Public Knowledge

It’s essential to the future of network neutrality that we shed some light (and truth) on the baseless arguments being made regarding Title II and broadband investment.

Fact: Internet service providers have no plans to decrease investment in their infrastructure. ISPs have been reporting to investors that investment is up, up, up! Verizon’s CFO, Fancis Shammo, told investors that reclassification to Title II “does not influence the way we invest.” Similarly, Sprint stated that it would “continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime.” In 2016, AT&T reassured their investors that they would “remain one of the largest investors in the United States.” As technologies change and reliance on the internet only continues to strengthen, ISPs know the value in continued investment.
Fact: Investment has actually increased since the adoption of the Open Internet Order.

The Internet service providers most loudly insisting they support network neutrality - Comcast and Verizon, for example - are the same companies who’ve been behind the most significant legal and political opposition to any net neutrality rules, and the same companies that have been caught time and again pushing the bounds of permissible behavior, or outright violating net neutrality principles. So, let’s give them a quick fact-check and separate the truth from the “fake news,” at least where ISP positions on net neutrality are concerned.

Open internet principles were not the only value in classifying broadband under Title II. Like our telephone networks used to be, access to broadband has become necessary for full participation in society. Therefore, Title II classification is critical in protecting our fundamental values of universal service and consumer protection when accessing broadband networks.

While the Federal Communications Commission forebore from applying the majority of Title II to broadband networks, the agency kept a number of provisions in place to ensure consumers have ubiquitous and affordable connectivity, privacy, and other consumer protections when online.

One significant threat to the public interest under the new administration that is receiving increased attention is broadband privacy for consumers. The Congressional Review Act (“CRA” for you Washington types), is a little known bill passed in 1996 that allows Congress to completely get rid of rules passed by an federal agency within 60 days of being published in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress, whichever is later. Once Congress uses the CRA on a rule, it is like the rule never existed. In legal speak, the rule has no force or effect...

The practical truth is, if the CRA is passed, consumers will be left with no one to enforce their privacy rights. Congress should be in the business of protecting consumers, not eliminating protections, especially given the recent news showing the technological advances in monitoring Americans and the importance of data security rules to strong cybersecurity protections. It’s time for Congressional leaders to reassure Americans that their sensitive, personal information will be properly protected. The FCC broadband privacy rules were a strong step in that direction. They should not be repealed, and if they are, at a minimum Congressional leaders should be clear about how they will be legally replaced without weakening protections.

The allegations that Verizon has failed to build out to nearly a million New York City households it is obligated to serve are troubling. Although new broadband deployments are costly and time intensive, broadband providers have a responsibility to comply with their franchise agreements. Moreover, it is imperative that modernization of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure provide an upgrade for all.

While there is disagreement between New York City and Verizon regarding whether the company has met its deployment commitments, this dispute highlights the ongoing need for policymakers to clearly define what they mean when describing the availability of broadband service. There is widespread bipartisan support for promoting broadband deployment to unserved and underserved areas in any federal infrastructure legislation. Lawmakers should ensure that households and multi-dwelling unit buildings are actually able to subscribe to broadband services that are ‘available’ to them, and that ‘availability' includes service options that are affordable for even low-income consumers. It would be easier to achieve this affordability if, for instance, landlords didn’t prohibit the installation of competing service provider equipment in residences due to contracts with existing service providers. This practice harms consumers and competition by driving up costs and needlessly delaying the technology transitions.

In International Women’s Day we reflect on the need for continuous work with the goal of achieving equal rights and opportunities for women. This year at Public Knowledge, we want to focus in the digital gap and call for the private and public sector to act decisively to close it.

Public Knowledge, joined by Benton Foundation and the Center for Digital Democracy, filed an Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration of the Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Privacy Order adopted in 2016. We seek to preserve elements of the Order that enable Americans to control both how their data is collected and how that data gets used, including a requirement that internet service providers should take “reasonable measures” to secure broadband subscribers’ data.

Dallas Harris, Policy Fellow at Public Knowledge, said, “Despite the exploding vulnerability consumers feel as today’s digital marketplace virtually forces them to expose their most private personal data online, both internet providers and advertising agencies petitioned the Commission to return us to a time when Americans had much less control over how their information is collected and used. There’s no denying that consumers need more control over their data, not less, which is why we oppose those petitions that asked the Commission to abandon its successful efforts to protect our privacy online.”

Today, Public Knowledge sent a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) and Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-FL) urging Congress take steps to close the digital divide by promoting investments in broadband deployment and competitive, affordable broadband choices for consumers.

Chris Lewis said, “It is time for policy makers to get serious about solutions to close the digital divide and invest in connecting families to basic, affordable communications services. Consolidation and the status quo have failed to deliver the promise of broadband to all Americans. Congress must prioritize smart infrastructure policies that bring competitive choices, affordable connectivity, and economic opportunity to us all.”

After almost two years of having no rules and no protections, broadband providers and advertisers want to further delay having strong privacy protections from consumers. We cannot continue to have zero accountability from broadband providers when it comes to protecting the public’s personal information, from social security numbers to our internet browsing history to even our physical location. Americans have a right to control their own data and what happens to it, which is why Public Knowledge joined 10 other public interest groups in filing this Opposition. Broadband providers should remember that consumers aren’t the product -- they’re the customers, and they have a right to control how their information is used.

Despite the change in administration, the Federal Communications Commission has a law to abide by and an obligation to implement. Section 629 of the Communications Act is the law of the land, and it directs the FCC to ensure that consumers can choose from a competitive market for 'unaffiliated' devices that can access their complete cable TV or other pay-TV subscriptions. Ending the set-top box monopoly would bring the benefits of competition, including lower prices and better devices, to cable subscribers. Consumers currently spend about $20 billion a year for overpriced boxes they aren’t allowed to dump. They should be able to access online and cable programming in one integrated interface, boosting programming diversity and allowing access to alternative viewpoints. Despite the FCC’s recent efforts on this issue, the law has not been enforced and consumers continue to be burdened by a multi-billion dollar set-top box ripoff. Chairman Pai should continue the FCC’s work to bring consumers relief in this matter.