advocate, said in a statement on Monday that the battle over how the internet is regulated is far from over. “The momentum around the country — from small towns to big cities, from state houses to court houses, from governors’ executive actions to action in Congress — is proof the American people are not done fighting for an open internet,” Rosenworcel said.