Daily Digest 12/8/2017 (Data Caps and Fees)

[Commentary] The path to victory for network neutrality supporters requires strong leadership from Capitol Hill — but it shouldn’t include a legislative “fix.” First of all, we have a good law already. It’s called Title II of the Communications Act.  What’s more, the Title II Net Neutrality rules have been upheld in court. And the existing law is immensely popular among Republican and Democratic voters, public advocates and businesses. Passing a new bill with enough support from current Republican leadership would mean watering down the rules and undermining internet users’ rights. Even if a new bill closed those loopholes, Title II does more than simply protect Net Neutrality. The existing statute also gives the FCC unquestionable legal authority to modernize the Lifeline program subsidizing low-income families’ access to broadband. Title II also gives the FCC authority to protect our privacy from broadband providers’ intrusions. But what about a perfect bill that enshrined both Net Neutrality and all other relevant Title II protections? It would be dead on arrival in this Congress. [Dana Floberg, Free Press]

America’s broadband providers are 100% committed to a free and open internet and have always practiced net neutrality regardless of government regulations or rules because that is what their customers demand.  Additionally, all of the major providers have announced clear and strong policies ensuring no blocking, no throttling, and no unfair discrimination against lawful traffic online. It’s good business, good practice, and what internet users expect. While we fully understand consumer interest in this issue, we also want to make clear that many false claims, wild accusations and doomsday scenarios circulating about the future of the internet are way off base and shouldn’t be taken at face value. The FCC’s proposed action next week will simply restore the light touch regulation that governed the internet from its existence until public utility rules were imposed in 2015 and will not change the free and open internet experience we all value and expect.

Scorching criticism of internet service providers over their stance on net neutrality for much of 2017 hasn’t hurt their standing with US consumers — though some weren’t that popular to begin with. For Comcast, there was practically nowhere to go but up. Thirty-two percent of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable view of Comcast the day Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced his repeal plans; 26 percent had an unfavorable opinion. By Nov. 28, Comcast’s favorability had risen slightly to 38 percent, while 27 percent of respondents held an unfavorable view of the company, but the numbers were in line with the overall trend for the prior several months. As of Dec. 6, 35 percent of U.S. consumers reported having a favorable opinion, while 28 percent had an unfavorable opinion. Verizon’s standing with the public also edged up during the same time period, but also in line with its overall trend in the months prior to Pai’s introduction of his plan. Fifty-four percent of U.S. adults said they held a very or somewhat favorable view of Verizon on Nov. 21, while 26 percent said they held an unfavorable view of the company. By Nov. 28, Verizon’s favorability improved slightly to 56 percent, while its unfavorable numbers had dipped one-point to 25 percent. As of Dec. 6, Verizon’s favorability rating was at 58 percent, with a 22 unfavorability rating.

 The main support for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has for the rollback comes from the handful of powerful broadband companies that stand to benefit, including Comcast and his former employer Verizon, who argue that the rules stand in the way of innovation. “He seems to be under the thrall of very powerful business interests in Washington to the extent that he is dismissive of all other arguments,” said Timothy Karr, campaign director at Free Press. “Any input that would in any way upset his entrenched views about helping these powerful cable companies.” “He’s certainly not acting in the interest of the public,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU. Instead of scrubbing the FCC of Obama’s legacy, Pai should be focusing on addressing real problems such as broadband quality in the rural US, said Pierce Stanley, technology fellow at Demand Progress. “In some rural areas, 40% of people have zero or one choice of ISP. After Chairman Pai’s plan, that’s 40% of people who have no choice the day Comcast starts throttling and they can’t go to another provider. They are stuck. That’s really concerning.” Dozens of activist groups called for a delay because of a pending court case involving AT&T and regulatory authority over ISPs. In response, Pai’s office issued a statement describing “supporters of heavy-handed internet regulations” as becoming “more desperate by the day” and said the vote would proceed as scheduled. “We find that deeply troubling,” said Karr. “He’s really dismissing a very important component of rule-making, which is democratic engagement.” Instead of engaging with the public, Chairman Pai has turned his attention to social media companies – who have been vocal opponents to the repeal – describing them as enabling the “worst of human impulses” and criticising the control they exert over online content.

The Federal Communications Commission has taken a series of worrying actions since former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai ascended to the role of chairman in January 2017. On Feb 3, the FCC abruptly rescinded the glowing E-rate report that had just been released two and a half weeks prior. Later, when pressed at his confirmation hearing in July, Chairman Pai wouldn’t commit to the Senate Commerce Committee that he’d maintain the current funding levels for the E-Rate program. If past is prologue, the FCC’s recent actions to undermine the Lifeline program, which provides low-income Americans with subsidies for internet and phone access, suggest that the FCC may opt to take similar actions against E-Rate. This makes the otherwise common “public notice” release even more concerning: In November, the FCC voted to move forward on a series of proposals that would impose strict expenditure caps, a limit on the amount of time a program recipient could use Lifeline, and policies that would cut Lifeline service for many current subscribers. There have so far been no concrete assurances that the FCC will continue to support E-Rate at its current level.

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act, which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Its charge was to conceive, develop and expand noncommercial broadcasting and it led to the creation of the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. This anniversary is a fine moment to recall and commemorate values imbued in the Public Broadcasting Act, and the vital contributions to our national discourse and culture that followed. It’s also a useful prompt to look critically at the present and imagine a better future. When public broadcasting started in the United States, there were only three networks, stringing together stations with only local or regional reach. Original public funding was significant and, in the early years, sponsorship to enhance corporate image became a staple of public funding.