Network management

The Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 pole attachment order was upheld in a ruling July 31 by the Eighth Circuit Court, providing a potential win for competitive and incumbent providers expanding their fiber networks. In 2015, a group of electric utilities, including Ameren Corporation, American Electric Power Service, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, and Virginia Electric and Power Company petitioned to review a November 2015 order of the FCC governing the rates that utility companies may charge telecommunications providers for attaching their wired facilities to utility-owned poles.

The FCC, which was joined by intervenors Incompas, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Level 3 Communications, and USTelecom, opposed the petition. In delivering its decision, the court found that the November 2015 Order provided a “reasonable interpretation of the ambiguity” in Section 224 of the Pole Attachments Act.

On April 18, 2017, Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai urging him to postpone the vote on the Business Data Services (BDS) Report and Order that was scheduled for a vote at the April 20, 2017 FCC meeting.

On July 17, Chairman Pai responded by saying, "In your letter, you suggest additional protections for small businesses and the need for a reasonable transition as well as a delay of the Commission's vote. Although the Commission was unable to accommodate your every request, I note that the Commission did deny incumbent carriers a catch-up adjustment to their existing rates in non-competitive areas and implemented a staged transition: In newly deregulated areas, price-cap carriers cannot raise their tariffed rates for special access services for a period of six months and have three years to transition to de-tariff their services. The Commission also emphasized that incumbents may not use the de-tariffng process to disturb existing contractual or other long-term arrangements-a contract tariff remains a contract even if it is no longer tariffed. Finally, the Commission adopted downward pricing flexibility in still regulated areas to ensure that small businesses in rural America have the opportunity to receive the same discounts now available in urban areas."

The Trump Administration’s plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure spending presents an opportunity not only to repair existing roads, bridges, and tunnels, but also to build out broadband internet coverage in rural areas. On July 24, the Center for Technology Innovation hosted a panel discussion at Brookings about how the administration, Congress, and the private sector can work together to address broadband needs of unserved (no access) and underserved (limited access) populations.

The event began with opening remarks from House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), focused on the congressional perspective on broadband infrastructure. To close the access gap, Chairman Blackburn seeks to eliminate regulatory barriers, increase investment in unserved areas, and redraft current Federal Communications Commission maps to more accurately reflect the percent of Americans that lack broadband access. The panelists largely focused on ways the government and private sector can work together to expand broadband internet access.

President Donald Trump has signaled that broadband will definitely be part of his planned infrastructure investments. The president issued an executive order July 19 creating the Presidential Advisory Council on Infrastructure that will include a representative from the communications and technology sector. The council will report back to the president with its findings. The members will be appointed by the president and will represent the following sectors: real estate, finance, construction, communications and technology, transportation and logistics, labor, environmental policy, regional and local economic development, and "other sectors determined by the President to be of value to the Council."

The mission of the council, whose membership will be capped at 15, is to "study the scope and effectiveness of, and make findings and recommendations to the President regarding, Federal Government funding, support, and delivery of infrastructure projects in several sectors, including surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resources, renewable energy generation, electricity transmission, broadband, pipelines, and other such sectors as determined by the Council." That will include prioritizing infrastructure buildouts, speeding approval processes, coming up with ongoing financing mechanisms, identifying public-private partnerships, coming up with best practices for procurement and delivery and promoting innovation. The Department of Commerce will provide the administrative staff, facilities and support services for the council. The council positions will be unpaid, though private citizens will get travel expenses.

[Commentary] All of this network neutrality action involves just the very last part of the communications grid in the US — the “last mile,” or the part of the network that actually touches consumers. Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler pushed through the relabeling of the “last mile” as a regulable service. That utility label needs to be retained, as I’ve often argued.

But there’s an even bigger and possibly more insidious policy in the works that will result in far greater woes for consumers. It involves the not terribly well-understood part of the system called the “middle mile.” As with the last mile, the new administration wants to avoid enforcing any legal protections. And it‘s doing this in a manner that just happens to benefit the powerful forces that take citizens’ money while denying them the best services.

[Susan Crawford is the John A. Reilly Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.]

