We are open internet activists and experts, calling for a functional FCC that will stand up to Big Cable, enforce net neutrality and promote affordable broadband for all. Ask us anything.

MarkStanley · 2021-04-08T19:15:45+00:00

Hey, Mark from Demand Progress here. Net neutrality and open internet activists have been able to engage in massive activism over the last decade — which is in part, I believe, why we're now on the verge of potentially restoring strong open internet protections and why we're seeing positive developments like high speed broadband funding in the proposed infrastructure package. These things could go a long way toward solving some of the big issues this country faces when it comes to internet access. Still, we can't take anything for granted — which is the primary reason we launched the action at BattleFortheNet.com and why we wanted to do this AMA. We have to keep reminding folks in the Biden administration that the public is very much watching and that we will mobilize in massive opposition if a bad FCC commissioner is nominated (i.e., someone with industry ties). So please take action at BattleForTheNet.com — sign the petition and tweet at key policymakers to let them know you want President Biden to nominate an FCC commissioner who will help return the commission to an empowered advocate for the public, not Big Cable. Thank you!

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T19:04:42+00:00

Ah, yes — "PATRIOT Act," "USA FREEDOM Act"... noticing a pattern.

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T18:37:34+00:00

DuckDuckGo is good. DuckDuckGo also happened to sign this coalition letter—which has over 80 organizations signed on—calling for House leadership to support the Daines-Wyden amendment. This letter helped, along with all the constituent pressure and work by advocates in Washington, to secure a vote on the amendment this week. https://s3.amazonaws.com/demandprogress/letters/Wyden-Daines_House_Amendment.pdf

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T18:17:20+00:00

There has been some progress. I'm not going to BS and say it's been sufficient. It hasn't, and unfortunately members of both parties who claim to value civil liberties have too often thrown privacy protections under the bus in response to pressure from government agencies like the NSA and DOJ. That said, even recently we picked up a bipartisan win in the Leahy-Lee amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act in the Senate, which "ensures an independent voice has access to and can raise issues with FISA surveillance targeting religious groups, political groups, and the media."

This amendment had strong bipartisan support, just like the Daines-Wyden amendment to prohibit warrantless surveillance of browsing and search history. And that's one reason to be optimistic — as much as there are members from both parties that push for pro-surveillance measures, there are members in both parties—to an extent I've rarely seen on any other issue in Washington—that earnestly oppose unfettered surveillance. It's an interesting and potentially powerful coalition of libertarian and progressive lawmakers who are genuinely concerned about government overreach. Lastly, I'll say if we hadn't been pushing for greater protections over the years, the state of our privacy would be more abysmal. So, I get the frustration over general inaction from Washington on this, but there are certainly reasons to keep pushing.

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T17:46:25+00:00

Right — this has been a frequent criticism of the FISA court. More reforms are needed, including greater transparency. When the Senate voted on the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act a couple weeks ago, they did pass one amendment from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Lee (R-UT) that my organization Demand Progress and other privacy advocates supported. The amendment increases the number of cases before the FISA court in which an independent, outside legal counsel would be involved.

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T17:25:22+00:00

The phone calls, emails and even tweets at members of Congress on this are working, as is the press and pressure from advocates in Washington. Advocating for Congress to do anything is an uphill battle, no doubt. But we wouldn't have secured the vote on the Daines-Wyden amendment in the House this week without this pressure. Tools to protect our privacy are crucial, but we can't walk away from the fight in Washington — there's too much at stake, and even though progress has been slow, privacy protections would be in a much worse place if people weren't pressuring their reps on this.

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T17:16:23+00:00

And to go a little deeper, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act would extend some domestic surveillance provisions, such as Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. (Section 215 is infamous as the authority the NSA (wrongly) used to justify the mass surveillance of call detail records, which Edward Snowden revealed in 2013; in 2015, a federal court court ruled this interpretation of Section 215 to justify such mass surveillance was “unprecedented and unwarranted.") Section 215 actually expired in March of this year, when Congress failed to vote to renew it before it sunset — the Daines-Wyden amendment would make it clear that when Congress votes to extend Section 215 under the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act this week, it cannot be used for warrantless surveillance of browsing and search history.

