The Federal Communications Committee (FCC) was successful in repealing the net neutrality rules that the previous FCC leadership passed in 2015. However, Congress can still pass a law to simply reverse the repeal or even improve on the previous net neutrality rules.

Net Neutrality Rules Repealed

Back in February, FCC’s new chairman Ajit Pai, who is a former Verizon lawyer, issued a “Restoring Internet Freedom” order in the Federal Registry. That order has now gone into effect, which means the net neutrality rules have been canceled.

The objective of the net neutrality rules has been primarily to stop discrimination from internet service providers (ISPs) against both large and small websites based on the type of content they serve. This is how the term “net neutrality” was coined -- the idea was that every bit is the same and that ISPs can’t charge differentiated prices based on different types of services.

Potential Outcomes Resulting From The Repeal

Without the net neutrality rules, and in the context of a non-competitive ISP market in the United States, many fear that the ISPs will start charging websites additional fees depending on the type of content they serve through the ISPs’ networks.

Furthermore, the ISPs could also throttle or even block competing services. Before the FCC passed the net neutrality rules in 2015, there were already reports that Verizon and Comcast were slowing down Netflix, YouTube, and other services. Netflix and Google ended up cutting a deal with the ISPs.

The major issue with this tactic is that ISP customers already pay to get the whole internet at a certain speed. The ISPs are essentially breaking that contract with the users when they start picking and choosing which services to deliver at normal speed.

Many also feared that without the net neutrality rules in place, the ISPs could start offering its customers “service packages,” which would splinter the internet. As a result, the internet could become more like the TV networks, where you pay for different packages of internet services.

FCC And ISPs Misled Congress

Besides the recent discovery that the FCC has made false statements to Congress about a DDoS attack against its public commenting system, the FCC and the ISPs have made some other misleading statements, too.

For instance, both the ISPs and the FCC have claimed that net neutrality has hurt investment. In reality, the ISPs' investments have continued to grow in the two years of post-net neutrality rules. Comcast even claimed that its first quarter of 2017 was its best in five years.

Another misleading ISP claim is that they want to get rid of Title II, and not net neutrality rules in general. However, without Title II, the FCC was no longer able to regulate ISPs due to a lawsuit that Verizon brought against the FCC to revoke the 2010 basic net neutrality rules. Verizon won that case because the FCC didn’t have to power to regulate the ISPs under the Title I classification that the ISPs were regulated under before.

Congress Can Establish A Strong Net Neutrality Framework

When fighting against the 2015 net neutrality rules, the ISPs said almost in unison that they would prefer to leave net neutrality rules to Congress instead of the FCC. Chances are they were saying that to make it more likely that the FCC’s rules would be repealed, or so they could support a bill with much weaker regulations and perhaps even some benefits for the ISPs.

Ideally, Congress should be the one to pass a net neutrality law, just as other countries’ Parliaments and governments have done, including the European Union, Brazil, and India. This way, the internet rules wouldn’t change every few years when the two main parties get to appoint their own FCC chairman. Net neutrality could become a campaign issue during the mid-term elections this year, which means it may have a better shot at becoming law if the people demand it from the candidates that want their votes.

In the meantime, Congress can still reverse FCC’s net neutrality repeal order through the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the same power Congress used earlier this year to reverse the previous FCC chairman’s broadband privacy framework. The Senate has already voted to save net neutrality, but it’s now up to House representatives to vote the same way.

Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) asked FCC chairman Ajit Pai to investigate fake comments made on the commission's website during its comment period for the net neutrality rule changes. Merkley and Toomey said both of their identities were stolen and used to make fake comments, which gave both of them a reason to work together on this issue, despite being in opposing parties.

In their letter to Pai, the senators said that as many as 2 million Americans had their identities stolen and used to make fake comments on the FCC's website supporting the net neutrality rule change. These fake comments may have given the FCC the impression that many Americans supported its plan to repeal net neutrality--which is set to go into effect on June 11--even though most people actually opposed it.

Merkley and Toomey are far from the first to ask the FCC to investigate fraudulent comments. The Fight For The Future digital rights organization said in May 2017 that over 450,000 anti-net neutrality comments were made by a botnet using stolen identities. Victims demanded that the FCC notify people whose identities were used to make the comments, remove the comments from its website, and further investigate the issue.

Former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman released a tool in December 2017 to help people find out if their identities were used to make false comments on the FCC website. Schneiderman said in a letter to Pai that his office reached out to "multiple top FCC officials, including you, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC’s Inspector General" about the investigation. None of the officials responded.

Good news finally came in January, when the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said it would formally investigate fraudulent comments made during the net neutrality repeal comment period. The GAO was careful to note that it would only look into “fraud and misuses of American identities,” which meant it would exclude bot comments that didn't use stolen identities, but at least something was happening.

Yet here we are months later with yet more prodding for the FCC to investigate these comments. Merkley and Toomey sent over these questions:

How is the FCC working with the Department of Justice to identify those who submitted fake comments?Is the FCC working with state attorneys general to determine whether state crimes were broken when these identities were stolen?What measures is the FCC taking to ensure this does not happen in the future?How can the FCC track down who misused the identities of two million Americans?Can the FCC determine how many of the fake comments on record were submitted by bots, a software application that runs automated tasks (scripts) over the Internet?Has the FCC considered using a CAPTCHA, or other security technology, to prevent fraudulent machine input?Is the FCC aware of any foreign government submitting fake comments and for what purpose?

Neither the FCC nor Pai have publicly responded to the letter from Merkley and Toomey. Pai did find the time, however, to tweet about the anniversary of Pac-Man's debut. Fitting, given that the FCC seems to be as willing to accept false comments supporting its controversial plans as Pac-Man is to gobble up pellets. Let's hope the specter of increased scrutiny works half as well on the FCC as Pac-Man's ghosts do in their game.

It's been five months since the FCC voted to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections. Now the commission has announced that it plans to do away with these regulations on June 11, which is 30 days after the order revoking the rules will be finalized and published in the Federal Register.

Ordinary citizens, tech companies, and rights organizations have all protested the FCC's plan to revoke net neutrality protections ever since commissioner Ajit Pai revealed it. At one point, the FCC website's comment section crashed because so many people were commenting, although many of those "people" were bots using stolen identities to support Pai's proposal.

Yet those complaints weren't enough to stop the FCC.The FCC has used the last five months to finalize the proposal, presumably with the intent of making it as hard as possible to continue to protest the repeal.

Here's the good news: Democratic senators are scrambling to start a vote to block the FCC's repeal. Reuters said a vote could happen as early as next week, and thus far 50 senators (47 Democrats, two independents, and one Republican) are planning to stop the FCC's plan from moving forward. If that happens, the net neutrality protections should remain in place, which is what the majority of Americans wanted to begin with.

The U.S. Senate isn't the only group working to stop the FCC's repeal. On May 9, digital rights organizations and tech companies kicked off the Red Alert for Net Neutrality movement, which aims to remind internet users to contact their representatives and let them know to oppose the FCC's plan. State lawmakers have also voted to block the FCC's repeal and, in some cases, introduce their own net neutrality protections.

These efforts have one month to show results. Otherwise, the FCC's plan to gut net neutrality will move forward, and unless the political climate drastically changes during the mid-term and/or next presidential elections, it could be a long while before they return.

One day after the FCC’s formal repeal of net neutrality regulation was published, a coalition of states has re-filed its lawsuit challenging the order.

On February 22, the FCC published its formal action, the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order,” for repealing Obama-era net neutrality regulations. It follows the FCC’s December 14 vote to roll back Title II classification for ISPs. The order will come into effect on April 23 and will effectively remove direct government oversight and regulation of ISPs, allowing them to use unfair tactics in their business.

Among the first initiatives to oppose the repeal was a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 22 states and Washington DC. The initial petition was just a first step in the coalition's attempt to appeal the FCC’s decision. With the repeal now formalized as the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the coalition has re-filed its petition “to formally commence their lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission’s illegal rollback of net neutrality.”

The coalition, which includes Attorneys General from New York, California, and Massachusetts, among others, is led by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who was an active opponent of the repeal during the lead up to the December 14 vote. His office published the following statement on the petition:

An open internet, and the free exchange of ideas it allows, is critical to our democratic process. Repealing net neutrality will allow internet service providers to put corporate profits over consumers by controlling what we see, do, and say online. Consumers and businesses in New York and across the country have the right to a free and open internet, and our coalition of Attorneys General won’t stop fighting to protect that right.

The coalition’s lawsuit wasn’t the only action opposing the FCC’s decision. In the wake of the vote, many initiatives were started to preserve net neutrality. Montana was the first to implement state-level net-neutrality regulation by baring non-net-neutral ISPs from government contracts. This was followed by similar actions in New York and New Jersey. The California Senate passed a bill to illegalize non-net-neutral practices among ISPs within the state, but the EFF advised that it will likely be overruled by federal courts. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have been attempting to assemble the 51 majority they need to pass a repeal of the FCC’s order. To go into effect, though, the act would also have to pass in the House of Representatives, where it has a slim chance of doing so.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced that it will formally investigate the submission of fake comments on the FCC website during the public hearing period for the net neutrality repeal decision.

Recall that in the lead up to the December 14 vote that ended net neutrality, there were multiple calls, such as that from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, accusing the FCC of relying on fake comments to support its case to repeal. In a letter to Congressman Pallone, the GAO stated that it had accepted his and nine other Democrats’ request to investigate the fake comments. The personnel required for the investigation are currently unavailable, so it won’t begin for another five months.

