Op-Ed

[Commentary] I support network neutrality and the rules as the Obama Federal Communications Commission Democratic majority promulgated. But I recognize that there may be benefits to consumers, particularly low-income consumers and the public interest that might warrant exemptions to strict network neutrality rules. We would all be better off if Congress could agree on what those rules and exceptions should look like, but repealing Title II protections will not help us get there.

Much like you have seen the FCC privacy rules replaced with nothing, having polarized the parties, and made deliberation toward compromise more difficult, the repeal of Title II rules will do the same thing....Repealing network neutrality protections without replacing them with something that has bipartisan support at the same time will poison the environment for potential philosophical resolution and compromise to the detriment of network operators, internet innovators and consumers alike.

[Daniel Sepulveda served as ambassador, deputy assistant secretary, and coordinator for communications and information policy at the State Department from 2013 through Jan. 20, 2017]

[Commentary] The Donald Trump presidency, dominated by images of decline and threat, “American carnage” and bad, bad people, has presented any number of challenges to the US press, whose instinct, after all, is to go dark itself. But President Trump has taken that impulse and supercharged it, creating yet another conundrum for reporters tasked with making sense of where we are: Is it possible, in this age, to be too bleak? Is the unremitting negativity of the news itself part of Trump’s approach to destabilizing the news business? Has this negativity in fact helped to facilitate Trump’s rise to power? Is it possible, or even plausible, to modulate the negativity in some way? New outlets should be the breeding ground, not of the type of alarming stories that create a yearning for a strong political hand, but of the knowledge of human imperfection and a way through or around it that puts a modest heroism within reach of the everyday reader.

[Lee Siegel is a New York City writer and cultural critic]

The people’s verdict is in. A slew of recent polls make clear that most Americans, nearly 80%, support keeping the network neutrality rules that are the foundation of an open internet. These are the rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015, under the leadership of then-chairman Tom Wheeler, that keep the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon from determining your internet experience, because they’d rather do that themselves than let you do it. Net neutrality rules prohibit blocking or throttling content. And they keep ISPs from favoring their affiliates, corporate friends, and those who can afford sky-high broadband prices with fast lanes on the net, while the rest of us are told to travel in the slow lane.

[Commentary] At bottom, network neutrality is nothing more than good old-fashioned rate regulation. Accordingly, if you are going to impose rate regulation, then Title II prescribes certain rules you must adhere to in order to ensure that the regulated firms’ Fifth Amendment due process rights are not violated....At stake...is whether an administrative agency should be permitted to re-write the law—especially when it does so simply to fit a political agenda. According to the D.C. Circuit in United States Telecom v. FCC, the answer appears to be “yes.” Citing the Supreme Court’s seminal case in Brand X, the D.C. Circuit found in USTelecom that the FCC had wide—nearly unbounded—latitude to interpret the Communications Act and not only upheld the agency’s decision to reclassify but also upheld the agency’s ability to “tailor” how it chose to implement Title II. In so doing, the D.C. Circuit—rather by design or by omission—has taken Chevron deference to the extreme.

USTelecom has greatly expanded the commission’s authority to set the rates, terms and conditions of private actors well beyond its statutory mandate. Accordingly, the statutory construct of “Title II” now has no meaning; it is some bizarre legal hybrid that the FCC has made up and the D.C. Circuit has sanctioned. For those who care deeply about due process and the rule of law, the precedent set by the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom is deeply troubling and is a case that we will likely have to deal with its aftermath for years to come.

[Lawrence J. Spiwak is president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies.]

[Commentary] If there's anything lawmakers should have learned from activists over the past few years it's this: Do not make the internet angry.

In March, congressional Republicans once again felt the wrath of the internet community when they reversed the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules. The blowback from the vote was massive, prompting members of Congress to hide from angry constituents. Now President Donald Trump and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai are digging even deeper and looking to overturn the historic 2015 Net Neutrality win. If they think the internet is going to take that sitting down, they have another think coming. The internet community and allied companies come together to remind President Trump, Chairman Pai and Congress that millions of people in America have made their support for net neutrality known. They know that the repeal of net neutrality means the end of real privacy protections, means paying more for worse service — and enables companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to decide how you use the internet.

