Italicized page numbers indicate illustrations. Tables are indicated by “t” following the page number.
Aaron, Craig, 137n46, 149n21, 155n20
Abbate, Janet, 130n2
access. See equal access; openaccess requirement; speed of internet access
activism. See grassroots activism; specific names of activist groups
Adelphia (regional cable company), 60
Administrative Procedure Act (1946), 96
After Downing Street (advocacy organization), 42
American Civil Liberties Union, 73, 85
American exceptionalism, 6, 64
American Patriot Legion, 73
Ameritech, 54
Android (Google mobile operating system), 80–81
anti-monopoly movement: danger of reversal of temporary victories, 38–39
grassroots activism and, 120
need to revive to break up ISPs, 105–6
radio broadcasting and, 119–20
anti-net neutrality activism, 28, 136n45
antitrust regulation: Baby Bells and, 22–23, 54–55
calls for revitalizing, 121
Computer Inquiries (1966–1980s), 24–26
as separate measures from public interest regulation, 153n5
AOL Time Warner, 42
ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), 11
ARPANET, 11
Associated Press, 32–33
astroturf organizations, 147n10
AT&T: blocking political speech of its subscribers (2007), 43
collusive practices with other broadband services, 58–62
dominance of, 51
DSL service offered by, 55
Google Wallet blocked by, 43
HBO, Warner Bros., DirecTV, and Hulu ownership, 66
history of monopoly status of, 16–23, 52–53, 131n7, 132n20
Kingsbury Commitment (1913) and, 18–19
market share (2018), 59t
open access requirements and, 48–49
refusal to upgrade or expand service, 109
Stevens’s reelection campaign contributions from, 78
Telecommunications Act of 1966 and, 54
threatening to sue FCC over net neutrality (2015), 38
universal service and, 24, 134n32
Walker Report (1935) and, 21–22
wireless monopoly shared with Verizon, 55. See also Bell system
Avaaz, 85
Baker, Meredith Atwell, 115–16
basic services vs. enhanced services, 25–26
Battle for the Net (advocacy coalition), 37, 85–87
Bell Atlantic, 54
Bell South, 54
Bell system, history of, 16–19
legacy in internet world, 52. See also AT&T
Benkler, Yochai, 140n6
Black Lives Matter, 101
blocking content, apps, and devices: California legislation on, 97
examples of, 32–34, 42, 44, 124
loss of net neutrality and, 41
Netflix throttled by Comcast and Verizon, effect of, 85–86
Open Internet Order (2010) and, 35, 81
political speech, censorship of (2005, 2007), 44–45
Restoring Internet Freedom Order (2017), 40, 125
Verizon decision (DC Cir. 2014) eliminating regulation of, 35–36
Brand X decision (2005), 29–31, 49, 72, 124, 156n24
Breitbart, Joshua, 69
Brin, Sergey, 83
broadband cartel: access denied by, 46–53
clustering practices of, 60
collusion among broadband services creating, 57–62
conflicts of interest in ownership of online content companies, 66
definition of cartel, 58
hoarding profits and wealth by, 68
need to break up, 105–6
opposed to municipal broadband development, 110
trickle-down economics and, 66–68
war that was not waged against, 53–57
broadband services: collusive practices of, 58–62
community/municipal broadband, 153n8
definition of, 141n9
fiber to the home (FTTH) broadband networks, 109
reclassification as Title I information service (2002), 27, 29, 123
reclassification as Title I information service (2017), 40
reclassification as Title II telecommunications service (2015), 37–38, 84–85, 90–91, 125
wired broadband, 61. See also cable industry; Charter; Comcast
Bush, George W., 56
business-oriented approach to net neutrality, 129n6
BuzzFeed, 66
cable industry: consolidation in, 55
demise predicted in internet era, 47
détente between largest cable and telephone companies, 47
monopolies in, 50–51
nonaggression pact between Comcast and Charter, 60
openaccess requirement, 123
ownership of networks providing internet connectivity, 47
Telecommunications Act of 1966 and, 54. See also Brand X decision (2005); Title I services; Title II services; specific cable companies
California’s net neutrality legislation, 97
Canadian telecommunications, 42, 131n7
captive markets, 62
cartel. See broadband cartel
Carterfone decision (FCC 1968), 52
