Internet/Broadband

After months of debate, protests, and disruptions, the Federal Communications Commission’s comment period on its proposal to kill network neutrality is now over. The commission stopped accepting comments closing out with nearly 22 million total replies — setting an immense new record. The FCC’s previous comment record was just 3.7 million, set during the last net neutrality proceeding. But the process of receiving all those comments was far from smooth this time around.

The FCC’s website is fairly confusing. It’s also, apparently, susceptible to spam and other attacks, which we saw at multiple points across the past four months. All the while, the FCC’s chairman has been trying to explain that comments don’t really matter anyway, despite the commission’s requirement to act in the public interest and take public feedback. From the very beginning of the proceeding, FCC leadership laid out that it would be the quality, not the quantity, of the comments that made a difference. On the surface, that’s a reasonable argument, but it’s being set out as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming millions of comments in support of net neutrality in favor of few well-written filings by Comcast and the like. Now that the comment period has ended, the FCC will begin work on a revised version of its proposal, which it will then vote on and quite likely pass, making it official policy. The commission is supposed to factor public input into its revisions — and in fact, much of the original proposal was just a big series of open-ended questions — so it’ll probably be a little while before we see a final draft.

It’s entirely possible that the commission will go ahead with its original, bare-bones plan to simply kill net neutrality and leave everything else up to internet providers to sort out. But if the commission does decide to put in place some sort of protections, then we’ll have another debate to run through — one over exactly how effective those rules might be, and exactly how many ways companies can weasel around them.

Blacks and Hispanics remain less likely than whites to own a traditional computer or have high-speed internet at home, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in fall 2016. But mobile devices are playing important roles in helping to bridge these differences.

Roughly eight-in-ten whites (83%) report owning a desktop or laptop computer, compared with 66% of blacks and 60% of Hispanics. There are also substantial racial or ethnic differences in broadband adoption, with whites more likely than either blacks or Hispanics to report having a broadband connection at home. (There were not enough Asian respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis.) But despite these inequalities, blacks and Hispanics have mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers in shares similar to whites. There are differences between Hispanics born inside and outside the U.S.: 88% of native-born Hispanics own a smartphone, compared with 62% of Hispanics born abroad. About three-quarters of whites and blacks own a smartphone. Mobile devices play an outsize role for blacks and Hispanics when it comes to their online access options. About two-in-ten Hispanics (22%) and 15% of blacks are “smartphone only” internet users – meaning they lack traditional home broadband service but do own a smartphone. By comparison, 9% of whites fall into this category. In addition, blacks and Hispanics are also more likely than whites to rely on their smartphones for a number of activities, such as looking up health information or looking for work.

Despite a study showing that 98.5 percent of individually written network neutrality comments support the US's current net neutrality rules, AT&T is claiming that the vast majority of "legitimate" comments favor repealing the rules. The Federal Communication Commission's net neutrality docket is a real mess, with nearly 22 million comments, mostly from form letters and many from spam bots using identities stolen from data breaches. AT&T is part of an industry group called Broadband for America that just funded a study that tries to find trends within the chaos. That study (conducted by consulting firm Emprata) found fewer than 1.6 million filings appear to have "originated from individuals that took the time to type a personalized comment." Of those, 1.52 million were against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's plan to repeal the current Title II net neutrality rules, while just 23,000 were in favor of repeal.

Let's contrast that finding with what AT&T Executive VP Joan Marsh wrote in a blog post: "While Title II proponents may claim that millions of consumers representing the large majority of commenters support Title II, in fact, most of these comments were not legitimate. And when only legitimate comments are considered, the large majority of commenters oppose Title II regulation of Internet access."

The comments submitted in the record so far serve only to illustrate that the Federal Communications Commission was right in 2015 to classify broadband as a Title II service and to adopt Open Internet rules, and that the DC Circuit was right to uphold it. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans of both political parties support net neutrality. Just today, a broadband-industry funded study found that 60 percent of comments filed before the FCC support keeping the current rules in place, including 98.5 percent of unique comments.

