Op-Ed

[Commentary] Although the fight for an open internet tends to have Silicon Valley tech bros at the forefront, it’s a racial justice issue; arbitrary powers for corporations tend not to help marginalized populations. It’s a rural justice issue, too.

The big service providers pushing the deregulation spree are the same companies that have so far refused to bring broadband to less-dense areas. They are holding under-served communities hostage by proposing a deal: roll back rights to private, open media, and we’ll give you cheaper internet. Trump’s Republican party is taking the bait. Up in the mountains west of me, a decade and a half ago, the commercial internet service providers weren’t bringing high-speed connectivity to residents, so a group of neighbors banded together and created their own internet cooperative. Big providers love making their jobs sound so complicated that nobody else could do it, but these people set up their own wireless network, and they still maintain it. Of course, their service remains pretty rudimentary; the same can’t be said of Longmont (CO), city 20 minutes from where I live in the opposite direction. There, the city-owned NextLight fiber network provides some of the fastest connectivity in the country for a reasonable price. In Longmont, all the surveillance and anti-neutrality stuff simply isn’t relevant.

Whatever happens in Washington, we can start building an internet that respects our rights on the local level. What would be the best route for creating community broadband in your community?

[Nathan Schneider teaches media studies at the University of Colorado Boulder]

[Commentary] When I was White House communications director for President Barack Obama I would warn the White House press corps that they were living on borrowed time. In a digital age, with the proliferation of communication platforms, the media was eventually going to need a better answer for why 50 or so reporters deserved daily access to the White House — access not available to other outlets and the general public. Now, the clock has run out. The ultimate disrupter, in the form of President Donald Trump, is seeking to change nearly every rule that presidents and the reporters who cover them have lived by. To lose this give and take — either by refusing to turn on the cameras or by putting a showman at the podium — would be a significant blow to an accountable democracy.

[Jennifer Palmieri served as White House communications director from 2013 to 2015 and was communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign]

[Commentary] All of this network neutrality action involves just the very last part of the communications grid in the US — the “last mile,” or the part of the network that actually touches consumers. Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler pushed through the relabeling of the “last mile” as a regulable service. That utility label needs to be retained, as I’ve often argued.

But there’s an even bigger and possibly more insidious policy in the works that will result in far greater woes for consumers. It involves the not terribly well-understood part of the system called the “middle mile.” As with the last mile, the new administration wants to avoid enforcing any legal protections. And it‘s doing this in a manner that just happens to benefit the powerful forces that take citizens’ money while denying them the best services.

[Susan Crawford is the John A. Reilly Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.]

[Commentary] Recently, millions of Americans, mainly on the left, rallied behind a cause larger than themselves: maximizing President Donald Trump’s power over the Internet. Wait. What?

Powers invoked for net neutrality could be a Trojan horse — just as the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned about the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission’s power grab in 2008. The current FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, has long criticized the FCC’s abuses of power. He has consistently opposed the politicization of the agency and called for the FCC to constrain its discretion. But Pai won’t be chairman forever, and his self-restraint is highly exceptional. Democrats should have worked out a legislative deal while they held the White House. It’s not too late, but it soon might be. Republicans increasingly see Web companies as political enemies. That will only get worse without legislation. We could spend another decade, or more, fighting about this. The good news? Some Democrats and Web companies are showing signs they might negotiate. The door remains open — for now.

[Berin Szoka is president of TechFreedom, a technology policy think tank.]

[Commentary] The General Conduct standard and the advisory opinion process ended what Mercatus Center scholar Adam Thierer has described as the “permissionless innovation” standard that has governed the Internet ecosystem since at least 1996, when Congress passed a law declaring the policy of the US to leave the Internet “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” The Federal Communications Commission’s wide-ranging, 400-page order instead opted for precisely the opposite, demanding that Internet service providers and their immediate business partners apply for permission for any improvement to the network—permission that wasn’t permission at all, and which might never actually arrive. These needless and dangerous innovation-killers, in addition to the other legal and economic problems caused by the hastily-crafted 2015 Open Internet order, justify FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to reverse course and return ISPs to full participation in the Internet ecosystem, where they operated without violating even a strict definition of “net neutrality” for twenty years.

Neutrality was never seriously at risk, nor is it now. But if it is, legislation proposed by Republicans before the FCC swallowed the bitter public utility bill remains the only viable solution, if only to avoid another decade of see-sawing decisions. Chairman Pai is right to be undoing the damage done as quickly as possible.

[Larry Downes is the Project Director at Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy.]