The Democrats’ original request addressed both fake comments and comments submitted under stolen, but real, identities. It was clear that they were seeking to investigate both the extent and influence of fake comments on the FCC’s decision. It read as follows:

Congressmen Gregory W. Meeks (NY-05), Elijah E. Cummings (MD-07), and Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) led six other Democrats in sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that it investigate and issue a report that uncovers the extent that outside groups were using false identities during the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent net neutrality rulemaking process.

However, the GAO’s response only addresses “fraud and misuses of American identities” and doesn’t explicitly address fake comments or the influence of said comments on the repeal decision. We hope this isn’t careful wording that avoids investigating the broader issue. Although stolen identities were used to submit a huge amount of comments, bot-generated comments with fake emails contributed too. Ars Technica recently reported on a study which revealed that only 17.4% of the comments were unique. The majority of the total comments were anti-net neutrality, but the majority of identified real comments were pro-net neutrality.

The FCC announced that it is no longer considering adding wireless internet access to its definition of broadband internet access.

The net neutrality issue has dominated FCC headlines for the 2017 holiday season, but the organization still has other involvements in steering U.S. internet infrastructure development. One of those goals, at least during the Obama administration, was expanding U.S. broadband internet access. In 2015, under former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the FCC voted to change the definition of “broadband” internet from a speed of 4/1 to 25/3 (down/up Mbps). The increase in speeds didn’t mandate ISPs to change their plans, but it did change what they could advertise as “broadband.” The goal was to drive ISPs who wanted to sell “broadband” plans to offer faster internet access.

The current FCC under Chairman Pai is, of course, a vastly different organization. In 2017, Pai proposed to lower the revised speed standards by merging “wireless” internet access into the definition of “broadband.” “Wireless” internet was defined as having a minimum speed of only 10/1 (down/up Mbps), so it is a significant step down from the speed of wired “broadband” internet. The move would have significantly increased U.S. broadband coverage, but only by lowering the standards of coverage--a hollow achievement for Pai’s goal of expanding broadband coverage in the rural U.S.

It seems the FCC is, at least, backtracking on that specific effort. In the press release for the draft 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, Pai said he plans to maintain the current 25/3 (down/up Mbps) definition for “broadband” and not merge “wireless” internet into that definition.

The draft report maintains the same benchmark speed for fixed broadband service previously adopted by the Commission: 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. The draft report also concludes that mobile broadband service is not a full substitute for fixed service.As a result, the draft report evaluates progress in deploying fixed broadband service as well as progress in deploying mobile broadband service and takes a holistic approach to evaluating the deployment of these services.

The draft won’t be changing anything we know about the FCC’s broader stance, however. The FCC maintains that net neutrality regulations stifled broadband deployment. It also argues that its current policies are meeting its mandate to expand U.S. broadband internet access.

The draft report indicates that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the prior Commission’s Title II Order.However, the draft report also discussed how, over the course of the past year, the current Commission has taken steps to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the broadband marketplace. Taken together, these policies indicate that the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis.

One of those policies will undoubtedly be Pai’s earlier-announced, but not detailed, proposal for a $500 million increase in funding for rural broadband deployment.

In the latest developments on the FCC’s repeal of Obama-era net-neutrality legislation, Senate Democrats are on the verge of achieving a majority vote that could eventually restore the consumer protections. At the same time, 22 states are suing to block the FCC’s repeal decision.

On December 14, the FCC voted to remove “common carrier” classification from ISPs. In removing the classification, the FCC removed its jurisdiction over ISPs. This gives them greater freedom to selectively throttle internet traffic to push their own content, effectively ending net neutrality. The FCC argued that the heavy-handed regulation stifled investment and that it was formally the role of the FTC to resolve any unscrupulous practices by ISPs. The move was viewed by many, however, as the result of lobbying efforts from the major carriers.

The build up to the vote was marked by substantial public and Senatorial resistance. One of the big cases for the opposition was New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s investigation into the possibly compromised public-hearing process for the decision. Internet protests and calls to halt the vote ultimately fell on deaf ears. Three weeks after the vote, the FCC formally released its plan to absolve itself from maintaining oversight of ISPs, giving them the ability to start building internet fast and slow lanes. The struggle to preserve net neutrality is still alive and well, however.

Senate One Vote From First Step In Overturning Repeal

Senator Ed Markey (D-HI) announced on Twitter that Senate Democrats are one vote away from being able to pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) of the FCC’s decision. The CRA allows Congress to overrule any federal legislation within 60 days of its creation. Currently, the CRA has 50 of the 51 votes needed to pass in the Senate. The votes to pass it come from all 47 Democratic Senators, both independent Senators, and one Republican Senator. Senate Democrats are now calling for one more Republican to join their cause.

For the overruling to actually occur, however, the CRA will also have to pass in the House of Representatives, of which the Republicans currently have greater control. Providing it gets through the House, the CRA would ultimately land on the President’s desk to be signed into law. We don’t know if Trump would actually refuse signing it, but that could effectively veto it.

22 States Sign On To Sue FCC

In a separate and unrelated development, the attorneys general of 21 states have signed on with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson to file a petition to appeal the FCC’s decision. The appeal is just the first move so states can try to independently block the repeal of net neutrality, says the Washington State Office of the Attorney General.

The petition is the first step by states to attempt to block the FCC’s decision, and it will allow the attorneys general to move forward with the appeal in the future.The attorneys general allege that the FCC decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the process for federal agency rulemaking. The states also challenge the decision, stating that it violates the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.

The appeal follows Schneiderman’s earlier announcement, made on the day of the December 14 vote, that he would “lead a multistate lawsuit to stop the rollback of net neutrality.”

The FCC, led by its new chairman, Ajit Pai, voted to repeal the net neutrality rules first proposed in 2014 and passed in 2015. Pai, along with commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Brendan Carr, voted to repeal the rules, while Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel voted to preserve them.

Pai Argues That Repeal Will Spur Competition

In the open hearing before the vote, Pai tried to make the case for the repeal of the net neutrality rules. He argued that without these strict rules, ISPs will be free to invest more money in broadband expansion, and that it would be easier for smaller ISPs to compete.

Although that sounds good in theory, the reality is that in almost half the country, ISPs have effective state-granted broadband monopolies, making it at least extremely difficult for any small player to try and compete.

As for the investment argument, Comcast’s CEO recently told investors that Title II hasn’t made things any worse for their investments:

On Title II, it really hasn't affected the way we have been doing our business or will do our business. We believe on Open Internet and while we don't necessarily agree with the Title II implementation, we conduct our business the same we always have…

Net neutrality may indeed not normally be needed, if the market was highly competitive and consumers could easily switch from one ISP to another in their local areas the moment one ISP began to misbehave. However, as most Americans know, that’s hardly the case right now.

Throttling And Blocking Of Internet Services

The idea for net neutrality appeared when people started realizing that the big ISPs, which have local monopolies or duopolies in many areas, could (and did) use their power to throttle, restrict, block, or generally discriminate against certain internet services.

One of the early cases of an ISP’s abuse of power was when Comcast started throttling BitTorrent traffic. The act caused some outrage against the company\, and the FCC ended up ruling against Comcast in that case. However, the new FCC doesn't seem to have a problem with Comcast doing that.

AT&T also blocked Apple’s FaceTime service over 3G until a similar backlash against the company was created.

Verizon also blocked Google Wallet for years, as it was waiting to roll out its competitive mobile payments service called Isis (no, not that ISIS). Both Verizon and Comcast were capping Netflix and YouTube before the net neutrality rules passed, as many users reported online back then, and Verizon has already started doing it again today.

Some of the same ISPs have also been found guilty of spying on their customers’ browsing, injecting ads into their browsing streams, overcharging them on their monthly bills and equipment they didn't order, and so on.

Therefore, Pai’s theory that with net neutrality rules out of the way, the ISPs and carriers would not only behave but would make the internet better for consumers, doesn’t seem to have too much evidence supporting that, but quite the contrary.

The big internet providers have already proven that given the chance to hurt competition or to simply save some money by restricting certain types of traffic, they will take it, especially if there isn’t too much competitive pressure not to do that and get away with it.

What’s Next?

The FCC chairman has already warned states not to try and pass their own net neutrality rules, implying that those rules will not count because the ISPs only need to follow FCC’s federal rules. However, this will probably have to be proven in court, which means some states will pass their own rules, and if the ISPs don’t follow them, those states can then sue the ISPs. It will be up to judges to decide whether or not the states have power over ISPs.

Congress is always an option, too. Instead of relying on an executive body such as the FCC to define what rules the ISPs should follow every four years, or whenever there’s a change in FCC leadership, Congress could establish those rules into law. The current Congress makeup doesn’t seem to lean in favor of doing that, but with new elections coming up next year, an opportunity to set net neutrality rules into law will arise.

In the meantime, New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has already committed to suing the FCC over the repeal, after Pai completely ignored the fact that two million of the “pro-repeal” public comments were made under stolen identities. Because of this, the NY AG believes that the FCC’s repeal of the rules was done under false pretense.

In the latest developments in the battle to maintain net neutrality, multiple calls to delay the December 14 vote have been made. Between a critical court case that threatens to leave broadband consumers completely exposed and an ongoing investigation into anomalies in the public commentary of the FCC’s plans, there is clear evidence to delay the vote.