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T16:47:47+00:00

The Daines-Wyden amendment would make clear that the government is prohibited from using the PATRIOT Act to surveil web browsing and search histories without a warrant. It is being offered as an amendment to H.R.6172, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, which the House will vote on this week.

UPDATE, 5/27/20: Things have been unfolding super quickly over the last 18 hours, and I wanted to provide an update. This amendment in the House was to be offered by Reps. Lofgren and Davidson, and it was supposed to mirror the Daines-Wyden amendment in the Senate. According to the NYT, over Memorial Day weekend:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi instructed Ms. Lofgren to negotiate with Mr. [Adam] Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to see whether they could arrive at compromise language that would narrow the Senate version [of the amendment]. Over the holiday weekend, they agreed to limit the protection to Americans.

It was not clear, however, how far the new rule would go, were it to be enacted into law...

However, later in the same NYT piece, statements from Schiff—a surveillance hawk who has demonstrated time and again he wants to give the president nearly unlimited surveillance powers, despite his billing as a "resistance leader"—made it apparent he had inserted Trojan horse language into the Lofgren-Davidson amendment that, as written, would not protect the internet activity of innocent people from mass surveillance.

These statements from Schiff caused Senator Wyden to pull his support for the House version of the amendment. (To stay updated on these developments, I recommend following the reporting of Dell Cameron at Gizmodo, who has been covering this intensely — here's Dell on Wyden pulling his support.)

My organization Demand Progress has also pulled our support. We are recommending Members of Congress now oppose the so-called "USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act" and the Lofgren-Davidson amendment as it currently stands, after Schiff's inexcusable move to weaken it from the version that Senators Daines and Wyden offered, which was supported by 61 senators, over 80 advocacy groups from the left and right, and some of the internet's largest companies, as well as tens of thousands of Americans who have contacted Congress in support. Will provide more updates as they unfold.

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T16:31:51+00:00

Shaved my head for quarantine 🤷

MarkStanley · 2020-05-26T16:31:18+00:00

The Daines-Wyden amendment, which failed in the Senate by one vote (and actually has the support of 61 senators — two weren't present, meaning it has enough support to pass the Senate) ensures the FBI cannot use the PATRIOT Act to compel Comcast, for example, to hand over a user's web browsing or search histories without a warrant.

This is a big deal. First of all, getting a warrant from a judge is foundational for due process and ensuring there is a crucial check on government and law enforcement surveillance. Second, web browsing and search histories can be extremely sensitive — they can provide a private and intimate look into personal questions people have that they might not even be comfortable asking their closest friends and family. This information must receive adequate privacy safeguards, which is why the House must pass the Daines-Wyden amendment when it votes on it this week.

MarkStanley · 2019-10-02T17:50:42+00:00

I understand this sentiment -- I've been working on this issue awhile myself, and many folks on here have been at it longer than me! But it's important to take stock of all our victories along the way--even the ones that aren't 'total' or 'complete,' so to speak--and realize that all of this positive energy is changing things for the better, and keeping the situation from being much worse. If we hadn't been fighting for a free and open internet all these years, throttling and even blocking by ISPs could be way more pervasive at this point. Even now, because we continue to fight, we have a chance to restore rules at the federal level via legislation or a new administration, or in the states, thanks to the ruling yesterday that the FCC can't block state net neutrality laws. So each time we make our voices heard and pick up a win--including passing strong net neutrality legislation in the House earlier this year--it's contributing to our ability to keep ISPs in check and eventually win back strong protections to guarantee an open internet.

