Internet/Broadband

Some of the nation's biggest Internet service providers are begging a court not to weaken the power of a major regulatory agency — the Federal Trade Commission — in a case that has implications for businesses and consumers nationwide and puts the companies at odds with another key industry player, AT&T.

The request earlier this week by Charter, Comcast, Cox and Verizon seeks to shore up the FTC's ability to regulate Internet providers, in a case about whether the FTC can punish AT&T for allegedly misleading consumers with its marketing of "unlimited" data plans. But the case also has other implications. It could create an undesirable regulatory environment for the companies, they say. "At first glance, [our] position might seem surprising — four leading corporations are arguing in favor of restoring the FTC’s authority to regulate," the ISPs wrote. They added: "If the FTC is divested of jurisdiction," the companies wrote, "it is likely that a variety of federal, state, and local government agencies that lack the appropriate reach, perspective, and experience … will attempt to fill the perceived 'regulatory gaps,' thereby creating a patchwork of unreasonable, duplicative, and inconsistent rules."

The European Union’s antitrust watchdog has handed down a string of big decisions in recent years against top US technology firms, in what might look to US companies and officials like a trend by Brussels to train investigations on large American companies.

EU officials deny any bias. “We don’t go against Google because it’s an American company but because it’s a company abusing its dominant position in our market.… If it were in Brazil, we wouldn’t care,” a senior EU official said, referring to the EU’s €2.42 billion ($2.71 billion) fine June 27 against Google for unfairly favoring its shopping ads in its search results. EU competition officials are, to a large extent, constrained by antitrust rules and legal precedents when making decisions against any companies, be they American, European or otherwise. But unlike Washington, where U.S. enforcers need to prove their cases before a judge, the EU’s competition directorate acts as prosecutor, judge and jury in competition cases—and only needs to convince itself. Experts say American tech companies are currently getting increased scrutiny because they happen to dominate the industry. This comes at a time when one of the top priorities for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive body, is to ensure the EU’s common market functions more efficiently online and across borders.

Google suddenly grew up at midday June 27 — and the way it conducts business in Europe and probably further afield will have to catch up fast.

Likely more important in the immediate future for Google, which rejects the findings and says it may appeal, the decision will serve as a model for regulators across the globe closely scrutinizing Google, from Seoul to Brasilia, and it will bolster those in the U.S. trying to prod domestic regulators into action. “As matters now stand, the Commission is the primary regulator of internet services in the Western world,” said David Cantor, a Brussels-based technology lawyer. In addition, the decision hurts Google’s otherwise stellar brand and reputation. Its “search franchise is built upon the notion that it is an honest broker of the world’s information,” said Scott Cleland, a founder of consultancy Precursor, an adviser to Google rivals and a trenchant critic of Google. That damage can work in significant and long-lasting ways. For example, Microsoft’s aggressive tactics and antitrust problems made it less attractive to some of the best engineers and university talent, who opted to join nicer companies — like Google.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai appointed Andy Huckaba to serve on the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC). Huckaba will serve on the BDAC as a representative of the City of Lenexa, Kansas, where he is a member of the City Council. Huckaba also serves as Vice-Chair of the FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee.

Canadian courts can force internet search leader Google to remove results worldwide, the country's top court ruled June 28, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups arguing such a move sets a precedent for censorship on the internet.

In its 7-2 decision, Canada's Supreme Court found that a court in the country can grant an injunction preventing conduct anywhere in the world when it is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness. "The internet has no borders - its natural habitat is global," the Supreme Court wrote in its judgment. "The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates - globally."

On June 16, 2017, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai responded to various members of Congress responding to questions surrounding affordable broadband in high-cost rural areas.