New York, EFF Call On FCC To Delay Vote Until Critical FTC Court Case Concludes

A letter from Public Knowledge that was signed by the City of New York, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others called on the FCC to delay the vote to repeal net neutrality regulations The basis of the argument to delay the vote is an ongoing court case between the FTC and AT&T. The outcome of the case could undermine one of the FCC’s main rationales for repealing--handing broadband regulation enforcement to the FTC.   

The story of the court case begins in 2014, when the FTC filed a complaint against AT&T for throttling data speeds of unlimited-data plans. The FTC later sued AT&T and won, but the decision was reversed when AT&T won the appeal in 2016. The battle depended on the interpretation of whether or not the FTC had jurisdiction over telecom companies that provided both phone and broadband service. Phone service is classified as a “common carrier” service, over which the FTC has no jurisdiction. Broadband, on the other hand, wasn’t classified as such.

The FTC managed to win the initial court battle because judges agreed that it had jurisdiction over the broadband portions of mixed-service telecom companies. AT&T won the appeal when the court decided that the entire company had “common carrier” status due to its phone service, thus the FTC shouldn’t have jurisdiction over it.

In 2015, the net neutrality regulations we are fighting for now reclassified broadband services to “common carrier.” This did not affect the 2014 FTC vs. AT&T case, but it did bring all broadband service into FCC rule. Had the reclassification not happened, AT&T would have been off the hook after winning the appeal in 2016, but AT&T ultimately dialed back on throttling under threat of action by the FCC.

As support for its plan to repeal the Obama-era FCC’s regulations, the Trump-era FCC brought the 2014 FTC vs AT&T case back into the court. The FCC intends for the FTC’s jurisdiction over broadband to be restored so broadband won’t fall into a “regulatory gap” once it leaves the FCC’s jurisdiction as a result of the repeal of the 2015 reclassification.

The problem is that we won’t know the outcome of the FTC vs. AT&T case rehearing until after the December 14 vote to repeal net neutrality. If the court decides in favor of AT&T again, after the vote has already removed it from FCC jurisdiction, broadband might very well fall into that “regulatory gap.”

28 Senators, New York Attorney General Call FCC To Delay Vote To Investigate Fake Comments

In an entirely unrelated letter, 28 senators also called on the FCC to delay the December 14 vote while the New York Attorney General’s office continues its investigation into fake comments on the FCC website. The Attorney General previously accused the FCC of stonewalling his investigation, but his office said that the FCC has reversed course.

The following statement was released on the Attorney General’s website:

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel today called on the FCC to fully cooperate with Attorney General Schneiderman’s investigation, after the FCC Inspector General’s office reversed course and signaled its intent today to assist with Attorney General’s inquiry into one million fake comments submitted during the net neutrality comment process. Attorney General Schneiderman and Commissioner Rosenworcel also called for the FCC’s planned December 14thvote on net neutrality to be halted while these fake comments are investigated.

With this, clear and rational evidence has been placed before the FCC. Given the FCC’s actions and communications so far, however, it seems unlikely to be persuaded. As we have before, we urge you to continue to the fight for net neutrality.

By now, you’ve probably heard something about the impending reversal of net neutrality regulations by the FCC. From when the FCC first announced the proposal to the situation we’re facing today, the issue has been, and continues to be, fraught with controversy. The FCC has apparently used a number of tactics to both limit the apparent backlash against and feign support for its proposals.

When an episode of Last Week Tonight incited a massive fury of comments that took down the FCC’s website, the FCC claimed instead that it had been targeted by a DDOS attack orchestrated by net neutrality supporters. Later, Redditors found a large amount of bot-submitted comments in the FCC database supporting net neutrality repeal. People who had found that their identity had been used to submit fraudulent comments penned an open letter to the FCC asking for an investigation.

In his own letter to the FCC, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman revealed that the FCC has probably not begun any investigation of its own and has also stone-walled external investigation. Schneiderman said his office began investigating the fraudulent comments six months ago after it discovered that a number of comments were posted with the identities of New Yorkers. As Schneiderman states in his letter to FCC chairman Ajit Pai:

We reached out for assistance to multiple top FCC officials, including you, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC’s Inspector General. We offered to keep the requested records confidential, as we had done when my office and the FCC shared information and documents as part of past investigative work.Yet we have received no substantive response to our investigative requests. None.

In order to support its investigation, the Office of the Attorney General has released a tool to help New Yorkers find out if their identity has been used to post a fraudulent comment on the FCC’s website. The search on the FCC website can take a while, and it may appear unresponsive, but it will return a result eventually. If an individual finds that their name is associated with fraudulent comments, they can use the link to submit a claim. Schneiderman’s responsibility is to the people of New York, but the tool will work the same for anyone.

If you’re not a New Yorker, you can use a similar tool that helps you submit a real comment to the FCC. Whichever tool you use, and whether or not you find that your identity has been misused, we at Tom’s Hardware strongly urge you to join the fight for net neutrality.

The headline says, “The Witcher IV Leak: Tom’s Hardware Exclusive Review.” You click the link. This pops up:

“Your internet service provider has restricted this content from your viewing at your current level of access. To read, please upgrade your internet data plan to include Tom’s Hardware as part of your Preferred Browsing Package (Comcast’s Digital Premiere & Performance with +Social, +TechNews addons, Verizon’s Beyondunlimited Enhanced Plan w/ FreedomSurfer addon, AT&T’s DirectInternet Diamond Plan, or Time Warner’s Ultimate 300 w/ OmniAccess Web and Internet Gaming add-ons.)

You can make a one-time payment to your ISP for viewing this content up to 3 times in the next 24 hours here.”

Do we have your attention? Good. Now we need your voice.

The above is satire, for the moment. Net neutrality is no laughing matter, and the future of the internet is currently at stake. Do you like your cable company, and the way you pay for television? If you’d like to do that for the internet--treating your favorite websites the way premium channels are treated--and enjoy myriad and labyrinthine pricing structures, fees, and add-ons, then simply remain patient.

If, however, you chafe at lumbering bills with bloated channel offerings and absolutely nothing of value to watch at a maximum of possible monetary extraction from your person, and you want to protect the future of the internet as we know it, now is the time to step up.

We don’t often ask our community to get involved in matters political or civic, as we’re a tech site focused on hardware and related news and reviews. But in this specific case, we’re asking you to lend your voice to ours because we’re all under attack, and the entire internet will bear the consequences of whether we act right now, or not. The reversal of net neutrality by the FCC threatens to balkanize the internet, segment and divide websites into fast and slow lanes, throttle streaming and multiplayer gaming, and strangle social networks and all the services we take for granted right now.

One of those services is Tom’s Hardware. Presently, anyone who has internet access can read our reports and reviews and add their voice to our comments sections and forums, any time, and from anywhere. By visiting Tom’s Hardware, millions of people have improved their understanding of PC hardware, solved their computer problems, or just hung out with other techies with a shared enthusiasm for system building and gaming. We don’t want this to change. We know you don’t want this to change, either.

Unfortunately, based on the current state of affairs, change is a comin’.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai (formerly of Verizon) is hoping to replace the rules on net neutrality with “voluntary” rules that, by definition, ISPs don’t have to comply with, and that open things up to throttling, fast/slow lanes, and speed restrictions.

Net neutrality is the system we have currently on the internet, and it goes like this: You pay your ISP for access to the internet and at agreed upon network speed, and you can go online and visit any site you choose. Without net neutrality, you pay your ISP and you can get online, but the ISP chooses which websites you can see and can control your access and speed through parceling and rationing. This is a version of the “Ransom Model,” requiring you to pay additional costs for previously accessible sites, services, and streaming. It’s the DLC-ification of the internet, and none of us get a Season Pass.

Demographically, you (our audience) consume a greater quantity of the internet-as-a-commodity than others by dint of your online gaming, downloading of software, and video streaming. Statistically, you stand to lose hard if you lose net neutrality.

When the FCC destroys net neutrality, will you be able to afford what amounts to protection money to the ISPs to stay at the same speed of access you have now? Will you be able to afford the inevitable add-ons to provide the same level of service you have now? We don’t know. But we do know that right now, in this moment in the timeline, we have a brief opportunity to shift the sequence of events towards a more positive outcome. The FCC votes to destroy Net Neutrality on December 14.

We as citizens have only so much recourse here, but what we can do, we must do. We can submit online comments to the FCC, call the FCC to voice our concerns, and call our representatives in Congress to both voice our concerns and ask for legislation to make net neutrality protections permanent.

Unfortunately, one of the tactics used by those advocating for the destruction of net neutrality has been to attempt to muddy the waters of public comment on the change by submitting 7 million fraudulent comments out of the 22 million total that have been submitted—even though the overwhelming lion’s share of legitimate comments are from citizens who are opposed to the desires of the ISP lobbies. Therefore, although you can submit a comment online in opposition to these changes, it may possibly be seen as invalid thanks to the chaff of fraudulent anti-net neutrality efforts.

Even so, it is the work of but a moment, so we all may as well do it. Go to www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express, and under Proceeding, enter 17-108 (the dystopian-named “Restoring Internet Freedom” order). Fill in the form very, very, very carefully, ensure you get an email confirmation, and submit.

Your voice will be louder, as it were, with a phone call. Call the FCC and leave a message letting the agency know that you want to keep net neutrality as it is. Dial 1-888-225-5322, and be polite, patient, and persistent. You want Option 1, Option 4, Option 2, Option 0. Enter a complaint on proceeding 17-108.

Here’s a sample script: “Hi, my name is ___, and I live in [city], [state]. I’m registering a complaint about the proposed repeal of net neutrality, because it will hurt American consumers, reduce internet access, and restrict the open flow of information. I strongly oppose the undoing of net neutrality, which is at the core of proceeding 17-108. Thank you.”