Net neutrality opponents are wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and attempt to rewrite history to support their agenda -- and the public is not behind them. If the FCC attempts to rely on the corporate PR, paid-for ‘economic’ analyses, and misstatements of legal precedent that currently support its proposal, it will lose in court -- but not before harming consumers and damaging competition in the meantime. Because the facts continue to show a need for rules, and because opponents have failed to substantiate any claims of alleged harms they cause, the Commission must keep the rules in place.

Cable operator and broadband providers call the suggestion that Title II is essential to safeguarding the virtuous circle of investment and innovation "preposterous" and the supposed demise of openness under a Title I regime "fearmongering." That was in NCTA-The Internet & Television Association's comments on net neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission.

NCTA said Title II proponents were relying on misleading analyses and manipulating data to "explain away" the harms of Title II common carrier regulations. NCTA said a dozen economists have submitted studies documenting Title II's reduction in the rate of investment. The trade group provided several options for regulating the internet going forward, though it said such regulation wasn't really needed. "While market forces are sufficient to ensure that BIAS providers continue to act in the interests of consumers, the record also confirms that there are several options for creating an appropriately tailored regulatory backstop," it told the commission.

[Commentary] The Federal Trade Commission can challenge harmful non-neutral practices on a case-by-case basis under its antitrust authority and under its consumer protection authority. These complementary tools ensure that consumers can effectively pursue their many, varying market preferences, including preferences for values of openness and free expression online.

First, the FTC’s antitrust tools protect the competitive process, which motivates companies to deliver what consumers want. Second, the FTC uses its consumer protection authority to ensure that consumers get the benefit of the bargain they strike. This two-pronged competition and consumer protection enforcement approach is case-by-case. We evaluate each practice to see if it actually harms consumers. Such an approach has advantages over prescriptive regulation, which prejudges, in the abstract, entire categories of business practices. In dynamic, fast-changing industries, case-by-case enforcement better protects consumers and promotes innovation because it focuses agency resources on actual consumer injury and doesn’t require regulators to predict the future.

[Maureen K. Ohlhausen is acting chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.]

The Federal Communications Commission is taking dozens of meetings with companies, trade groups and public policy advocates as it gears up to change its regulatory classification of broadband and loosen its network neutrality rules. But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s own calendar mostly has been filled with proponents of redoing the commission’s broadband classification and rewriting the rules.

Chairman Pai or his staff have sat down 15 times since he became chairman in January with companies and groups asking him to undo the FCC’s underlying regulatory classification of broadband and enact looser net neutrality rules. Pai or his staff have held four meetings with groups that have urged him to keep their priorities in mind in whatever approach he takes; and another three meetings with people urging Pai to leave the issue to Congress or the Supreme Court to resolve. Two of those meetings were with tech trade groups, CALinnovates and the Application Developers Alliance, who want Pai to let Congress rewrite the rules. AT&T is a member of both groups.

Despite assertions by Title II fans that the common carrier regulation regime has not adversely affected broadband investment, the Free State Foundation begs to differ and says it has the data to back that up. That came in reply comments—due Aug. 30—on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back Title II and reconsider the rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.

Free State pointed to research by its own Michael Horney that indicated Title II had depressed broadband capital investment by $5.6 billion in 2015 and 2016. The Title II reclassification went into effect June 12, 2015. But Free State says that is of more than scholarly interest and that that foregone investment has hurt the economy and job creation. He says the other side has little evidence to back their dismissals of the economic impact argument.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai sent letters to Sens Gary Peters (D-MI) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) on August 21, 2017, to respond to their letter expressing concern with the Lifeline program and asking for information relating to the Government Accountability Office Lifeline report. Pai provided information on enforcement and compliance mechanisms for oversight of the program, resources for determining program eligibility, the projected timeline for testing and implementing the National Verifier system and resources available for reviews and audits.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai sent a letter to Rep Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) on August 21, 2017, in response to her letter regarding communications service to the Hawaiian Home Lands residents and the Commission's investigation of Sandwich Isles Communications. Pai responded to Hanabusa’s questions on whether Universal Service Funds have been paid to SIC since the suspension of payments by USAC in 2015, whether SIC was certified by the Hawaii PUC as an ETC at the time USF funds were suspended, if SIC remains eligible for the receipt of 2015 funds and the total amount of USF funds withheld from SIC in 2015.