Center for Media Justice, 85, 93, 100
market share (2018), 59t
nonaggression pact with Comcast, 60
stock buybacks by, 68
swapping customers with Comcast, 60
Time Warner Cable acquisition by (2016), 59
Chattanooga’s construction of FTTH network, 109
Chicago Telephone Company, 132n11
Christian Coalition of America, 73–74
Citizens United decision (2010), 117
clustering, 60
Clyburn, Mignon, 156n23
Cohen, David, 59
collusive practices of broadband services, 58–62
Combs, Roberta, 74
Comcast: blocking peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies (2007), 32–34, 124
blocking political speech of its subscribers (2005), 42–43
collusive practices with other broadband services, 58–62
compared to municipal broadband services, 110–11
failed acquisition of Time Warner Cable (2014), 59
FCC regulation and sanction of, 3, 124
fear of Title II common carrier classification, 49
market share (2018), 59t
Netflix and, 85
nonaggression pact and swapping customers with Charter, 60
reclassification of cable broadband as Title I information service and, 29
recommendation to break up into smaller units and stop future acquisitions and mergers by, 105–6
refusal to upgrade or expand service, 109
role in net neutrality debate, 6
stock buybacks by, 68
Comcast Corp. v. FCC (DC Cir. 2010), 34, 84
common carrier principles, 14
definition of common carriers, 21
exemption of cable companies from, 29
FCC’s responsibilities, 20
legal interpretation of, 15
Telecommunications Act and, 26. See also history of nondiscrimination principles
Communications Act of 1934, 19–21
Title I provisions, 20
Title II provisions, 20–21. See also Title I services; Title II services
Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act, 73
competition: FCC reports overstating amount of, 61–62
net neutrality debate and, 99
positive effects for consumers from, 57
theoretical future competition as justification for monopolies, 56. See also monopolies
Computer Inquiries (1966–1980s), 24–26
conflicts of interest in ownership of online content companies, 66
Congressional Review Act, 96
consumers: burden of higher rates falling on, 60–61
choice of ISPs available for (1998), 48
costs of ISP connections in United States compared to other countries, 63–64
double dipping by ISPs charging both content providers and consumers, 72
number of household devices connected to home network, 62
positive effects of competition for, 57. See also grassroots activism
content creators: conflicts of interest in ownership of online content companies, 66
double dipping by ISPs charging both content providers and consumers, 72
role in net neutrality debate, 6. See also Facebook; Google; Netflix
COPE (Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement) Act, 73
Copps, Michael, 27–29, 31, 34–35, 38, 115
corporate interests: constitutional rights of citizens and, 117
free speech rights and, 9–10
opposing government oversight, 7. See also broadband cartel; lobbyists for telecom and cable industries; monopolies
corporate libertarianism, 9–11
anti-net neutrality activism and, 28
in conflict with social democracy, 13–14, 50
dominant ISPs and, 56
First Amendment exploitation by, 118
hindering public construction of Internet for All, 114–15
in history of media ownership and control, 15, 25–26
net neutrality viewed as barrier to corporate investment in, 67
Trump and, 39
costs: of ISP connections in United States compared to other countries, 63–64
in pay-to-play post-net neutrality, 65
Cox, 43
Crawford, Susan, 55, 91, 117, 129n5
critical junctures, 119
CTIA (trade association), 116
Cyril, Malkia, 100
Dahlgren, Peter, 78–79
The Daily Caller (news site), 94
Dakota Access Pipeline protests (#NODAPL), 101
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), 11
Data for Progress poll on support for public option for internet, 112
DC Circuit Court of Appeals: Comcast Corp. v. FCC (2010), 34, 84
Mozilla v. FCC (pending 2019), 95–96
U.S. Telecom v. FCC (DC Cir. 2016), 125
Verizon v. FCC (2014), 35, 65, 124, 137n53
democratic system: Brin on technology’s role in, 83
diverse sources of news in, 12–13