Then call your members of Congress. The FCC commission is appointed and makes these decisions, but Congress can pressure the agency to do the right thing, and it can also put forward legislation to make net neutrality law instead of just policy. Find your congresscritter at https://contactingcongress.org/, and call the local office closest to you.

Here’s another sample script: “Hi, my name is ____, I live in [city], [state], and I’m a constituent of [Congressperson’s name]. I’m calling to strongly encourage him/her to pressure the FCC to retain net neutrality and not move forward with proceeding 17-108. I encourage [Congressperson’s name] to sponsor or support legislation to make net neutrality the law of the land so internet users like me don’t have to do this every year. Thank you.”

A call is worth a hundred emails.
An email is worth a hundred social posts.
And a social post sharing this is worth a hundred views of this text.

Act now, while you can.

Last week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revealed its plans to remove net neutrality regulations. The vote isn’t until December 14, but the group, led by chairman Ajit Pai, is trying to quell concerns with a new document that poses to debunk claims about the upcoming plan.

The document, titled “Myth vs. Fact: Setting the Record Straight on Chairman Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order,” lists multiple claims with accompanying “facts” about the topics. However, the explanations aren’t comforting, to say the least. Take a look at one of the bullet points below.

“Myth: This [“Restoring Internet Freedom Order”] will result in ‘fast lanes’ and ‘slow lanes’ on the Internet that will worsen consumers’ online experience.Fact: Restoring Internet freedom will lead to better, faster, and cheaper broadband for consumers and give startups that need priority access (such as telehealth applications) the chance to offer new services to consumers.”

The response doesn’t speak exactly to the original statement. It only tells consumers that once the order is passed, there could be faster and cheaper broadband options from internet service providers (ISPs). There’s no guarantee that ISPs will follow that plan, but the FCC hopes that companies will provide “better, faster, and cheaper broadband.”

Another example from the document covers the topic of additional premiums for accessing specific content. Once again, the explanation isn’t reassuring.

“Myth: Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach certain online content.Fact: This didn’t happen before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet regulations, and it won’t happen after they are repealed.”

If only wishing were true. In this case, the FCC is making the argument that premiums for specific content won’t happen because they didn’t appear in the past. However, an earlier version of this practice is already in place.

In 2016, the FCC conducted an investigation on zero-rating offerings, which according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation allow companies to “exempt particular data from counting against a user’s data cap, or from accruing any excess usage charges.” This allows companies to favor the use of specific services or apps because they own the product. One example is AT&T’s “Sponsored Data” program, which it says allows consumers to “browse websites, stream video, and enjoy apps on your wireless device without impacting your personal data plan.” The FCC concluded that AT&T offered a chance to join the Sponsored Data package to third-party content providers “at terms and conditions that are effectively less favorable” than those offered to DirectTV (an AT&T affiliate). The report also looked at similar practices with T-Mobile and Verizon.

Ready for more? Here’s another topic from the sheet, which concerns the blocking of specific websites.

“Myth: Internet service providers will block you from visiting the websites you want to visit.Fact: Internet service providers didn’t block websites before the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed 2015 Internet regulations and won’t after they are repealed. Any Internet service provider would be required to publicly disclose this practice and would face fierce consumer backlash as well scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will have renewed authority to police unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices.”

The FCC again hopes that ISPs won’t block specific websites when the new plan is in effect. However it can happen, and when it does occur, the explanation says that customers and the FTC will voice their concerns, which should persuade companies to change their policies (right?).

The goal of the entire document is to play down the major impacts that would occur if the proposal is put into practice. This includes the prevention of states from creating their own net neutrality laws. Gamers would also have to pay even more not just to play online, but to download digital copies of and patches for their library of titles. Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now binge watchers might even have to pay more to catch up on some of today’s most popular shows.

You can take a look at the full list of “Myths vs. Facts” sheet on the FCC website, and you can continue to call your local and state representatives to voice your concerns about this gutting of net neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its proposal to end Obama-era net neutrality protections today, the day before Thanksgiving, with plans to vote on December 14.

The proposal would effectively allow internet service providers (ISPs) to charge their customers more to access specific content, create “slow” and “fast” lanes for specific traffic, and outright block some websites, among other things. It would also prevent states from introducing their own laws to preserve net neutrality within their own borders.

This rollback of Obama-era protections doesn’t come as a surprise. FCC chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly said that net neutrality laws have prevented ISPs from expanding their networks to create jobs and serve more people. Efforts to push back against those claims, such as a Last Week Tonight segment that urged viewers to support net neutrality, have been dismissed by the agency.

At the heart of Pai and the FCC’s argument is the notion that the net neutrality protections introduced in 2015 represent a regulatory overstep that hinders ISPs’ ability to grow without offering consumers any meaningful benefits. Instead, Pai wants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and existing antitrust laws to be the only things standing up for a free and open internet.

Well, that’s all he wants from a regulatory standpoint, anyway. The proposal would also include one other form of “protection”—transparency. To quote from the proposal:

Next, we require ISPs to be transparent. Disclosure of network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service is important for Internet freedom because it helps consumers choose what works best for them and enables entrepreneurs and other small businesses to get technical information needed to innovate. Individual consumers, not the government, decide what Internet access service best meets their individualized needs.

The idea here is that Americans would simply be able to choose not to sign up with a specific ISP if they disagree with their business practices. Yet it’s not clear if you would be able to exit an existing contract, for example, or for how long ISPs would have to offer “pure” services before switching to tiered offerings. (If they decide to do so at all.)

Another problem with the idea that Americans will be able to choose between ISPs is the simple fact that a few companies control most of the market. This is especially true of broadband service—for many people, the choice won’t be between two broadband providers, it’ll be between a broadband provider, DSL provider, or no provider at all. “Transparency” in this instance merely lets you know how screwed you’ll be if these rules pass.

If they do, the internet as we know it could be quite different. Streaming services might become more expensive or stop operating. The video game industry’s reliance on downloads and online multiplayer could make gaming more expensive. And the media industry, which is already struggling to survive due to declining ad revenues and rising distrust from the public, could be effectively silenced by the companies they cover.

Many have opposed the FCC’s proposal. Its comment site was overwhelmed after the Last Week Tonight, for example, and many tech companies supported protests against Pai’s vision for the internet’s apocalypse. Platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and Discord have all been lit aflame today with pleas for their users to contact their local politicians and urge them to support net neutrality. People, it turns out, like having an open internet.

Even Pai’s colleagues have criticized his proposal. FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel tweeted:

This is the @FCC plan to roll back #NetNeutrality: https://t.co/05owAva2hu. Don't boo. Read it. Then roar. It's time to make a ruckus. It's time to #SaveNetNeutrality.

Let’s hope those roars ring loud enough. You can read the entire proposal here, and you can call your local and state representatives to let them know what you think.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced the agency’s intention to repeal a 2015 order that prevented broadband and wireless providers from either blocking or slowing down consumer access to content on the web.

The plan aims to completely eliminate the current net neutrality regulations currently in place. Pai confirmed that the vote to nullify the Obama-era net neutrality rules will take place on December 14.

Because there are three Republicans and two Democrats on the commission, and the vote will surely fall on party lines, the scrapping of net neutrality is a likely possibility.

The new proposal, which has been a long time coming, suggests that the federal government will cease "micromanaging the internet," according to Pai. A new rule would see internet service providers required to be "transparent" on their practices only so "consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."

“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015," Pai added.

He also spoke out against President Obama's implementation of the internet regulations from a few years ago. Under Obama, the FCC treated broadband providers like public utilities, which allowed it complete supervision over the way the internet providers conduct its policies. "Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote. This time, it’ll be different," said Pai.

How will it be different? Pai said that he’ll release the proposal that details his plan to restore “internet freedom” tomorrow. He noted that this will be more than three weeks before the vote takes place on December 14.

The aforementioned proposal also states that instead of the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission is the government agency that will oversee the so-called protection of the internet. "Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy," Pai stated.

Net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all internet data as the same regardless where it came from. The FCC's rules, however, have sparked major controversy due to their decision to place broadband providers under the same stringent regulations governing telephone networks.

What is "broadband" internet access? Right now the FCC restricts the term to wired connections with 25Mbps download and 3Mbps upload speeds. Now the agency has asked the public to comment on its proposal to include in that definition wireless connections, which have a minimum 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up. Although this might seem like a minor change, it could have major consequences for Americans who live in areas without broadband internet access.

It's important to note from the start that these are just preliminary discussions. The FCC has not decided to consider both wired and wireless internet access when it comes to the country's broadband goals, nor has it decided on the 10/1Mbps requirement. Requesting public comment on these proposals is ostensibly meant to allow experts, analysts, and the general public to influence the agency's regulation of broadband internet.

Broadband internet access has become all but necessary in modern society. We use the internet for work, entertainment, and everything in between. Anyone who doesn't have easy access to a speedy internet connection is at a disadvantage, which is why the FCC sets goals for broadband expansion within the U.S. The idea is to make sure everyone—or at least as many people as possible—can access vital infrastructure.

The FCC effectively argued in the notice of inquiry that wireless networks can provide substitute for wired connections. The agency noted that most Americans have smartphones, which can be used to handle everything from Snapchat to Microsoft Word, even though the latter used to be limited to PCs. Under this proposal, using a smartphone on a wireless network would be equivalent to having a wired connection for a PC.