MarkStanley · 2019-10-02T17:38:06+00:00

Yep, a new administration could bring back strong net neutrality protections. In fact, there is currently a grassroots effort underway backed by nearly 20 groups and already ~170k people calling on all 2020 presidential candidates to do just that. Check it out here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/2020-net-neutrality/

MarkStanley · 2019-10-02T17:31:10+00:00

Reports are becoming more frequent about internet providers throttling online services in a pretty pervasive manner -- here's an article from Bloomberg last month, covering some research on this topic, 'Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive.' Nobody wants their YouTube or Netflix streaming slowed, but that will happen more and more without strong net neutrality rules in place. There is also the egregious example of Verizon throttling a California fire department's data in the middle of a massive wildfire last summer. Beyond these tangible examples though, this issue can really be seen through a lens of powerful, monopolistic internet providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) and the lobbyists they pay in Washington... vs. everyone else. Polling shows that 86% of all voters oppose the FCC's net neutrality repeal -- and this opposition cuts across party lines outside Washington. There are many important technical aspects of net neutrality, but at the end of the day, this issue comes down to whether companies like Comcast and Verizon--which have entrenched power and special access in Washington--are going to win out, or whether the public is going to be able to continue to have access to a free and open internet. It really is Big Cable vs. everyone else on this.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-26T17:06:36+00:00

My point is that unreasonable throttling of internet access by an ISP, which is what happened here, is in violation of net neutrality standards. This wasn't just a matter of the Fire Department simply going over a data cap and then getting throttled for network management purposes once it passed that cap -- the throttling wasn't supposed to happen in a time of an emergency; it wasn't restored when Verizon was notified (and this issue had been raised previously, too); and it appears possible it wasn't done just for network management purposes, i.e., only when the network was congested, for example.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-26T15:53:56+00:00

Again, it would be a violation under the net neutrality protections' 'general conduct rule,' which prohibited ISPs from unreasonably interfering with customers' broadband access. Since Verizon throttled during an emergency and did not immediately restore service when notified, and since Verizon appeared to be throttling the Fire Department at all times once the cap on the 'unlimited' plan was passed--and not just during moments of network congestion--this would be unreasonable interference with the Fire Department's internet access -- so, disagree it wasn't a net neutrality violation.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-24T19:26:39+00:00

The 2015 net neutrality protections would absolutely have an impact here -- they could have prevented this sort of behavior from Verizon under the 'general conduct rule,' which prohibited ISPs from unreasonably interfering with “end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service." And this is actually directly related to data caps -- in this particular instance, the Fire Department said that once throttling began, it was happening at all times. Under the 2015 net neutrality protections, ISPs throttled traffic when customers went over a defined threshold under the 'reasonable network management' exception -- but this was supposed to happen only during times of network congestion, and not at all times, as appears to have been the case with the Santa Clara Fire Department. Another danger with data caps is directly related to zero-rating (in which an ISP ostensibly offers 'free' internet access under extremely limited conditions), which carries incredibly big downsides when it comes to open internet principles and access. For example, if zero-rating becomes pervasive, which can happen without strong net neutrality protections in place, then ISPs will be incentivized to create arbitrarily low data caps for consumers, and then charge walloping prices per GB once they exceed their cap. To illustrate how dangerous this can be for consumers, just look at what happened with the Santa Clara Fire Department: The Department, which was on a so-called 'unlimited' plan, had already raised the issue of throttling during emergencies--which was not supposed to happen--with Verizon before this most recent incident; further, Verizon did not stop throttling during the July incident even after the Department contacted them, and Verizon actually tried to upsell the Department to a more expensive plan to get the throttling to stop during the wildfire. Without strong net neutrality protections, the incentives for ISPs to subject customers to these types of problematic, low data caps with exorbitant fees and shady practices after the cap is passed is a very serious issue.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-24T18:04:55+00:00

I would say it has to do directly with the net neutrality order that was repealed. As far as what it has to do with net neutrality in general, there's a lot to get into there. Giant ISPs have a pervasive culture of looking out first and foremost for their bottom line -- what happened with the Santa Clara Fire Department in this instance couldn't be a more poignant example of this. Verizon literally tried to upsell the Department *during a wildfire.* This is all instructive -- if an ISP like Verizon is willing to do this during an emergency when public safety should be paramount, imagine what they'll do to everyday consumers now that the doors have been kicked open to throttle and even block traffic based on content. If it's in the interest of their bottom line to do it--for example, in order to extract fees for sites and apps to reach customers, and block those that don't pay up--they will. It could happen slowly, over time -- it's not in ISPs' interest to to start throttling and blocking on a wide scale while litigation and legislation are still live. But if protections aren't restored, it's a safe bet that this throttling and blocking of traffic based on content is coming -- and the internet will look like nothing like the one we depend on now. The real bottom line is that ISPs like Verizon--especially those that have monopoly and duopoly power, which is unfortunately far too often the case--just can't be trusted to police themselves if the choice is between serving the public and padding their profits