loss of net neutrality, effect of, 41
net neutrality activism and, 31, 122
open internet as essential to, 101
policy interventions for, 105–8
protection of, 5
transformation of internet away from, 100
digital feudalism, 121, 158n36
digital Lochnerism, 116
digital redlining, 24
DirecTV, 66
distributive justice, 6
DreamWorks Pictures, 66
DSL service, 27, 30, 42, 43, 48, 55
electricity and electrical utilities, 103–4
Electronic Frontier Foundation, 85, 86, 97
El-Sayed, Abdul, 111
English common law, 14
entrepreneurship: discouraged by ISPs, 74
promotion of, 99
equal access, 6
activism needed to achieve, 123
Copps on, 28
FCC failure to protect, 29–30
monopoly interference with, 15
net neutrality’s failure to fully address, 104
rural and urban poor as underserved by current broadband providers, 112–13
to telephone and telegraph, 15
European Union: compared to US capital investments in telecommunication networks, 67–68
compared to US internet prices, 64
Facebook: consumer costs of, 65
fast lanes, FCC creating for, 36
gatekeeping control over content, 120–21
monopoly of, 5
public concern over business practices of, 104–5
role in net neutrality debate, 6, 85, 94
value of net neutrality in commercial terms for, 99, 100
Fairness Doctrine, 120, 136n45
Federal Communications Commission (FCC): appeal of 2017 decision to repeal net neutrality, 2
basic services vs. enhanced services, determination of, 25
Computer Inquiries (1966–1980s), 24–26
considered less susceptible to public pressure than Congress, 84
creation and early history of, 19–22, 52, 133n22
“Internet Access Services” report (2016), 61–62
“Internet Policy Statement” (2005), 31, 33
negative view of net neutrality among commissioners, 32
opposition to state-led net neutrality, 97–98
post-Verizon decision (DC Cir. 2014), 36
public comment process of, 39–40, 86–87, 90
regulatory authority over internet, 3
regulatory capture of, 115–16
separation of pure communications from pure data processing services, 24
website crash (2014) due to activism against Wheeler’s proposal, 37, 90. See also Open Internet Orders (2010 & 2015); Restoring Internet Freedom Order (2017); Title I services; Title II services
Feld, Harold, 54, 129n5, 142n18
Feminist Majority, 73
Fiber for All (federal) plan, recommendation for, 112–14
fiber to the home (FTTH) broadband networks, 109
Fight for the Future, 84, 85, 93
FiOS network, 61
First Amendment: corporations possessing free speech rights, 9–10, 117
exploitation by corporate libertarians, 118
internet access providers and, 117
Lochnerism and, 117–18
nondiscrimination against content and, 31
forced access. See open-access requirement
Fort Collins, Colorado, as location of fight between Comcast and local broadband service, 110
Fourteenth Amendment, 116
free market economies, fallacy of, 53
Free Press (media reform organization), 33, 73, 85, 90, 93, 115, 147n5
loss of net neutrality and, 41, 73, 74
Frieden, Rob, 49
FTTH (fiber to the home) broadband networks, 109
Genachowski, Julius, 34, 36, 79–80
Gilded Age, 15
Gingrich, Newt, 53
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 30
Google: Android (mobile operating system), 80–81
fast lanes, FCC creating for, 36
gatekeeping control over content, 121
Google Fiber, 50
Google Wallet, 43
monopoly of, 5
net neutrality enabling initial success of, 83
protests against (2010), 81–82, 82
public concern over business practices of, 105
role in net neutrality debate, 6, 82–83, 85, 94, 99
in Save the Internet coalition, 74, 75
SBC and, 72
threat to online free speech from power of, 128n5
value of net neutrality in commercial terms for, 99, 100
Google-Verizon net neutrality compromise (2010), 71, 80–83
government regulation: corporate libertarianism and, 10–11, 13–14
dissemination of information and, 13
in history of media ownership and control, 15
neoliberalism and, 10
New Deal and American media, 12
social democracy and, 12–14
telephone development and access, 16–17. See also Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Gramsci, Antonio, 158n33
grassroots activism, 6–7, 60–102
anti-monopoly movement and, 120
critical junctures originating from, 119