Surprise! Wired And Wireless Connections Aren't The Same

 In a statement released today, FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn took issue with that claim. She explained:

Consumers who are mobile only often find themselves in such a position, not by choice but because they cannot afford a fixed connection. Today, mobile and fixed broadband are complements, not substitutes. They are very different in terms of both the nuts and bolts of how the networks operate, and how they are marketed to customers, including both from the perspective of speed and data usage. I have heard from too many consumers who can only afford a mobile connection, and even then they have to drop service in the middle of the month because they cannot afford to pay for more data.

Put another way, the FCC's argument that being able to edit a Word document on a smartphone means someone doesn't have to worry about their PC's internet connection is like telling someone with a bike that they don't need a car. Sure, they can probably get where they're going, but it's going to be pretty hard to go on a family road trip with everyone on the handlebars. There's a difference between capability and viability.

Clyburn also noted that even the 25/3Mbps minimum isn't really enough to handle everything someone might throw at it. 1080p video conferences would struggle to keep up, she said, and 4K conferences simply wouldn't be possible. Cutting that goal in half for wireless connections and then saying those connections qualify as "broadband" internet access would severely limit what people can do online.

There's also the problem of practicality. Wired connections tend to be more stable, offer more data, and support more devices than their wireless counterparts. Everything from the weather to a phone's physical proximity to a cell tower determine the strength of its wireless connection; wires don't have that problem. Most smartphone data plans also have relatively low data caps, and raising those caps often results in a large increase in price.

You also have to consider the devices themselves. Typing a college paper on an iPhone keyboard is doable, but it's not ideal. Phones also have these pesky little things called batteries that like to run out at inopportune moments, which throws another wrench into the gears. Wired connections are often more stable, affordable, and viable than their wireless counterparts when it comes to getting stuff done.

There are two other problems to consider: wireless network providers and the FCC's willingness to listen to the public's comments.

Wireless network providers became an even bigger issue in July, when Verizon capped data speeds for Netflix and YouTube videos that were watched on a smartphone. That violated the spirit of net neutrality, if not the letter of the law, and it raised concerns about the control wireless networks have over their customers' activities. How are people supposed to count on these connections for critical work if they can't handle leisurely streaming?

Does The FCC Really Want The Public's Comments?

Yet this could all be a moot point. The FCC published this notice of inquiry because it wants the public to comment on the proposal, but the agency doesn't have the best track record when it comes to respecting those comments. Just remember the agency's controversial net neutrality proposal, which would roll back Obama Administration protections for net neutrality, and how it responded to the public's backlash.

A refresher: The FCC received so many comments that its site was forced offline. The agency claimed this wasn't because it received many comments, however, but because it was targeted by distributed-denial of service (DDoS) attacks following a "Last Week Tonight" segment. The agency made similar claims when "Last Week Tonight" ran another segment about net neutrality and its importance back in 2014.

Gizmodo recently reported that there was no proof of the 2014 attack, which cast doubts on the claims about the 2017 followup. (That's according to multiple sources who investigated the alleged cyber attack.) If that is true, it means the agency has twice waved away public backlash about internet regulations by claiming that its site was swarmed by a bunch of bots, not by commenters rushing to express their concerns.

Fight For The Future (FFTF), a digital rights organizations, recently launched Comcastroturf.com, where people can check whether or not their names have been used to create fake anti-net neutrality comments for submission to the FCC. The victims are now demanding the FCC starts an investigation into this issue.

Almost Half A Million Fake Comments

The FFTF said that the botnet has created over 450,000 comments using the names of real people. The comments were asking the FCC to kill the net neutrality regulation former the FCC leadership passed in 2015.

According to Chris Sinchok, a developer from Chicago, it’s rather easy to spot the botnet-made comments because they were submitted at a near-constant rate, which is something that a typical script would do (post comments every 60 seconds, etc). Another indication that these type of comments were submitted by a botnet was that the botnet would “pause” for a few hours, and then it would start submitting comments at a high rate again.

The bottom line is that the botnet would fill the comment forms in a rather consistent way with a certain cadence, as you would expect a robot to do. However, it’s possible that future similar actions could become more “unpredictable” as the botnet owners try to hide their activity and make the submissions seem more random.

Victims Demand Investigation

Some of the victims whose names were used to create the fake anti-net neutrality comments have sent a letter to the FCC in which they demand the following actions:

Notify all who have been impacted by this attackRemove all of the fraudulent comments, including the ones made in our names, from the public docket immediatelyPublicly disclose any information the FCC may have about the group or person behind the 450,000+ fake commentsCall for an investigation by the appropriate authorities into possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (“making false statements”) and other relevant laws.

Aji Pai, the new FCC chairman, has been quite open about wanting to eliminate net neutrality rules, saying that they harm the free internet (as in free from regulations). Therefore, it would seem that the fake comments demanding the same thing favor Pai’s position on the issue. However, those who signed the letter hope that the FCC will not move forward with a decision on net neutrality without first removing the fake comments and finding out who submitted them.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back net neutrality protections will move forward. Pai and commissioner Michael O'Rielly voted to move the proposal forward; commissioner Mignon Clyburn voted against it.

Pai revealed his proposal in late April. At the same time, the FCC said that removing the net neutrality regulations introduced under former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler would create jobs, encourage companies to improve their networks, and offer better internet access to rural Americans. The decision to regulate ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, we were told, was the only thing standing in the way of those advances.

Rights groups quickly decried Pai's proposal. Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement issued by Common Cause that Pai's proposal would be a "body blow to the open dialogue upon which successful self-government depends." Copps also called the proposal a "red light for democracy and a green light for cable and telecom giants to control where we go and what we do on the internet."

The proposal also caught the ire of Last Week Tonight and its host, John Oliver, who urged his viewers to speak out against Pai's proposal. Depending on who you ask, the segment worked. The FCC said after the episode aired that its site was hit by distributed-denial of service (DDoS) attacks; the Fight for the Future rights group said it's more likely that Oliver's segment inspired people to express their problems with the proposal.

Yet the FCC said in a press release about today's vote that it "took the first step toward restoring Internet freedom and promoting infrastructure investment, innovation, and choice by proposing to end utility-style regulation of broadband Internet access service." It also said Pai's plan revolves around three things: rolling back Title II regulations, classifying mobile broadband internet service as a private mobile service, and eliminating the internet conduct standard. All three are supposed to return internet regulations to their pre-Wheeler state and offer ISPs more freedom.

The backlash was swift--and it didn't come only from tech-focused organizations. Here's what Rashad Robinson, executive director of the Color of Change racial justice organization, said in a statement about the FCC's vote:

Today’s move by the FCC and Chairman Ajit Pai to gut net neutrality rules will devastate Black communities. Net neutrality is essential to protecting our free and open Internet, which has been crucial to today’s fights for civil rights and equality. Our ability to have our voices heard in this democracy depends on an open Internet because it allows voices and ideas to spread based on substance, rather than financial backing. Net neutrality helps to ensure that the Internet is a place for innovation and opportunity for all, rather than just the wealthy few.

This isn't an abstract problem that only affects the ease with which you can stream videos, download games, or visit certain websites. The internet has become a core part of modern society, and Robinson's statement probably won't be the only one warning about the broader implications of deregulating U.S. internet providers.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said it suffered distributed-denial of service (DDoS) attacks following the Last Week Tonight segment on net neutrality. Yet the Fight for the Future advocacy group said it's "extremely skeptical" about the commission's claim it was attacked.

This marks the second time that HBO's show, which is hosted by John Oliver, rallied its viewers around net neutrality. The first time was in June 2014, and Oliver's segment inspired so many comments on the FCC's site that it knocked it offline. Now, following the announcement that FCC chairman Ajit Pai wants to roll back Obama administration regulations of internet service providers, Oliver told viewers to oppose the decision again.

The FCC said in April that it plans to stop regulating ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This would make it harder for the FCC to prevent ISPs from, say, prioritizing their own services over competitive offerings. Doing so would give those services an unfair advantage over their competitors, and it would also open up the possibility of ISPs charging you higher fees based on the websites and services you want to use.

Pai said in a speech--a transcript of which you can find on the FCC website--that Title II regulations have caused ISPs to slow their investments in U.S. infrastructure. Materials published by the FCC entitled Internet Regulations: Myths vs Facts and Restoring Internet Freedom For All Americans claimed that rolling back these regulations would lead to renewed investments, better internet access, and the creation of new jobs.

Oliver's segment argued several of these points. He then explained how viewers could comment on the proposal and revealed that Last Week Tonight purchased "gofccyourself.com" and redirected it to the final step of the multi-part process. The segment worked: The FCC's website once again crashed because so many people rushed to comment on it. Or, as the commission said, because it inspired someone to DDoS the site.

Here's what the FCC said in a press release:

Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks(DDos) [sic]. These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going forward.

Fight for the Future said in a statement that the FCC's claims are extremely unlikely. The digital rights group said two possible scenarios could explain the FCC's claim: that the commission is "being intentionally misleading" so it can "let [itself] off the hook for essentially silencing large numbers of people" by not having a stable enough website, or that someone actually conducted a DDoS attack on the commission's site.

The group called on the FCC to release logs to independent security experts or media outlets to investigate the claims of an attack. It later said in an email to Tom's Hardware:

We have now read that the FCC is claiming this also happened in 2014 during the last John Oliver segment about the issue, and we are even more skeptical. Why was this not widely publicized at the time when there was widespread media coverage that the FCC's site had buckled under the weight of massive numbers of comments generated by Oliver and the net neutrality activists behind BattleForTheNet.com?

