Internet/Broadband

[Commentary] Fostering competition and punishing anti-competitive conduct creates an environment where innovators can create new products and services in response to consumer demand more freely, without having to spend time and money to comply with static, “one-size-fits-all” regulations from Washington, D.C. With that in mind, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with its jurisdiction over our nation’s antitrust and competition laws, is ideally equipped to both protect the interests of consumers and foster competition in the ISP marketplace.
FTC enforcement of antitrust laws preserves innovation and consumer benefits.
FTC has the most extensive experience to address anticompetitive conduct.
FTC provides regulatory certainty and prevents overregulation.

[Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee]

Ninety percent of US housing units had fixed wireless or landline broadband service at speeds of 25 Mbps downstream/ 3 Mbps upstream available to them as of mid-2016, according to an analysis of Federal Communications Commission broadband data conducted by USTelecom and CensusNBM. Ten percent of housing units could get service at downstream speeds of 1 Gbps (and any upstream speed), USTelecom/ CensusNBM said. If fixed wireless is not included in the analysis, both numbers drop by one percentage point.

The numbers also vary when urban and rural areas are broken apart. Just 64% of people in rural areas can get 25/3 Mbps fixed wireless or wired service, while 97% of people in non-rural areas can get service at those speeds, according to the report, titled “U.S. Broadband Availability Mid-2016.”

Beginning in 2013, the city of Opelika (AL) became the state’s first “Gig City,” offering broadband Internet services to its 11,000 households over a $43 million fiber-optic network constructed and operated by the city’s electric utility, Opelika Power Services (“OPS”). How is Opelika’s system doing financially?

According to Mayor Gary Fuller, the city’s network, in its fourth year of operation in 2016, is “on pace with our five-year plan to be at break even.” As explained in this perspective, this rosy assessment is entirely at odds with the city’s own books. The city’s telecommunications service has experienced large and continuing financial losses through 2016, accumulating millions in financial losses during its four years of operation. Before “break even,” these millions in losses must be recovered and the $42 million in debt paid. In this persepective, I conduct an analysis of the OPS broadband network’s financial health using the city’s financial statements. By any meaningful financial metric, OPS’s broadband network is unlikely ever to be “profitable.”

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to reclassify broadband as an information service – the status it had for nearly two decades under which the internet grew and flourished -- has received over 20 million comments expressing views on both sides of the issue. Amid all the noise, it’s important to ensure that one aspect of the rulemaking not be overlooked: its huge impact on rural America.

The best way to ensure that all corners of the country get the connectivity they need is for the FCC to restore the classification of broadband as an information service. Thereafter, Congress should enact legislation that codifies open internet rules and at long last puts to rest a debate that has raged for more than a decade.

[Rick Boucher was a Democratic member of the US House for 28 years and chaired the House Communications Subcommittee. He is honorary chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) and head of the government strategies practice at the law firm Sidley Austin.]

Americans clearly care about network neutrality, but to understand all that’s at stake, let’s take a closer look at what, exactly, “net neutrality” is and why it’s in the news. With so much at stake, millions of people are voicing their support for net neutrality and asking the Federal Communications Commission to keep the current rules in place. Anyone can submit comments through the FCC’s website until Aug. 30. The FCC could vote on a proposal by the end of the year, after which the battle may shift to the courts and Congress—so it is important to contact your elected officials and let them know you support net neutrality. The Trump administration’s effort to repeal net neutrality has created great uncertainty about the future of the internet, but one thing is certain: This fight won’t be over any time soon.

The internet has always been a swamp of ambiguity, especially where doxing is concerned. But as doxing continues to evolve as the preferred tactic of both far right and left wing internet factions, it’s important to take a hard look at what each side is trying to accomplish. While the two sides use different logic to justify their actions, the true result is the same and even cumulative—leading to an arms race of financially incentivized, shame-slinging vigilantes.

