Net Neutrality Hearing Firing Off Polar Opinions

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Public safety took front and center on a net neutrality debate in the nation's capital over how the Internet should be managed, as the Federal Communications Commission argued its side in its first federal appeals court hearing over whether overturning the 2015 Obama-era initiative by the Trump Administration a year ago was legal or not.

Silicon Valley is watching.

In particular, Santa Clara County has a stake in the outcome, given the Internet debacle its fire agency experienced responding to the Mendocino Complex fire last year. Santa Clara County Fire's Verizon account was "throttled" as an inadequate data plan that essentially plummeted to "a dial-up speed," said Ernesto Falcon, spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The San Jose-based organization is an advocate for net neutrality.

"What (the FCC) argued is that they would respond (to the problem) after the fact, instead of being proactive," Falcon said.

"We are pleased that the court at oral argument recognized the public safety issues we raised as the serious issues they are. The questions the judges posed to the FCC demonstrate exactly why the FCC should have considered public safety in its decision-making, which it is required to do by law," Santa Clara County Counsel James R. Williams told Patch. "We hope that the court's opinion confirms that the FCC must independently assess public safety harms, and that the repeal of the net neutrality rules is set aside."

Capt. Bill Murphy told Patch Friday evening that he's hopeful the court rules in the county's favor.

"County fire relies on a variety of technologies to communicate during emergencies, both amongst ourselves and with the public we serve. It is imperative those services are available when we need them, and when the public needs them," Murphy said of the telecom incident.

Flash forward -- net neutrality is based on maintaining a free and equal Internet -- opposed to one governed by service providers who can charge more for service or slow it down at its discretion.

With that, the FCC chief expects a second victory in curtailing the rules surrounding net neutrality. But the opposing side including commissioners not necessarily in lockstep with Chairman Ajit Pai's controversial order is also anticipating a judicial win.

Either way, a docket entry scheduled for two hours took twice that as the complex issue with high stakes for present and future generations to come brought forth intense arguments about whether keeping the Internet equal will maintain bandwidth strength and services inexpensive.

When all is said and done, the ruling on whether the Internet will be run as an information service provider or a public utility subject to more regulations is expected to come down months from now. So stay tuned.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed the FCC’s authority to classify broadband as a Title I information service, and after today’s argument we continue to believe that the judiciary will uphold the FCC’s decision to return to that regulatory framework under which the Internet flourished prior to 2015 and is continuing to thrive today," FCC Chief of Staff Matthew Berry told Patch on Friday.

A panel heard the arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals consisting of two judges, two Democratic appointees and one Republican. The FCC voted 3-2 along party lines to reverse the net neutrality rules that favor more deregulation.

However, the five commissioners are not necessarily in lock step on the matter, which has far-reaching implications for present and future societies.

"(There was) no shortage of complex issues in oral argument. But here’s what’s clear: the court now has a chance to right what the @FCC got wrong when it made the misguided decision to roll back #NetNeutrality. I sat through it all. I’m hopeful," FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, wrote on her Twitter account.

The South Bay and the California State Attorney General Xavier Becerra are watching the case with fervor. They contend Pai's new rules allowing providers to manage the speed and access to particular websites must be challenged.

Net neutrality was adopted with the intent of barring broadband purveyors from blocking websites or charging more. It was upheld by a federal appeals court the following year. But the FCC under a new administration that values deregulation at a stunning rate took a backdoor approach to the matter, riling up states and equal Internet-access advocates.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge in the hopes the matter would get resolved in the lower courts.

The California attorney general agreed to having its legal challenge on hold until the U.S. Court of Appeals determines whether the feds can preempt a state's mandate. The Golden State wants to keep the Internet free and open to all, minus the varying speeds between favorable sites and non-favorable ones. The issue has brought about protests -- including a mass wave on Facebook.

Last summer, a reversal of the FCC's repeal of net neutrality squeaked by, but the measure remains unresolved in the House of Representatives.

The goal is to build consensus in the Valley. Silicon Valley Leadership Group Vice President of Technology and Innovation Peter Leroe Munoz said his organization represents a blend of businesses who have expressed opinions for and against net neutrality or the FCC's new rules against it. The FCC's repeal could essentially avail providers to block or treat online traffic differently depending on preference and paid dues.

If advocates for net neutrality lose this battle, Munoz expects the war won't be over, predicting the states will draft their legislation.

--Image via Shutterstock