[Commentary] The federal E-rate program plays a critical role in allowing Kansas kids to harness the power of technology in schools and libraries. Current Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has voiced support for the program as a commissioner, repeatedly calling it a “program worth fighting for” and saying it has the potential to “help millions of children in America benefit from digital learning.” Of course, we agree with him on those points. However, since then, Chairman Pai has curiously refused to commit to protecting the program; retracted a progress report demonstrating E-rate’s success following its modernization; and expressed a desire to alter funding for the program in a way that would leave countless kids behind.

With Chairman Pai scheduled to testify to the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen Jerry Moran (R-KS) has an important opportunity to stand up for kids in Kansas and throughout the country. School districts like Garden City, which received $492,000 in funding in 2016 to expand access to high speed internet services thanks to E-Rate funding. We respectfully urge Sen Moran to stand up for our nation’s schools on July 19.

[James Steyer is CEO and founder of Commons Sense Kids Action]

[Commentary] Despite its name, the California Broadband Internet Privacy Act, awaiting votes in the state Senate, won’t do anything meaningful to protect consumer privacy on line. Instead, it will curb innovation and reduce competition, hurting consumers whose interests it purports to protect.

The measure, AB 375 by Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), is intended to crack down on internet service providers that are allegedly selling sensitive personal web browsing information without consumers’ consent. Its backers argue that it will fill a supposed “privacy gap” left when Congress repealed Federal Communications Commission draft rules adopted during Barack Obama’s administration. Here’s why they’re wrong. First, the proposal attacks a nonexistent problem. Internet service providers have committed that they will seek permission from consumers before using sensitive personal information, such as health and financial data. Customers will have to affirmatively “opt in” before any such transaction could take place. So no one’s personal data is being sold. Second, even if a problem exists, there are legal tools to combat it. In short, there is no legislative privacy gap. Third, the state bill is based on a flawed proposal by the FCC. Don’t take my word for it. Ask America’s top privacy cop, the FTC.

[Jon Leibowitz, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, was Federal Trade Commission chair from 2009-2013. He is co-chair of the 21st Century Privacy Coalition, a trade group of broadband providers.]

[Commentary] In the weeks leading up to July 12's day of protest over network neutrality in the US, big tech names signed on to join the fight to keep it. Among them were some of the biggest names on the internet, including Amazon, Google, and Facebook, all of which have a vested business interest in all Americans being able to access their sites quickly and frequently. But those sites did not go dark July 12. They didn’t slow down in an effort to mimic what life might be like for some were net neutrality to end.

Instead, they mostly pointed users to other, pro-net neutrality pages. Ultimately, the fight over net neutrality is about who controls the internet: users or major corporations. In that regard, there is only a degree of difference between the 20th century giants of the telecommunications sector and the those of 21st century Silicon Valley. It’s not too difficult a leap to make from wondering why your online access shouldn’t be free from walls erected by your cable company, to wondering equally why your online access shouldn’t also be free from limitations created by a social media platform, search engine, or e-commerce behemoth.

[Commentary] I am excited to embark on the most rewarding work of my career at The United States Digital Service. The USDS is a startup at The White House, using design and technology to deliver better services to the American people. My first project will be helping to untangle, simplify and successfully deliver an improved user experience for veterans on Vets.gov.

“The Vets.gov team is creating a single place for veterans to discover, apply for, track, and manage their benefits online. We are designing with users every step of the way, collaborating with dedicated civil servants, and building the most heavily used and needed services first. As functionality expands and traffic grows, we aim to deliver the best digital experience possible to those who have served our country."

[Randall Weidburg previously worked at Groupon]

[Commentary] Recently a small group of economists (I was one) summarized the economic research on network neutrality and Title II. Limiting ourselves to economics articles in the top 300 journals and that used explicit economic models, we reviewed the answers to four basic questions:

• How would regulations restricting ISPs from offering enhanced network features, such as fast lanes, to content providers affect (a) total welfare, (b) network investment, and (c) the variety of content on the internet and content provider investment? (Note: “Total welfare” is value that consumers receive from what they purchase minus the cost of providing the products.)
• How would prohibitions on network termination fees affect total welfare?
• How would prohibiting ISPs from blocking content affect total welfare?
• Are ISPs like the telecom companies for which Congress wrote Title II?

Here is what we found, but in my own words. 1) The effects of restricting enhanced network features on welfare, ISP investment, and content depend on market conditions. 2) It appears that termination fees could be harmful when ISPs compete for providing access to content providers and an ISP would charge content providers that do not directly connect with the ISP. Otherwise, termination fees are helpful. 3) Blocking is harmful. 4) Economic research today supports the idea that internet services are quite important but has not found that ISPs have the monopoly power contemplated when Title II was created.