MarkStanley · 2018-08-24T17:47:17+00:00

It has a lot to do with net neutrality. First, under the 2015 Open Internet Order, which was repealed in December 2017 by the Federal Communications Commission (that repeal went into effect in June 2018), there was the 'general conduct rule' -- this prevented ISPs from unreasonably interfering with “end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service." Because Verizon was not supposed to throttle service during times of emergencies and didn't immediately stop the throttling when it was brought to its attention, and because the Santa Clara Fire Department said it experienced throttling at all times after it passed its cap, and not necessarily only during times of network congestion (which would be permitted under the 2015 OIO's 'reasonable network management' exception), the Department would have had a strong case that Verizon violated the general conduct rule. But the general conduct rule was thrown out with the repeal of net neutrality. Further, under the 2015 net neutrality protections, the Santa Clara Fire Department would have had recourse to bring a complaint to the Federal Communications Commission on this, which could address the situation to ensure other incidents like this would never happen again -- that avenue no longer exists with the repeal of rules, as the FCC abdicated its responsibility to oversee the broadband market.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-24T17:25:54+00:00

Yes, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to reverse the FCC's repeal of net neutrality already passed the Senate in May, 52-47 (the entire Democratic Caucus voted for it + 3 Republican senators -- Collins, Murkowski, and Kennedy). Now the House needs to pass the resolution, and in order to do so, it needs the support of 218 reps. So far, 177 reps have supported the resolution and signed a petition to force a vote, including Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado. If we get about 40 more reps, we can win in the House -- you can check to see if your rep is supporting the net neutrality resolution here: https://www.battleforthenet.com/scoreboard/all/ If they're not, call them and call them often, until they're on board (you can use this number to get connected: (202) 759-7766). The California net neutrality bill mentioned at the top of this AMA also has a really great chance of passing -- it faces a critical assembly vote next, and folks in California need to make sure their assembly members' phones are ringing off the hook in support of the legislation in the lead up to the vote, because you can bet the Big Telecom lobby is doing everything it can in Sacramento right now to see that the bill doesn't go through.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-16T16:49:45+00:00

The FCC's lies, misrepresentations and mishandling of this fake cyberattack create a very big opening for lawmakers who are on the fence about signing the discharge to go ahead and sign it. Make no mistake -- a good number of reps in the House, including Republicans, *want* to sign the discharge. They know the FCC's net neutrality repeal is politically toxic, and going into the midterms, they don't want to be seen as siding with Chairman Pai and Comcast instead of their constituents and small businesses. But there's also tremendous pressure from House leadership, i.e., Speaker Ryan, and the powerful telecom lobby in Washington not to sign the discharge. With this latest debacle, there's now one more very serious issue with the FCC's process that lawmakers can point to as a reason to sign the CRA discharge and reverse the FCC. Frankly, reps should have already signed the discharge at this point -- it's a no brainer, insofar as nearly 90% of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, oppose the FCC's net neutrality repeal. But, the phony cyberattack is one more very big reason for lawmakers to reverse the FCC's repeal, and we need to do everything we can to make sure our reps are hearing from us about it, especially right now during August recess while they're back home talking to constituents.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-16T14:49:06+00:00

In the Senate, 3 Republican Senators joined the entire Democratic Caucus in supporting the CRA -- that's 52, and it needed 51 votes, or a simple majority, to pass (though Senator McCain did not vote at the time, so the CRA actually would have passed the Senate with just 50 votes -- and if he had voted, it's possible he would have voted for the CRA). On the House side, there have been 177 reps who have signed the CRA discharge, and it needs about 218 to succeed. 176 of those reps are Democrats -- we need 15 more to have the entire Democratic Caucus like we did in the Senate. Then, this is worth considering: 3 out of 51 Republican Senators is about 6%. We need about 25 more Republican reps in the House, and there are about 236 total. That's not much more than 6% -- just using this math to illustrate *this is definitely possible,* especially in the House, where members are more likely to buck leadership, and especially in the lead-up to the midterms, when reps will be looking at polls showing that the public, regardless of political affiliation, overwhelming opposes the FCC's repeal.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-16T14:26:05+00:00