Either way, it's clear that many people oppose the FCC's plan to roll back open internet protections. Can all of that be pinned on Last Week Tonight and its host? Was the FCC targeted by DDoS attacks? And how much do the answers to those questions matter, apart from their distraction from the bigger issue?

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai revealed a proposal to roll back the net neutrality protections introduced by the Obama administration. The commission released a fact sheet, background on internet regulation, and full text from a speech from Pai claiming that this proposal would allow more Americans to go online, create jobs, and encourage companies to continue investing in the nation's infrastructure.

The FCC previously introduced safeguards that would prevent ISPs from charging some companies more for access to their networks or creating "fast lanes" that favored paying services over their non-paying counterparts. The idea was to prevent ISPs from creating a multi-tier internet that hindered some companies, such as Netflix and Hulu, by requiring them to fork over some money if they wanted their services to have viable performance. This decision was also supposed to prevent consumers from having to pay more for internet access depending on what sites they wanted to visit.

Pai said he wants to roll back those protections for various reasons. Most come back to wanting the FCC--the agency of which he's in charge--to be less active in regulating the internet. This is made evident in the materials published today, such as this quote from Internet Regulations: Myths vs Facts, which is entirely devoted to criticizing the Title II regulations introduced to protect net neutrality:

Government regulation is not the friend of free speech, but an enemy. For example, the First Amendment doesn’t give the government power to regulate. It denies the government that power. Additionally, greater government regulation of the Internet is strongly supported by many who are fundamentally hostile to free speech.

Another document, Restoring Internet Freedom For All Americans, also opposes Title II regulations. The FCC said in the document that Title II regulations have led to a decline in investment in broadband networks and the shelving of plans to update broadband infrastructure. "Thousands of good-paying jobs were lost due to lower infrastructure investment," the FCC said, and it added that online privacy was weakened because it was going to be regulated by the FCC instead of the FTC. The commission said that Pai's proposal would solve all those problems in the following ways:

It will spur broadband deployment throughout the country and thus bring better, faster Internet service to more Americans.It will create jobs by putting Americans to work deploying broadband networks and by creating the networks and online opportunities necessary for additional job growth and economic opportunity.It will boost competition and choice in the broadband marketplace.It will secure online privacy by putting the FTC—the nation’s premier consumer protection agency—back in charge of broadband providers’ privacy practices.It will restore Internet Freedom by ending government micromanagement and returning to the bipartisan regulatory framework that worked well for decades.

Many Americans simply don't have access to broadband internet. The FCC said in January 2016 that 10% of all Americans lack access to a 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up connection. Pew said in December 2015 that many Americans can't afford broadband access or are in "hard-to-reach" areas that won't get broadband any time soon. This is at least partly attributable to the monopolies or duopolies ISPs hold in many markets. Many people have only one broadband internet provider available to them, and without competition from other companies, those providers have little incentive to expand or upgrade their networks. It's also easier for them to charge whatever they want for their service if there's no alternative.

In a statement released by Common Cause, a rights organization, former FCC commissioner Michael Copps said:

Chairman Pai is kissing the ring of the Big Money lobbyists who too often call the shots in the Trump Administration. Ending net neutrality would be a body blow to the open dialogue upon which successful self-government depends. It would be a red light for democracy and a green light for cable and telecom giants to control where we go and what we do on the internet. The FCC, Congress, and President Trump are risking the wrath of millions of Americans who depend daily on affordable access to the open internet.

Pai said in his speech that he will publish the full text of his proposal tomorrow afternoon. You can read his full speech on the FCC website.

Over the last several days, both the U.S. House and the Senate passed legislation to repeal the FCC’s privacy protections against internet service providers (ISPs) abusing customer data for their own benefit, largely without any consent.

It’s likely that the only real long-term solution against this type of abuse will be for policymakers to pass new legislation that brings back the broadband and wireless customer privacy protections that they’ve now repealed. Granted, this probably won’t happen with a Congress under the current configuration, as the current crop of lawmakers clearly wanted to eliminate those types of protections.

However, a future Congress, backed by enough interest from citizens and political will, could shape stronger internet privacy policies into a law that would be harder to repeal than the FCC’s own rules.

In the meantime, there are some things you can do to stop, or at least significantly restrict, ISPs from tracking you across the web.

Don’t Buy/Rent Devices From Your ISP

If possible, it would be best not to buy, subsidize, or rent any type of device from your wireless or broadband provider, whether it’s a smartphone, tablet, Chromebook, router, modem, or what have you.

This is among the easiest ways in which the ISP or wireless service providers can track everything you do on the web, because they get full or almost full control over the devices they sell or rent to their customers. It’s trivial for them to install firmware or applications on those devices to track you without you even knowing it.

As Verizon eagerly showed us after the House vote to repeal the FCC’s privacy framework, wireless service providers can’t wait to start collecting as much data as possible about what you do online.

HTTPS Encryption Is Your Friend

Wireless carriers and ISPs aren’t exactly new at tracking customers on the web and serving them ads; they’ve often been caught injecting ads into their customers’ web traffic. For instance, you may be visiting a website, that may even have its own ads, and suddenly, an ad from your ISP or carrier would appear as well.

However, this can only happen if the website you visit doesn’t use HTTPS encryption and the address bar is marked with HTTP instead. When a website doesn’t use HTTPS, the ISP can shape and control that flow of data however it likes. HTTPS encryption stops carriers from tracking your browsing habits in more detail and also from showing you their own ads.

There is one caveat to this, which is that the service provider doesn’t control the device, as mentioned above. If it does, then it could create a “man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack” by interposing itself between you and the HTTPS encrypted website you’re trying to visit.

This shouldn’t be possible anymore on Android 7+ devices, because Google now mandates that there can’t be any other certificates than the ones it’s allowing. However, service providers could still be able to control other devices in this way.

VPN Services

Having to visit HTTPS-only websites may be easier said than done. EFF extensions such as HTTPS Everywhere do allow users to automatically switch websites from HTTP to HTTPS, but only when the HTTP website doesn’t automatically redirect all of its web pages to the HTTPS versions. The extension redirects automatically for you.

HTTPS Everywhere also has an option to “Block all unencrypted requests,” which essentially forces your browser to only retrieve web pages and connections that are encrypted with HTTPS. This is probably an option not too many are willing to use just yet, though, as much of the web remains unencrypted, and it could quickly become a frustrating exercise.

Because not all websites you may visit use HTTPS, that makes a VPN service provider a major tool in your arsenal against ISP tracking, too. The VPN creates a secure tunnel for all of your device’s internet traffic, so it’s irrelevant whether the websites you visit have encryption or not -- the ISPs won’t be able to see that traffic. Another caveat: You have to research VPN providers, because many will sell your data, which defeats the purpose of using one to evade ISP snooping in the first place.

Tor Browser

The Tor browser is the tool of choice for those who want maximum privacy, or anything resembling true anonymity on the web. This comes with some caveats, especially when you’re up against intelligence agencies and you’re a target. However, it should be more than good enough against ISP tracking, or any other common kinds of tracking on the web.

The Tor browser may load websites a little more slowly, even compared to VPN services, because it routes your traffic through more locations around the world. This is the only price you have to pay, though, because the tool is free to use. Most VPNs, especially if you want to use them for all of your internet needs, aren’t. You can also use a VPN and the Tor browser together for even better privacy.

Change Your DNS Servers

Even if you visit encrypted websites, ISPs may still be able to see the browser requests you make via their own Domain Name System (DNS) servers which are automatically assigned to your computer or smartphone.

The DNS servers’ role is to resolve the website addresses you type in your browser to the IP addresses of those websites’ physical servers. That means that if you use the DNS servers automatically provided by your ISP, the ISP should be able to log which websites you visited.

OpenNIC DNS servers tend to be more privacy-focused than other better known DNS server alternatives such as Google’s own DNS servers or OpenDNS (now owned by Cisco), but there are others as well.

Officially Opting Out Of ISP Tracking

Some, if not all, of the ISPs and carriers should provide ways for you to opt-out of most of their tracking. However, it often involves multiple steps, and the opt-out may still not be complete. Therefore, you may still want to use some of the above options, just in case the ISPs don't actually stop much of their tracking.

Future Of Web Privacy Looks Uncertain

If the net neutrality rules fall as well under the existing Congress and FCC leadership, then some of these tools may start to lose their effectiveness, as they could become the primary enemies of ISPs trying to collect that user data. Some of the services could be slowed down, and some could even be blocked, which is basically why the net neutrality rules were proposed by the former FCC leadership in the first place.

However, if millions or tens of millions of people start relying on them, the ISPs may fear a backlash, even if there wouldn’t be any rules or laws left to keep them from hurting the performance of these tools and services in order to increase their profits.

Regardless of what happens in the future, these tools can be used right now to drastically reduce the amount of tracking ISPs and wireless carriers can do to you. If you’re serious about privacy, or at least not wanting internet providers to sell your data without consent, you may want to start using some of these tools today.

Recently, both the US House and Senate voted largely on partisan lines (Republicans for, Democrats against) to overturn the FCC’s new privacy rules that were supposed to protect broadband customers against internet service providers collecting their data and selling it without their consent.

Following the two votes, Verizon was emboldened to enable data-tracking on all of its on-contract Android smartphones, which is reminiscent of the tracking that created the backlash against the “CarrierIQ” tracking software six years ago. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) even went as far as to call this type of tracking “spyware.”