equal access to internet and, 121
flash points in history of media regulation, 14–15, 71
Google-Verizon net neutrality compromise (2010) and, 71, 80–83
importance of, 105
initial mobilization of, 31, 71
Internet Slowdown Day (September 10, 2014), 37, 87, 88, 93
Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality (July 12, 2017), 93
pro-business alliances and, 75, 99–100
public comment process of FCC and, 39–40, 86–87, 90
social media, use of, 101
state-led movements, 96–98
Stevens’s comments providing fodder for (2006), 76–78
Wheeler’s chairmanship, results from pressure applied to, 37–38, 83–92. See also specific names of activist groups
Greer, Evan, 84
GTE, 55
Gun Owners of America, 73
Hallquist, Christine, 111
Hamill, Mark, 94
Hands Off the Internet, 147n10
Hastings, Reed, 95
hate speech, 121
Hazlett, Thomas, 129n6
HBO, 66
high-speed fiber-optic lines, 61, 109, 112–14
Hindery, Leo, Jr., 60
history of nondiscrimination principles, 14–26
corporate libertarianism and, 25–26
critical junctures and, 119
similarities to current net neutrality battles, 118–20
telegraph development and access, 15–16, 118
telephone development and access in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, 16–17, 118
telephone service monopoly and, 18–19, 22, 23, 52, 132n20
universal service and, 24, 134n32. See also Communications Act of 1934; Federal Communications Commission (FCC); Telecommunications Act of 1996
Hobbes, Thomas, 53
Huffington, Arianna, 69–70
Independence Day (video), 75–76, 77
inequities. See equal access; paid prioritization; speed of internet access
information services. See Title I services
information superhighway concept, 45–46
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), 70
innovation: in circumventing government regulation, 45
discouraged by ISPs, 74
free market as driver of, 46, 66
net neutrality debate and, 6, 67, 99
promotion of, 99
Instagram, 121
International Journal of Communication, 129n5
internet: founding principle of, 3
information superhighway concept of, 45–46
public subsidies underwriting creation of, 11, 52. See also history of nondiscrimination principles; internet service providers (ISPs); net neutrality; net neutrality debate; Title I services; Title II services
“Internet Access Services” report (FCC), 61–62
Internet Association, 99
Internet for All: corporate libertarianism as barrier to development of, 114–15
Fiber for All (federal) plan, recommendation for, 112–14
policy agenda impediments, 114–18
Internet Freedom and Non-discrimination Act (S. 2360, proposed 2006), 72–73
“internet freedom” as activist rallying cry, 73–74
“Internet Policy Statement” (2005), 31, 33
internet service providers (ISPs): ability to discourage innovation and entrepreneurship, 74
choice of ISPs available to consumers (1998), 48
digital redlining by, 24
double dipping by charging both content providers and consumers, 72
First Amendment protecting editorial discretion of, 117
independent ISPs going out of business, 49
market share (2018), 59t
open access defeat, effect on, 47–50
political speech and, 42–43
public opinion of, 110
public option and, 105, 107–14
role in net neutrality debate, 6
universal service and, 24
wireless ISPs distinguished from fixed-line ISPs, 43–44
zero-rating practices of, 97. See also blocking content, apps, and devices; broadband services; Comcast; speed of internet access; Verizon; specific ISPs
Internet Slowdown Day (September 10, 2014), 37, 87, 88, 93
Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality (July 12, 2017), 93
Interstate Commerce Act, 134n31
Interstate Commerce Commission, 18
Isis (mobile payment app), 44
ISPs. See internet service providers
ITIF (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), 70
John, Richard R., 131n7, 132n17
judicial activism, 117
Kavanaugh, Brett, 117
Kennard, William, 48
Keynesian economics, 45–46
Kickstarter, 86
Kingsbury Commitment (1913), 18–19
Knights of Labor, 16
Kushnick, Bruce, 145n43
Laffer, Arthur, 66
Leanza, Cheryl A., 54
libertarianism. See corporate libertarianism
lobbyists for telecom and cable industries: embeddedness of, 156n24
