Matt Wood

The claim that restoring light-touch Title II authority and basic Open Internet rules would harm—or did harm, from 2015 through 2018—ISPs’ broadband network investments is extraordinary. Not only because mountains of evidence from the ISPs themselves demonstrate its falsity; it is also extraordinary because the mechanism by which this supposed harm would occur is illogical and unreasonable, and has been proven ever more outlandish over time.  ISPs exist to generate economic returns for their shareholders.

Free Press and Access Now filed reply comments with the Federal Communications Commission urging strong and rapid implementation of the Emergency Broadband Benefit program.

Free Press and Access Now filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission urging strong and rapid implementation of the Emergency Broadband Benefit program established by Congress in the latest pandemic relief package. The EBB program offers a monthly benefit of up to $50  to low-income families and those financially impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. The benefit would help cover the cost of any broadband plan offered by participating internet providers.

Public interest commenters, including public safety officials, overwhelmingly agreed with Free Press’s assessment that the Federal Communications Commission’s misguided repeal of Net Neutrality and its authority over broadband internet access service (“BIAS”) harms the Lifeline program, pole attachment regulation, and public safety. These commenters also overwhelmingly agreed that the best remedy for such harms would be for the Commission to once again correctly classify broadband as a Title II service protected by strong open internet rules.

How soon can you win a legal victory and end this nightmare? The soonest Free Press can file in court is after the order is published, either by the Federal Communications Commission itself or in that Federal Register. (There are some complicated timing rules that can apply differently to different parts of the FCC’s vote, so that’s why there’s some flexibility.) Once that publication happens, we’ll file within 10 days — a timeframe set for making a first appearance and starting the process to determine which federal appeals court will hear the case.

Last week, AT&T Senior Vice President Bob Quinn tried (and failed) to undercut Network Neutrality supporters by insisting that Free Press has been foretelling doom and gloom since 2010. That’s when the Federal Communications Commission adopted weak open-internet rules that didn’t cover mobile access. Quinn claims that none of Free Press’ predictions about carriers engaging in mobile blocking ever came true — but he conveniently overlooks how AT&T blocked FaceTime on its cellular networks in 2012 and 2013.

The short version is that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s order takes the Network Neutrality rules off the books and abandons the court-approved Title II legal framework that served as the basis for the successful 2015 Open Internet Order. Here are a few of the many lowlights in the draft order and a quick explanation of why they’re wrong:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai Ajit wants people to believe that he’s a champion for more open and affordable broadband. The actions he’s taken since becoming chairman last month show he’s anything but. Using the exact same kind of unilateral power plays he previously decried in other chairmen, he’s made it far more difficult for low-income families to take advantage of a program that makes broadband access more affordable. His only plan is floating tax breaks to companies for the networks they’re already building, even though he has no power to change tax law and even though these kinds of tax breaks would do nothing to make internet access more affordable.

Pai keeps repeating the utterly debunked claim that the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules are utility-style regulations that are hurting broadband deployment. This is false on the law and false on the facts. It ignores not just the actual language of the FCC order, which explicitly forbears from the bulk of Title II, but the actual impact that Title II reclassification has had on the market. Pai’s claim that Net Neutrality protections have created great uncertainty in the marketplace is a flat-out lie, as is his notion of flatlining investment by internet service providers. We long ago discredited these claims. Pai’s frequent charge that investment has declined is based on the claims made by one industry-paid analyst, who selectively edits the figures reported by some of these companies. But if you take account of the industry’s spending as a whole, you’ll see that broadband-industry investment was nearly 9 percent higher in the two years following the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order than it was in the two years prior. What’s more, these industry aggregate totals don’t tell the whole story. Individual companies large and small significantly increased their broadband-infrastructure investments following the rules’ adoption. Comcast, the nation’s largest ISP, has invested far more in the two years following the FCC's order as the company has rolled out the next generation of cable-modem service. Smaller providers like Cincinnati Bell have increased their investments in fiber-to-the-home technology. And all wireless carriers have invested in completing their 4G deployments and preparing for 5G. Reporters shouldn't let Trump's man at the FCC spread easily debunked falsehoods like these. Pai’s relentless spin and his inaccurate numbers beg the question: What else is Pai misleading us about? People need to take a moment to double check the alternative facts coming from this FCC chairman.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai thinks he can set the record straight with more crooked words and made-up numbers. Like his boss in the White House, Chairman Pai should spend less time worrying about his media coverage and more time on his job. And his job is not to cheerlead for more corporate welfare for the biggest internet access providers in the form of tax breaks for their existing deployment plans. His job is to bring the benefits of open networks to all, something he’s failing at so far.

Chairman Pai can dissemble all he wants, but the reality is that on Feb 3 he alone took the promise of free high-speed access away from low-income workers, students, veterans and tribal communities around the country. His disdain for the Lifeline program is reflected in his defensive comments, a clear indication that he will make every effort to dismantle the FCC’s 2016 modernization order and delay its benefits.

These requests for en banc review are sour grapes from industry dead-enders who are determined to dismantle the FCC’s successful Net Neutrality rules in spite of their many failed attempts to do so. The D.C. Circuit was abundantly clear when it upheld the FCC last month. The court found that the FCC had acted on its well-defined authority to prevent internet service providers from unfairly interfering with our communications. The D.C. Circuit deferred to the FCC’s determination that its authority to do so stands on bedrock communications law. And the judges recognized the vital role the open internet plays in our society. The broadband industry has been doing just fine since the FCC adopted the Open Internet Order a year and a half ago. Not one of the industry’s doom-and-gloom predictions has come true. The order didn’t dampen investment or revenues for broadband providers, and internet users have added confidence that their rights to connect and communicate are protected. Last-ditch efforts like these petitions are unlikely to succeed. Big phone and cable companies obviously have plenty of money to waste on high-priced lawyers. But they should give up their foolish quest to overturn rules that benefit internet users.