CarrierIQ Privacy Fiasco

On November 11, 2011, security researcher Trevor Eckhart posted on his website that Verizon, Sprint, and potentially other wireless service providers were installing the CarrierIQ user tracking software on many of their Android-running smartphones. The researcher defined the software as “rootkit” because it had low-level privileges on the smartphones while hiding its actions from users.

The rootkit was used to collect what websites users visited, search terms they typed, location of their device, and app usage data, as well as information about the usage of the carrier’s own products and about the type of demographics that were using the phones. The data was obtained without user consent.

Initially, the CarrierIQ company sent a cease and desist letter to Eckhart claiming copyright infringement for posting CarrierIQ training documents. The firm also denied the researcher's allegations that they were collecting all the keystrokes of smartphone owners. However, only two weeks later, and after the EFF got involved in the case, CarrierIQ retracted its cease and desist letter and apologized to Eckhart.

Since then, smartphone makers and carriers seemed to have stopped using CarrierIQ software specifically. The CarrierIQ company was acquired by AT&T in 2015, and the wireless company said that it only uses the technology to “improve the customer’s network and wireless service experience.”

Verizon AppFlash: What’s Old Is New Again

Although the CarrierIQ rootkit fiasco upset many smartphones users, Verizon seems to want to bring back much of the same kind of tracking to the smartphones it sells today. Verizon announced a new “AppFlash” app launcher and web search utility that will come to all new and existing subscribers that use Android smartphones.

According to Verizon’s own AppFlash privacy policy, this is the type of information that will be collected by default:

We collect information about your device and your use of the AppFlash services. This information includes your mobile number, device identifiers, device type and operating system, and information about the AppFlash features and services you use and your interactions with them. We also access information about the list of apps you have on your device.With your permission, AppFlash also collects information about your device’s precise location from your device operating system as well as contact information you store on your device.

Verizon seems to be saying that at least the location tracking will be done with your permission, although it’s not clear how exactly this will be implemented, and whether or not it will be truly opt-in for the smartphone user. Depending on Verizon’s own interpretation, it may also be able to track the location when the location on an Android device is enabled.

Verizon’s Not So Simple Opt-Out Solutions

Once the FCC privacy framework is fully overturned, it remains to be seen if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could still enforce its own privacy rules against Verizon. However, the FTC has historically only issued small million-dollar fines over such privacy violations, which likely don’t serve as a strong enough deterrent for companies that may stand to make a thousand times that amount (billions of dollars) by violating those rules.

The real issue here is that most of the information will be collected without consent, and if users want to stop that collection (or a large part of it), they will have to opt-out. The majority of people tend not to opt-out of any type of tracking, usually because they aren’t even aware that it’s happening in the background, but also because it can often be somewhat of a hassle to do it.

Verizon has a web page where you can opt-out of its Aol ad network tracking, but to completely stop any sort of tracking you have to visit multiple locations and follow multiple steps. The opt-outs also don’t seem to completely stop the ads that Verizon may still be injecting in your web traffic. It’s just that they won’t be based on the type of websites you visit anymore or any tracked data.

Please note that by limiting ad tracking or opting out by way of any of the choices described, you will still see ads in the same places, but those ads may be less relevant because they will no longer be based on your interests.

AppFlash - The “Flash” Of Android Devices In Terms Of Attack Exposure?

The name Verizon chose may end-up being predestined. According to the EFF, the fact that Verizon will put AppFlash on all of its Android devices could further expose users to a new attack vector. Chances are Verizon isn’t going to ensure the launcher is highly secure, considering it seems to be based on a third-party solution that’s been rebranded by Verizon.

Just like the Adobe Flash player, the Verizon AppFlash could also lure attackers into exploiting it, especially because it seems to have system permissions and it can be used to launch any other (malicious) app or website.

Now that the FCC privacy rules are close to being repealed--the resolution passed by Congress still needs the President’s signature--we may see other carriers and broadband providers launch similar user-tracking solutions for the devices they sell or rent with their services.

This could put an end to the idea that internet and voice providers can only provide their service for a fair payment that the customer is willing to offer. The providers will instead be able to make money both from subscriptions as well as from selling customers’ data to advertisers, typically without the customers’ consent.

If the net neutrality rules are repealed as well, that could further increase the wireless and broadband service providers’ leverage over both internet companies and their customers, who may see reduced choice on the devices offered by these providers. It could also allow the wireless and broadband providers to slow down the services and tools that would stop their tracking, such as VPN services and the Tor network.

Don't plan to buy a bunch of rechargeable batteries for Nintendo's upcoming Switch console. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said a production prototype of the device "equivalent to mass-produced items" that it examined in August had a built-in battery that "the user can't remove" on their own.

Nintendo could modify the Switch's design before its 2017 launch, but if the prototype submitted to the FCC is the same as the final product, anyone hoping to use the Switch primarily as a handheld gaming console will have to get used to the idea of carrying the device's charger around with them. That's unfortunate; the whole point of the Switch is to allow people to experience their favorite games while lounging in front of the TV and on the go.

Creating the console without a removable battery is also a departure from Nintendo's recent design choices. Both the 3DS and the Wii U GamePad--the tablet-like controller at the center of the company's unpopular home console--allow their owners to pull out their batteries if they wish. Nintendo even provides step-by-step guides for removing batteries from both products on its support website; it didn't try to keep this option hidden from consumers.

It's not hard to guess at why the company designed the 3DS and Wii U GamePad this way. Both are unique gaming devices that have plenty to offer, and the most glaring problem with both is their battery life. It's never fun to die in the water temple in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D because the 3DS gave out, or to send a Wii U in to Nintendo because the GamePad no longer holds a charge, and a removable battery solves both issues.

All of the above makes the omission of a removable battery in the Switch even more baffling. Nintendo's pitched it as a mix between a home console and a handheld gaming device. Docking it to play on a TV shouldn't pose a problem, but picking up the device to play a marathon The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild session on a plane or engage in some Mario-style platforming that's a little more complex than the mobile Super Mario Run makes battery life vital.

There's still time for Nintendo to change the Switch's design before its anticipated March 2017 debut. We'll learn more about the console when the media is allowed to go hands-on starting in January.

America is losing one of its greatest champions of the free internet. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler announced that he plans to step down on January 20--the exact same day that Donald Trump is expected to be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.

Wheeler's resignation comes as no surprise. Republicans pressured the FCC into delaying votes on new rules because "it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing." The agency heeded that warning by putting off votes on measures to expand audio descriptions, kill the cable box, and expand mobile networks, among others.

Not long after, Republican members of the FCC's leadership said they want Trump's administration to reverse many of the rules introduced under President Obama. The message was clear: Now that Republicans have taken control of Congress, the Presidency, and potentially the Supreme Court, they want to undo many of the pro-consumer regulations that Wheeler and the rest of the Obama administration introduced over the last eight years.

Key among those regulations is the FCC's Open Internet rules defending net neutrality, which went into effect in June 2015. They were put in place to stop internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking access to legal content, throttling data speeds from certain services, or charging other companies for access to a "fast lane" that would deliver their bits and bytes to consumers faster. All of these concepts are at the core of a free and open internet.

Now that free internet is in danger, here's what former FCC commissioner and Common Cause special adviser Michael Copps said in a statement:

Tom Wheeler built a truly historic record of achievement as Chairman of the FCC. At the pinnacle of his achievement is net neutrality. All those who understand the critical importance of this will best honor Tom now by joining together to preserve what his FCC did from the onslaughts of those who would reverse the rules, reverse the power of an open internet, and reverse history itself.

Trump is widely expected to replace Wheeler with a man named Jeffrey Eisenach. He's a former commissioner-turned-analyst who has spoken out against net neutrality multiple times over the years. This fits with Trump's positions, and together they could put an end to net neutrality in the United States. Everything the FCC--and Wheeler specifically--tried to protect over almost a decade could be undone when Trump enters the White House.

Here's Copps again:

On so many other fronts, Tom has led the FCC with vision, dedication to the public interest, and a fierce determination to get things done. Lifeline, E-Rate, consumer privacy, broadband deployment, spectrum policy have each been advanced thanks to his leadership and the majorities he put together in behalf of those issues. [...] We will need Tom's voice and leadership after January 20 as much as before, not just to preserve one individual's achievements but to build a telecom and media environment of, by, and for the American people.

There's a chance that Wheeler set his resignation for January 20 with the hope that the Electoral College will prevent Trump from becoming president. This would make it easier for Wheeler to resist a Republican Congress, at least, and he wouldn't be marked for removal by the end of January. That probably won't happen. Instead, shortly after the New Year has been rung in, the free and open internet may once again be put in jeopardy.

The FCC adopted new rules that will require ISPs to ask for permission before using and sharing “sensitive” customer information. New rules on data security and data breaches were also adopted.

A History Of Privacy Abuses From ISPs And Carriers

Over the past few years we’ve seen ISPs and wireless carriers try to track all users by default and use their information for commercial reasons. At first, much of this was secretive until it was uncovered, and companies such as AT&T and Verizon promised to give users an “opt-out” option from the smartphone browsing behavior tracking.

AT&T, which also used undeletable “supercookies” to track wireless users, went much further than that with its Gigapower service. Until recently, when it likely learned that the new FCC privacy framework was nigh, the company was charging an extra $30 per month to Gigapower customers if they didn’t want their browsing behavior to be tracked.

A recent report also unveiled that AT&T was secretly sharing customers’ private information with the DEA (and potentially the NSA) without a warrant. This marked yet another scenario in which AT&T proved to be a most reliable partner for intelligence agencies and went above and beyond what the law required of the company.