opposing local development of public broadband services, 110
in reaction to Telecommunications Act (1996), 49, 53
regulatory capture and, 115–16
role in net neutrality debate, 70, 71. See also specific organizations by name
local telephone networks, 17
Lochner era and Lochnerization, 116–17
Lochner v. New York (US 1905), 116
Losey, James, 158n36
MacDougall, Robert, 131n7
Madison River (ISP), 42
market failure in media system, 13, 116, 118
Markey, Ed, 96
Markota, Martina, 94
Martin, Kevin, 33–34
McDowell, Robert, 32
MCI, 54
McReynolds settlement (1913), 132n17
MeetWithCindy (activist website), 43
Meinrath, Sascha, 129n5, 131n9, 139n65, 158n36
mergers, 54–56. See also specific cable and telecommunications companies
#MeToo movement, 101
MetroPCS, 43
Michigan proposal for statewide public option internet service (called MI-Fi), 111
military role in creation of internet, 11
mobile payment apps, 43
monopolies: anti-democratic effects of, 5
corporate libertarianism favoring, 10, 50–51
in history of media ownership and control, 15, 26, 118–20
monopoly rents of internet access paid by US consumers, 64, 65, 67
natural monopolies, 23
need to address ISP’s monopoly power, 105–6
from oligopoly to cartel status, 57–62
policy interventions against, 105–8, 158n35
strategies to contain, 153n3
telephone service and, 18–19, 22, 23, 132n20
theoretical future competition as justification for, 56. See also anti-monopoly movement
MoveOn.org, 73–74
Mozilla v. FCC (DC Cir. pending 2019), 95–96
MSN, 83
Mueller, Milton, 134n32
municipalities: broadband networks of, 108–11
home rule and telephone service, 17
Muslim Ban, 101
National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), 29, 115
National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. See Brand X decision (2005)
National Hispanic Media Coalition, 85
nationalization of telephone service, 18, 19
National Science Foundation, 11
Nation’s home page on Internet Slowdown Day (2014), 88
nativism, 101
natural monopolies, 23
neoclassical economics, 53
Netflix: fast lanes, FCC creating for, 36
Internet Slowdown Day (September 10, 2014) and, 87
role in net neutrality debate, 6, 85–86, 94–95, 99
streaming, costs of, 65
value of net neutrality in commercial terms for, 95, 99
net neutrality: battle for, 26–36
definition of, 3
international implications of, 6
loss of, 41–44
Obama administration and, 85, 91–92
as oligopoly problem, 63–66
ongoing death and life of, 39–40
post-Comcast Corp. decision (DC Cir. 2010), 34–35, 84
shortcomings of, 104
telecommunications history and, 14–26
temporary triumph (2015) for, 36–39
timeline, 124–25. See also history of nondiscrimination principles
net neutrality debate, 2–3
contradictions within, 57
ideological framework of “trickle-down” economic theory, 66–67
Netflix’s role in (2015), 85–86
nondiscrimination against content and, 31
players in, 6
political power at heart of, 101
populist understanding of, 72, 75, 86
probusiness arguments of, 99–100
reminiscent of earlier media history, 118–20
Stevens in, 76–78. See also corporate libertarianism; grassroots activism; social democracy; specific companies for their role
New Deal, 12, 19, 20, 104. See also Roosevelt, Franklin Delano
Newman, Russell, 129n7, 142n18
Nichols, John, 73
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (2003), 123
nondiscrimination principles. See history of nondiscrimination principles; net neutrality; net neutrality debate
NSFNET, 11–12
Nunziato, Dawn C., 128n5
NYNEX, 54
Obama, Barack, 34, 37, 79, 85, 91–92, 150n35
Occupy the FCC, 87
OECD countries, consumer cost of ISPs in, 64
OkCupid, 86
oligopoly: digital feudalism, 121
incentivizing ISPs not to invest in upgrades, 68
net neutrality as oligopoly problem, 63–66
from oligopoly to cartel status, 57–62
radio broadcasting and, 119
OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), 58
open-access requirement: activism and, 72
Brand X decision (2005) as death knell of, 29–31, 49, 72, 124, 156n24
in countries other than United States, 64
effect on independent ISPs, 47–50, 52, 123
Verizon Communications v. Trinko (US 2004), 51–52
