TR: So the FCC is calling the rules it voted on “net neutrality,” but actually they’re not?
JR: Yep. What [the rules] don’t prevent is paid prioritization — they’re allowing tiering. And they’re not protecting wireless. Those are two essential qualities of any real net neutrality rules, and [both] are absent. So it’s dressed up; it makes me think of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” statement, when you declare something is over when in fact it is not.
TR: What’s next?
JR: From my perspective, there’s the question of whether or not there’s room for lawsuits. One concern is that black and brown people, because of our propensity to use wireless, won’t be protected by the net neutrality rules. There are some legal questions about whether there’s some remedy there.
We also want to educate the public about what’s at stake, to create a level of public accountability, so that when AT&T or Verizon or Comcast actually does something that is either bad [for] wireless or is actually tiering on the Internet, that [it knows] there’s a PR price to pay.
Sheryl Huggins Salomon is deputy editor of The Root.