Art Brodsky

That’s why the next item on the Congressional agenda, and on a prospective Biden administration’s agenda, should be a thorough review of a system in which Internet service providers have no obligation to provide service to the areas most in need. Providing an essential service like high-speed Internet should be a requirement enshrined in law. The big telecom companies don’t see sufficient financial incentive to invest heavily in rural broadband, and no one can make them do it. Congress needs to step up and not rely on the Federal Communications Commission to solve this problem.

The major entertainment companies are putting a lot of money into luring cord cutters — millennials and others who want to ditch their cable companies — to new subscription streaming services that allow viewers to watch their favorite TV shows and movies directly over the Internet. The same industry that once blamed the Internet for stealing content now wants to use it to sell directly to consumers. It’s too bad that the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission is pursuing policies that could seriously harm these innovative efforts, just as the streaming business is getting going. And it’s really too bad that some in the media industry aren’t taking the threats seriously enough. The assault will come in the form of telecommunications regulation. Trump’s newly appointed FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has made it clear he wants to eliminate rules that establish net neutrality. In the past, technology companies and public interest groups pushed hard for net neutrality. Now it’s time for reinforcements.

[Brodsky is a consultant in Washington. He covered the FCC as a journalist, and is the former head of communications for Public Knowledge.]

[Commentary] Well, the last meeting of the Federal Communications Commission was certainly a lot of sound and fury signifying next to nothing.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite weeks of backlash, still wants to allow Internet Service Providers like Comcast and Verizon to “offer” different levels of service to Internet companies, although he refused to call them a “fast lane” and a “slow lane” and refused to recognize how those arrangements up the food chain affect consumers and a neutral Internet.

His concession to those of us who value a neutral Internet is to allow it on a case-by-case basis, guaranteeing that nothing will ever get settled, and Internet companies will be allowed to bleed money. Sure, the FCC will ask whether the telecommunications services that carry Internet content should be regulated like utilities (Title II of the Communications Act), and there will be people who make an argument for it.

But here’s the rub. The damage is already done. It was done months ago. And the FCC did nothing to stop it. Regardless of what rule the FCC finally approves, and defends through the years of court challenges, it already established the bad precedent that big ISPs can cause traffic congestion, demand tribute to fix it, and get away with it.