[Sandra Fulton is the government relations manager for Free Press Action Fund]

[Commentary]

1. Freedom of expression isn’t a function of the values of a place but the structure of the information infrastructure. Oppressive regimes led by the likes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin understood this and used the power of centralized/consolidated information systems to spread propaganda.
2. The 1960s were famous for the rejection of these centralized systems (in this case, the Bell/AT&T monopoly). And, the internet was explicitly designed to be network neutral as a way to fight consolidation.
3. This network neutrality or net neutrality means that every service on the internet competes on a level playing field and it is users (i.e. us) that choose which internet service wins. This system brings its own set of issues with it but it is better than the alternative.
4. Net neutrality principles are closely aligned with the principles behind the freedom of expression. So, the real question underlying the net neutrality discussion is — how much do you care about freedom of expression?

[Commentary] As we slog away once again on Federal Communication Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s summer blockbuster reboot “Net Neutrality: The Mummy Returns!,” it’s worth noting in passing the anniversary a previous Pai celebration of industry self-regulation, #DitchTheBox. I bring this up not merely as a fairly bitter bit of Cassandrafreude, but to remind everyone why only those who most desperately want to believe ever put any faith in “industry self-regulation” — especially when that industry is the cable industry.

[A]s an industry, the major broadband providers have recognized that they need some kind of fig leaf concession (preferably cemented into law by a compliant Congress). And so we have seen the cable companies falling all over themselves to swear their undying support for net neutrality and promises to do nothing to harm the open Internet. So a brief review of the history of cable industry self-regulatory promises, and Chairman Pai’s willingness to believe them, seems in order for the day.

[Harold Feld is senior vice president at Public Knowledge]

[Commentary] Broadband providers need to know that they can innovate, invest and operate their networks without constantly worrying about federal bureaucrats second-guessing their decisions or micromanaging their businesses. Continuing down the Title II path isn’t necessary for achieving effective and strong net neutrality. We can have net neutrality protections – no blocking, throttling or unfair traffic prioritization – without regulations that stifle future network investments.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal is an important first step. But ultimately Congress should step in to ensure that we have permanent, enforceable net neutrality rules that provide certainty for everyone – consumers, innovators and ISPs.

[Jonathan Spalter is president of chief executive officer of USTelecom]

[Commentary] The current Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, understands the dangerous nature of this government overreach [Title II] and is working to reverse these regulations, but I fear that those trying to invest in South Dakota’s broadband will have to slog through new regulations imposed by each new administration unless Congress protects the Internet with enforceable net neutrality legislation.

I ask Sen John Thune (R-SD) to help secure net neutrality protections by supporting legislation that protects consumer rights to an open internet, stabilizes oscillating Internet policy and encourages Internet companies to reinvest in the future of their networks and next-generation products and services. Legislation on net neutrality is needed to end the constant regulatory upheaval and help put this issue beyond the political bickering and agency turnover. Securing an open Internet will help broadband providers to deliver new breakthroughs and services to consumers – a goal shared by both parties. It is my hope that Sen Thune and all members of Congress will act by working with their colleagues to pass legislation that will lift these misapplied utility regulations and bring much needed security and stability to the Internet.

[Dave Roetman currently serves as the Minnehaha County GOP chairman and the South Dakota Republican Party finance director.]

[Commentary] House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has tried to argue that ending network neutrality is good for Nashville’s musicians, but she’s flat wrong. She says that musicians would have the opportunity to negotiate “paid prioritization deals,” but this is just payola with a new name and the same ugly consequences for music.

Working musicians want to spend their time making and distributing music to their fans, not cutting special deals with big media conglomerates; allowing paid prioritization and other forms of discrimination is only good for big media companies that can afford to cut big checks. That’s why organizations like the Future of Music Coalition oppose what the Federal Communications Commission is trying to do. It’s critical that musicians stand up for net neutrality and oppose the FCC’s plan.

[E. Michael Harrington is a composer, musician, consultant, Music Business Program Faculty Chair at SAE Institute Nashville, course author and faculty at Berklee College of Music]