[Commentary] Amid the avalanche of Title II comments were comments filed by eleven Democratic members of Congress—several of whom sit on the House Commerce Committee—who claim their background working on telecommunication issues over the years gives them the “unique ability to provide input on the actual meaning and intent” of both the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A simple review of the plain text of these statutes and the substantial case law interpreting them, however, appear to raise doubts about that claim.

Let’s start with the Congressmen’s central argument that the FCC “fundamentally and profoundly misstates the law” because the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemmaking (NPRM) “takes an impermissibly narrow view” of the Communications Act’s “public interest” standard. “Any action the FCC takes based on the analysis contained in the proposal,” they claim, “will be legally flawed and contrary to the law.” The problem with this argument is that regardless of how one views the “public interest” standard, application of this standard is irrelevant to the fundamental legal question raised in the NPRM. The Congressmen next argue that by reversing reclassification, the FCC “would remove the statutory privacy rules that can protect broadband users before they are harmed.” Again, this argument is legally inaccurate. The Democrat lawmakers’ third major legal argument is that the FCC is improperly focusing on whether the 2015 Open Internet Order depressed investment in broadband infrastructure. Every serious attempt to analyze the data indicates that the prospect of Title II regulation has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure, and by a significant amount.

At some point, we all hope that Congress will step up and pass some sort of Open Internet legislation to put this debate to bed. If that effort is to be successful, then it is incumbent on Members of Congress to bring greater focus, insight and analytical rigor than they demonstrated in this particular filing.

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

After four months of debate, the Federal Communications Commission is nearly ready to stop accepting feedback on its proposal to kill network neutrality. Final comments are due Wednesday, August 30th, by end-of-day Eastern time. Once the comment period closes, the FCC will review the feedback it received and use it as guidance to revise its proposal, which if passed, would reverse the Title II classification that guaranteed net neutrality just two years ago. The commission is supposed to factor in all of the feedback it received when writing its final draft, so if you do have strong feelings on the matter, it’s worth leaving a comment. And clearly, this proceeding has struck a chord.

There are currently almost 22 million filings on the proposal, setting a dramatic new record at the FCC. The last net neutrality proceeding set the prior FCC comment record at what at the time seemed like a whopping 3.7 million responses.

[Commentary] Major telecommunications companies, like AT&T and Comcast, control the underlying network that powers the internet. Websites like Facebook and Twitter provide a powerful service on top of that network. But if those websites start censoring conversations or booting users, there's always room for a competing upstart. Don't like Google? Try Bing. However, because they control internet service itself, telecommunications have the ability to shut down the upstarts. It would be as if a power company could charge people more, or deny electricity service, based on its own arbitrary standards. Don't like it? You probably don't have much choice. Nearly half of all US households have only one option for wired broadband service.

In the 21st century, internet access has become another must-have utility. It should be regulated like one. Companies like Cloudfare can choose their users - that option shouldn't be available to Comcast or AT&T. The likes of Prince, Zuckerberg and Bezos need to have a public conversation about the role they play in fighting hate groups and protecting freedom of expression. Telecoms, on the other hand, just have to ensure the internet works.

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has been critical of Silicon Valley's default position on network neutrality and its privacy practices. But she says she found common ground during a recent visit to tech companies on the West Coast: "I think with a broad brush that it is fair to say that when it comes to broadband expansion they are all incredibly interested about how we're going to do and what we're going to do," she said. Here's what else she had to say:

On net neutrality: She said that companies want "to have their say and to do something on where there is agreement." It remains to be seen, however, whether there'll be enough agreement for all the parties involved to hammer out a deal.

On her privacy proposal: Blackburn has introduced a bill that would require web firms like Facebook and Google (as well as ISPs) to get permission before letting marketers use customers' data to target ads. "I am positive," she said of her outlook on the proposal. "I'm optimistic." She said a "real win would be to have an aggressive discussion" about the issue in the fall.

On free speech on the internet: We also asked her about her views on internet companies removing hate speech from their platforms or systems, which some say raise questions of free speech in a world where private companies have a lot of control over who sees what points of view. She said it's "something that will come up in discussion" down the road about the responsibility that web companies have.