Open Internet Order (2010), 35, 43, 81, 84, 124, 137n53
Open Internet Order (2015), 37–38, 92, 93, 96–97, 125
O’Rielly, Michael, 107
Pacific Telesis, 54
Pai, Ajit, 2, 39–41, 56–57, 94, 95, 125
paid prioritization, 3–4, 40, 64, 65, 68, 97
California legislation on, 97. See also speed of internet access
Parker, Everett, 20
pay-to-play service, 41, 44, 65, 67, 72
Pearl Jam, 43
peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies, 32–34
Pew Research, 62
Pickard, Victor, 129n5, 130n1, 131n9, 138n59, 139n65, 153n3, 156n24, 157n28, 158n36
policy interventions. See recommendations
Popular Resistance, 88
Populist Party, 16
postalization of telephone service, 18
Powell, Michael, 27, 50, 115, 123
preemption of state law, 98
privacy issues, 113–14, 155n18
privatization of public services, 10–11, 46, 99
public good: deprioritized by corporate libertarianism, 46, 67
entrusting to private enterprise, 99
government role in protection of, 13, 104, 108
information as, 12–13
internet viewed by activists as, 31–32
public interest regulation: Communications Act and, 20
history of, 14
monopoly status granted in exchange for abiding by, 23
need to impose on ISPs, 105, 106–7
as separate measures from antitrust regulation, 153n5
Public Knowledge (media organization), 33, 85
public option (publicly owned alternatives), need for, 105, 107–14
Fiber for All (federal) plan, 112
government agency to operate, 113
importance in fight against digital injustice, 120
Michigan proposal for (called MI-Fi), 111
privacy issues and, 113–14
public opinion in favor of, 110–11
state proposals for, 111–12
successful examples of, 109
Vermont proposal for, 111
public utilities: history of regulation of, 107
as natural monopolies, 23. See also history of nondiscrimination principles
public utility commissions, 16
racism, 101
radio broadcasting, 10, 20, 21, 118–20
Raging Grannies (protest group), 81–82, 82
railroad industry of late nineteenth century, 58
Reagan, Ronald, 66–67
recommendations: anti-monopoly action, 105–6
public interest regulation, need to impose on ISPs, 105, 106–7
public option, need for, 105, 107–14
redistribution of wealth, 12
regulation. See Federal Communications Commission (FCC); government regulation; Title I services; Title II services
regulatory capture, 115–16, 155n19
Renderos, Steven, 101
Restoring Internet Freedom Order (2017), 40, 125
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 12, 20, 22, 103–4, 107
Rosenworcel, Jessica, 62
Rucker, James, 81
rural market, underserved by cable and telecom giants, 112–13
Sandberg, Sheryl, 94
Sandvig, Christian, 129n5
Sandy, Oregon, local broadband service in, 109
Santa Clara Fire Department, 1–2
Santa Monica, California, local broadband service in, 109
Save the Internet coalition, 73–76, 81–82
Independence Day (video), 75–76, 77
SBC (Southwestern Bell Corporation), 54
Schiller, Dan, 19, 131n7, 135n35
Schmidt, Eric, 85
Schwartzman, Andrew Jay, 54
Scott, Ben, 142n18, 145n44, 147n8
Senate, U.S.: Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 76
Interstate Commerce Committee, 21–22
7 Things You Can Still Do on the Internet After Net Neutrality (video), 94
sexism, 101
Sheehan, Cindy and Casey, 43
Shephard, William, 58
Silver, Josh, 73
Smith, Adam, 57
in conflict with corporate libertarianism, 13–14
information superhighway and, 45–46
loss of net neutrality and, 41
radio broadcasting and, 119–20
Sohn, Gigi, 98
SOPA/PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act/Protect Intellectual Property Act), 71
Souter, David, 30
Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC), 54
speed of internet access, 3–4
selling to those willing to pay most for, 68. See also high-speed fiberoptic lines
Sprint: independent ISPs using infrastructure of, 48–49
merger with T-Mobile, 156n23
throttling Skype connections, 44
Standard Oil, 18
Starr, Paul, 134n31
state movements and interventions: to counter corporate libertarianism, 118
fight to reimplement net neutrality, 96–98
proposals for public broadband development, 111–12
restrictions on development of local broadband services, 110
Stevens, Ted, 76–78
Stewart, Jon, 78
Stiegler, Zack, 128n5