Chairman Pai wrote, "Despite the Commission's efforts in the 2016 Rate-of-Return Reform Order, I still hear from small carriers that offering stand-alone broadband would put them underwater-that the rates they have to charge exceed the rates for bundled services because of the different regulatory treatment. To provide some relief, my colleagues in recent months have urged me to work through a punch list of lingering issues from the Order. I have accordingly directed staff to work through that list. In April, the Commission amended a rule that would have disallowed capital expenses to any project exceeding a Commission-set threshold by even a dollar; now providers can complete efficient projects so long as they are willing to absorb any costs above the threshold. That month staff also resolved concerns raised by rural carriers about the "parent-trap" rule. In May, I circulated an order to address problems with two calculations made in the Order-one involving a "surrogate method" to avoid duplicative cost-recovery and another involving charges imposed on stand-alone broadband lines. Also in May, I circulated an order to address certain duplicative reporting requirements imposed on rural providers. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues on these issues."

Rep Don Beyer (D-VA) held a forum just outside of DC for his constituents to come learn and voice their concerns about the fate of network neutrality. Though Rep Beyer was the host, the real headliners of the event were former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and former FCC general counsel Jon Sallet, who both spoke at length to a packed house about how we got to where we are today, with the rules under fire, and what consumers can still do to try and make their voices heard. A couple key take-aways?

No Neutrality Without Title II: “What I hope you’ll think about is that that legal term is a smokescreen for not having to discuss” the bright-line net neutrality principles, privacy guidelines, and the FCC’s oversight authority, Wheler said. “Those who are trying to overturn the rules want to talk about them in these [legalistic] terms, instead of talking about the effect of Title II.” “We looked hard to see if there would be ways other than Title II to accomplish these goals,” Wheeler said. “They weren’t there.”

Why Commenting Is Important: Both Sallet and Wheeler admitted that the FCC’s mind is probably already made up, no matter what public comments come in to the proceeding now. But those comments become vital in the case of a lawsuit and “can shape what happens if it’s necessary to go to court one more time,” as Sallet put it. “We can all predict what can happen at the FCC, but I can tell you this,” Sallet said: “When I was general counsel, I didn’t think that what the FCC said was the last word. I knew there would be a day in court.”

[Commentary] Recently, Amazon, Netflix, and Mozilla have taken note of the success of astroturfing and are leveraging a “stick-it-to-the-man” ethos to advocate for internet regulation, in this case advocacy to regulate internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act, which empowers the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband through price controls as well as tax consumers to raise funds for government run networks. A culmination of their efforts will take place on a July 12th “Day of Action,” which will display their protests both on and offline to pressure Congress and the FCC to capitulate to its agenda to take control of the internet.

The event is yet another campaign funded by Battle for the Net, an organization of radical left-wing activists, including Free Press, Fight for the Future, and Demand Progress, seeking more regulation and government control over markets This July 12th, remember that what you will witness on website and browsers is one heck of an astroturf campaign, and their mission is straightforward: take control of the internet, by any means necessary.

[Roslyn Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute and served on the President Elect Transition Team for the FCC from 2016-2017.]

[Commentary] Some partisan activists have sought to leverage the public’s privacy concerns to advance their political agenda and have resorted to spreading accusations and false information that misleads the public. Immediately after the Congressional vote, the media was flooded with stories suggesting that internet privacy had been “repealed.” Other stories made misleading claims that Congress “voted to allow your web history to be sold to the highest bidder.” None of this is true. Congress did not repeal internet privacy. They kept the FTC’s two decades of privacy rules in place while preventing the inequitable Obama mandates from going into effect.

Congress did the right thing by stopping the FCC’s power grab to protect consumer privacy and indeed protect the internet itself. It is far better public policy to leave the internet in the free market to continue to bring us innovation after innovation which has transformed our lives for the better in the past generation. Take a moment and send an email of appreciation to the members of the Iowa delegation who stood up for you, your family, and your neighbors in this cause.

[Donald P. Racheter is president of the Public Interest Institute, a public policy research institute in Muscatine]

A group of small Internet service providers urged Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to preserve the FCC's network neutrality rules and the related classification of ISPs as common carriers. "We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet," the ISPs said in a letter to Pai that was organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The current rules are necessary "to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market," but "the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability," the companies wrote.