FCC’s Three Main Privacy Rules

The FCC’s new privacy framework is governed by three main privacy rules, or privacy categories:

1. Opt-in

ISPs will need explicit (opt-in) permission from customers to use and share information such as precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of communications.  

2. Opt-out

“Non-sensitive” information such as the email addresses or service tier information of customers will be used and shared by ISPs automatically, unless the users “opt-out” of this sort of data sharing. (Presumably ISPs will make it available in customers’ online accounts, or when they sign the contracts.)

3. Exception To Consent Requirements

The third category of privacy rules involves information that is necessary for the service to function, so no additional consent will be required from customers other than the signing of the contract.

Other Rules Provided By The New Privacy Framework

Beyond these three main rules, ISPs will also be required to provide customers with clear information about how their data is collected, how it’s used, and with whom it’s shared, as well as how they can change their privacy settings.  

ISPs will also have to conform to industry best practices for data security. They will need to follow the FTC’s and the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights’ guidelines and requirements for customer privacy and security, as well.

ISPs will have to notify both consumers and authorities when data breaches happen and when they have failed to protect their customers’ data. Consumers have to be notified within 30 days of the breach, while the FCC and the FBI will have to be notified within seven days of the data breach if it affects more than 5,000 customers.

The FCC noted that these new rules don’t apply to “edge” services that work on top of ISP’s networks, including the ISP’s own websites and online services. They apply only to broadband internet access services.

The rules further don’t apply to government surveillance or law enforcement. That could mean that ISPs may still collect as much data as they can on customers for the purpose of aiding intelligence or law enforcement agencies, but they won’t be allowed to use it for commercial purposes, as described by the new FCC privacy framework. However, it’s unclear whether this would cover AT&T’s recently reported “for-profit” data sharing with authorities.

When The Rules Go Into Effect

The data security requirements for ISPs will go into effect within 90 days after publication of the summary of the Order in the Federal Register, which could mean that ISPs don’t have to change too much about the security practices they’re already employing.

The data breach notification policy will have to be implemented within six months after the publication of the summary of the Order in the Federal Register.

The Notice and Choice requirements will become effective about 12 months after publication of the summary of the Order in the Federal Register for the big ISPs. Small ISPs will have an additional year to comply with the new opt-in and opt-out privacy rules.

Virginia Senator Mark Warner (D), who is the co-founder of the Senate Cybersecurity Caucus and a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to three governmental agencies (FTC, FCC, and DHS) asking them what they can do about the recent IoT DDoS attacks and other related threats.

DoS Attacks Getting Stronger, Quickly

As seen with the recent massive DDoS attacks that have surpassed the terabit per second (Tbps) bandwidth limit, DDoS attacks are becoming an increasingly higher risk to internet services companies, and to the internet's infrastructure in general.

“The weak security of many of the new connected consumer devices provides an attractive target for attackers, leveraging the bandwidth and processing power of millions of devices, many of them with few privacy or security measures, to swamp internet sites and servers with an overwhelming volume of traffic,” said Sen. Warner in an article on his personal Senate page.“I am interested in a range of expert opinions and meaningful action on new and improved tools to better protect American consumers, manufacturers, retailers, Internet sites and service providers,” he added.

Things are likely going to get much worse before they get better, because we’re probably still a few years away from most IoT manufacturers taking the security of their devices much more seriously. They need to build the necessary infrastructure to support that new level of security.

In the meantime, many new insecure IoT devices are thrown on the market for consumers to buy, continuously expanding the potential for stronger DDoS attacks. Innovative new amplification techniques for DDoS could also make these attacks even stronger by at least an order of magnitude.

The botnet software that has been used in the past few massive DDoS attacks was open sourced under the name of "Mirai," which means it should now be even easier for malicious actors to use botnets or create their own forked versions.

The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) seems to have already identified a new family of malware, which is similar to Mirai, infecting vulnerable IoT devices. That means we may see further development of more effective and more resilient botnets in the future.

IoT Security, A “Tragedy Of The Commons”

When the outlook for internet resilience is this dire, it seems government intervention to set some baseline standards for IoT security may be imminent. The European Union is already considering a labeling/rating system that would at least give consumers the opportunity to know which products are more secure.

However, this will likely be an insufficient solution, because when people buy their smart coffee maker or smart fridge, their first thought likely isn’t that it needs to be protected against being taken over by DDoS-creating botnets.

Individual consumers who buy IoT devices aren’t usually directly impacted by a DDoS attack, though. Their devices may upload a little more data when the botnet sends some packages to the DDoS target, but otherwise they may work just as well as they normally do.

Therefore, ensuring that most IoT devices that are being sold on the market are secure shouldn’t rely solely on the consumers. The consumers themselves won’t be able to put enough pressure on manufacturers to secure their devices simply because they wouldn’t be the ones most affected by the botnets taking over their devices.

Senator Mark Warner called this a “tragedy of the commons,” which is an economic theory about a situation where individuals would act in their own self-interest to the detriment of the common good.

“Manufacturers today are flooding the market with cheap, insecure devices, with few market incentives to design the products with security in mind, or to provide ongoing support,” said Senator Warner in his letter to the three federal agencies.“And buyers seem unable to make informed decisions between products based on their competing security features, in part because there are no clear metrics. Because the producers of these insecure IoT devices currently are insulated from any standards requirements, market feedback, or liability concerns, I am deeply concerned that we are witnessing a ‘tragedy of the commons’ threat to the continued functioning of the internet, as the security so vital to all internet users remains the responsibility of none. Further, buyers have little recourse when, despite their best efforts, security failures occur,” added Warner in his letter.

ISP-Level Blocking Of “Zombie” IoT Devices

Senator Warner noted also noted that under the FCC’s Open Internet rules, ISPs aren’t allowed to block “non-harmful” devices from their networks. However, they should be able to block harmful ones, such as the infected IoT devices participating in DDoS attacks, also called “zombie” devices.

Such an action might be a potential solution to the increasingly larger and rapidly evolving DDoS problem. It would not only disrupt DDoS attacks (assuming the ISPs are quick enough to react to them), but it might also hurt the image (and later the sales of) IoT manufacturers, whose devices would then be blocked from using the internet.

If consumers learn that the devices they bought from a manufacturer are no longer connected to the internet because they had security vulnerabilities that allowed them to be taken over by a DDoS-creating botnet, they might choose a different, more secure brand next time they buy a similar product. This is also where a good security rating system for IoT devices would be welcome.

That potential damage to their image and future sales could become the incentive IoT manufacturers need to invest heavily in security their devices. Government-mandated recalls could be another, stricter, alternative solution that should have a similar impact. However, IoT device makers will likely agree to do whatever is necessary to avoid that highly expensive scenario.

Preventing Censorship, Extortion, And Disruption Of Economic Activity

These solutions are not ideal, as abuses or other problems could arise from these actions, and they are also not the only possible solutions for dealing with DDoS attacks. However, they may be the most effective ones in stopping damaging DDoS attacks in the near future, and in accelerating the security of new IoT devices.

Massive DDoS attacks could be used as censorship tools against sites such as Reddit and Twitter, but they can also be used to target financial services sites such as PayPal--or government services, or any other website--for the purpose of extortion. This is why customers of IoT devices, who may mainly care whether the device works properly and has all the features they need, can’t be the only ones putting pressure on manufacturers to improve security.

The FCC fined Comcast $2.3 million for placing unauthorized items on users’ bills. The settlement, which Comcast agreed to, will also help guard against this happening again in the next few years, but it falls short of fixing the problem permanently.

Comcast was engaging in a practice the FCC refers to as “Negative Option Billing.” Essentially, the idea is to place charges on a user’s bill, and then see if the customer makes contact in an attempt to resolve the issue. Comcast then provided the service or piece of equipment it charged for. If the customer contacted Comcast, then they could return the unwanted equipment. The company would issue a refund for any undesired services. If the customer didn’t contact Comcast to resolve the issue, however, then they were stuck with the additional charges.

Although the FCC did not say how many incidents were reported, it is likely that Comcast succeeded in charging users for unwanted service and equipment without the user noticing or requesting a refund. The FCC said that users were often uninformed of the additional charges until they reviewed their monthly bill or the unexpected equipment arrived in the mail.

After customers realized that Comcast had charged them for unwanted services, they still needed to go through the arduous task of contacting Comcast to attain a refund. The FCC said that the users who reported the issue spent significant amounts of time and energy trying to resolve it.

Sometimes Comcast charged users for a service after they explicitly declined it.

“It is basic that a cable bill should include charges only for services and equipment ordered by the customer—nothing more and nothing less,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. “We expect all cable and phone companies to take responsibility for the accuracy of their bills and to ensure their customers have authorized any charges.”

For Comcast, a $2.3 million fine may pale in comparison to how much the company made from the illegal business practice. In the settlement, Comcast also agreed to adopt a new set of procedures to help avoid this type of issue from reoccurring. Part of these new procedures requires Comcast to send users order confirmation notices separately from the typical billing statement. Comcast is also required to give customers a new account option, which will block the company from adding any new services or equipment to their accounts.

The problem with the settlement, however, is that Comcast only has to follow these new procedures for the next five years. Clearly, the illegality of the practice didn’t stop Comcast before, and it’s unlikely to prevent it from doing the same thing in the future. This is especially true if the amount Comcast made from this illegal practice is greater than the $2.3 million fine.

In the grand scheme of things, it seems the FCC really should have pressed for harsher terms in the settlement, but at least the agreement should help protect customers in the near future.