Stigler, George J., 53
Stiglitz, Joseph, 45
Stop Online Piracy Act/Protect Intellectual Property Act (SOPA/PIPA), 71
streaming, costs of, 65
Sunlight Foundation, 86
Supreme Court, U.S.: Brand X decision (2005), 29–31, 49, 124
Citizens United decision (2010), 117
Lochner v. New York (1905), 116
Verizon Communications v. Trinko (2004), 51–52
surveillance capitalism of platform monopolies, 120–21
Tarnoff, Ben, 130n2
“Team Internet” (2014), 86, 87
telecommunications: AT&T dominance, 23
basic services of, 25–26
early FCC actions, 21–22
enhanced services of, 25–26
information services vs. telecommunications services, 26. See also AT&T; history of nondiscrimination principles; telephone development and access; Title II services
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 25–27, 47, 49, 53–54, 135n36
telegraph development and access, 15–16
telephone development and access, 16–17
Carterfone decision (FCC 1968) allowing third-party interconnection, 52
common carrier principles and, 27
demise predicted in internet era, 46–47
détente between largest cable and telephone companies, 47
interconnection and, 18–19
monopoly of AT&T, 18–19
municipal home rule and, 17
nationalization of telephone service, 18
ownership of networks providing internet connectivity, 47
Telus (Canadian telecom corporation), 42
Tennessee Valley Authority, 104
Thierer, Adam D., 136n45
throttling. See blocking content, apps, and devices; speed of internet access
Time Warner Cable, 29, 49, 145n43
acquisition by Charter (2016), 59
collusion with other broadband services, 61
failed acquisition by Comcast (2014), 59
Title I services: broadband reclassified as information service (2002), 27, 29, 123
broadband reclassified as information service (2017), 40
definition of, 20
difference from Title II, 5
Open Internet Order (2010) and, 35
Title II services: broadband services’ reclassification as telecommunications service (2015), 37–38, 84–85, 90–91, 125
definition of, 20–21
difference from Title I, 5
importance in regulation of common carriers, 30
open access requirements, 47–50, 52
post-Comcast Corp. decision (DC Cir. 2010), 34–35
telephone service as, 27
T-Mobile, 43
merger with Sprint, 156n23
transparency, 138n53
“trickle-down” economic theory, 66–67
Trump, Donald, 39–41, 71, 93–98
Turner, S. Derek, 135n36
Twitter, 87
universal service mandates, 24, 134n32
University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, 92–93
U.S. postal policy, 131n6
U.S. Telecom v. FCC (DC Cir. 2016), 125
van Schewick, Barbara, 98, 129n6
Vedder, Eddie, 43
Verizon: collusive practices with other broadband services, 58–62
compared to municipal broadband services, 110–11
creation of (from merger of Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, and GTE), 54–55
dominance of, 51
DSL service offered by, 55
FCC regulation of, 3
FiOS service, 61
Google-Verizon net neutrality compromise (2010), 71, 80–83
Google Wallet blocked by, 43
ISP market share (2018), 59t
Netflix and, 85
profits accrued by, 64
role in net neutrality debate, 58–62
in Santa Clara Fire Department, 1–2
Stevens’s reelection campaign contributions from, 78
Telecommunications Act of 1966 and, 54
wireless monopoly shared with AT&T, 55
Yahoo!, AOL, Tumblr, and Huffington Post owned by, 66
Verizon Communications v. Trinko (US 2004), 51–52
Verizon v. FCC (DC Cir. 2014), 35, 65, 117, 137n53
Vermont proposal for publicly owned statewide fiber internet network, 111
voice mail, 25
Vonage, 42
Vox Media, 66
Walker, Helgi, 65
Walker, Paul, 21
Walker Report (1935), 21–22
Warner Bros., 66
Western Electric Company, 22
WhatsApp, 121
fast lanes proposal by (2014), 36–37
reaction to John Oliver’s piece on net neutrality, 89–90
Title II reclassification for broadband service under (2015), 37–38, 84–85, 90–91, 125
Whitacre, Ed, 72
wired broadband. See cable industry
wireless ISPs: exempt from Open Internet Order (2010), 81
FCC distinguishing from fixed-line ISPs, 43–44
lack of regulation of, 55
monopoly market of Verizon and AT&T in, 55
Wu, Tim, 14, 56, 69, 123, 127n2, 153n4
Wyden, Ron, 73
Yoo, Christopher, 127n2, 132n16
zero-rating, 97
Zuckerberg, Mark, 94