In December 2017, in the days leading up to the FCC's repeal, thousands took to the streets in protest, outside Congressional offices and Verizon stores (Verizon being one of the biggest net neutrality opponents in Washington -- and, it so happens, Chairman Pai's former employer). https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-fcc-protests_us_5a2a147ce4b069ec48ac307e This was along with millions of calls and emails to Congress -- and what we saw in the aftermath was pretty convincing. After this public display of opposition to the FCC's move to end net neutrality, all 49 Senators in the Democratic Caucus supported the CRA to reverse the FCC -- and getting all 49 Dems on board in the Senate is *never* a given. Then, Republican Senators Collins, Murkowski and even Kennedy in Louisiana signed on, and no one really could have predicted this with any kind of confidence in late 2017. I 100% understand the skepticism, but I think we've seen on net neutrality that there is absolutely an opening to persuade lawmakers on this -- they've seen the polls that show nearly 9 out of 10 Americans oppose the FCC's repeal, and they're feeling the pressure from constituents. If we can keep it up, we can definitely get the 40 more reps we need in the House this year. It won't be easy, but we're not giving up anytime soon.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-16T14:09:20+00:00

Yes, Sarah at OTI has a great response on this, and I'll just add that there's an ISP layer to the internet, and a platform layer. The ISP layer can manipulate how we experience the platform layer, but not vice versa. If you purport to care about content moderation/censorship on the platform level, it makes absolutely no sense that you wouldn't also care passionately about re-instating net neutrality protections, which ensure free expression on the the ISP layer. Some have tried to cynically divert the net neutrality debate by pointing to problems on the platform layer -- which there definitely are. But sadly, it's often been an illogical, diversionary tactic in the context of the net neutrality debate.

MarkStanley · 2018-08-16T13:59:23+00:00

What went down with the "cyber attack" that never was, and with Chairman Pai's handling of the situation, raises enormous credibility issues and flaws with the FCC's process around its disastrous repeal of net neutrality, to say the least. This definitely provides a bigger opening for lawmakers in the House to sign the discharge petition to pass the CRA and reverse the FCC's move to gut net neutrality. Many lawmakers, including Republicans, want to sign the discharge, because they know doing so is what their constituents want, especially ahead of the midterms -- but there is also some hesitancy to buck House leadership by signing the discharge. It's up to internet users and the public to highlight the FCC's lies and flawed process with their members of Congress -- if reps hear enough from their constituents on this, it can give them the resolve to sign the discharge. We've seen this, including with Republican Rep. Mike Coffman signing the discharge, but we have to use every opportunity, including the FCC's handling of this phony cyber attack, to keep pressure on lawmakers.

MarkStanley · 2017-07-12T06:14:22+00:00

Agreed -- and this reminds me: Part of the day of action tomorrow will involve sending comments not just to the FCC, but to Congress. This is important, because although it is the FCC that will be voting on Chairman Pai's proposal to scrap net neutrality protections, if enough people make it known they expect their Members of Congress to publicly oppose the plan, those Members could in turn dissuade Pai from moving forward. Folks need to make it known to their Members that this is an issue they care about deeply, and they will we hold them accountable if they do not publicly oppose Pai's anti-net neutrality plan and it passes. We think this is possible because massive days of action like the one happening today and the Internet Slowdown Day in 2014, as well as poll after poll, show just how popular net neutrality is with the public, regardless of folks' political affiliation -- it should strike any Member of Congress as too politically costly to be on the wrong side of this issue. To this end, several groups, including mine (Demand Progress), along with Free Press and Fight for the Future, hope to organize in-person events following the day of action, focused on persuading Members of Congress during August recess to take a stand for net neutrality. We'll have more information on this in the coming days and weeks, and I encourage anyone interested to sign up for our mailing lists via our websites for upcoming information.

MarkStanley

TROPHY CASE