Capital expenditures by US internet service providers have declined by $3.6 billion since the Federal Communications Commission adopted its Title II regime for internet regulation in 2015, Comcast regulatory chief David L. Cohen said. Cohen’s blog posting—and the associated comments made to the FCC—continued Comcast’s push to get the now-Republican-led agency to reverse its regulations.

The capex figure was quoted from economist Hal Singer, who said the top 12 ISPs invested 5.6% less in 2016 vs. 2014, before Title II was enacted. “A CTIA study found that capital expenditures declined for wireless providers by 17.4% from 2015-2016,” Cohen added. “A study by Dr. George S. Ford found that the threat of Title II regulation between 2011 and 2015 reduced broadband investment by about 20% to 30%, or about $30 to $40 billion annually. That reduction amounts to "about $150-$200 billion over the five-year period," or the equivalent of losing an entire year’s worth of investment. Those who say investment isn’t impacted by the Title II regime “aren’t living in the real world,” Cohen also said.

On July 17, Free Press submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission, demonstrating once again that the 2015 decision to base Net Neutrality rules on Title II got it exactly right. The 2015 Open Internet Order ushered in an era of broadband investment and internet innovation while giving users assurances that their service providers will not block, throttle or discriminate against their online communications.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood said, “Chairman Ajit Pai’s allegiance to the broadband industry is so great that he has continued to ignore the overwhelming evidence and political forces arrayed against him. The Net Neutrality rules and their Title II framework are working beautifully. Proof of that is everywhere, from the ISPs’ increases in investment and profits to the astounding levels of innovation from companies that use the internet to reach their customers. Phone and cable ISP profits are not the only thing at stake here, though they seem foremost in Pai’s mind. But the fact is that along with their finances, these broadband providers’ service speeds are also on the rise. Companies like AT&T, which industry lobbyists falsely paint as a victim of Title II’s fictional harms, have taken advantage of technological upgrades to deploy faster speeds while spending less than they used to. But don’t take our word for it: AT&T’s own CEO has bragged repeatedly about how it continues to get cheaper-to-deploy fiber and build out the company’s wireless networks."

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission is preparing to overturn the two-year-old decision that invoked the FCC's Title II authority in order to impose net neutrality rules. It's possible the FCC could replace today's net neutrality rules with a weaker version, or it could decide to scrap net neutrality rules altogether. Either way, what's almost certain is that the FCC will eliminate the Title II classification of Internet service providers. And that would have important effects on consumer protection that go beyond the core net neutrality rules that outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Without Title II's common carrier regulation, the FCC would have less authority to oversee the practices of Internet providers like Comcast, Charter, AT&T, and Verizon. Customers and websites harmed by ISPs would also have fewer recourses, both in front of the FCC and in courts of law. Title II provisions related to broadband network construction, universal service, competition, network interconnection, and Internet access for disabled people would no longer apply. Rules requiring disclosure of hidden fees and data caps could be overturned, and the FCC would relinquish its role in evaluating whether ISPs can charge competitors for data cap exemptions.

Net neutrality supporters preparing for July 12’s online protests to defend the set of rules enacted two years ago by the Federal Communications Commission are using the freedom of speech to bolster their case.

The Obama-era rules, codified in the 2015 Open Internet Order, aim to prevent internet service providers from blocking, slowing or otherwise unreasonably discriminating against content that end-users could access. On July 12, in response to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to undo the rules, a slew of prominent websites and companies intend to show their support for net neutrality. Similar protests against a crackdown on copyright violation in 2012 were able to help move the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act bills off the table through coordinated site “blackouts.” For the net neutrality fight, participants will use memes, push notifications, banner ads and other means to drive comments to the FCC’s website before a July 17 public comment deadline. “Wednesday’s day of action is only the beginning of a massive pushback against the effort to remove essential net neutrality protections,” said Chris Lewis, vice president at digital consumer rights group Public Knowledge by email Monday. “This is especially important when broadband providers are getting into a variety of other markets where they can prefer their services over competitors, from online payments and financing to security systems and competitive video offerings.”

[Commentary] Chattanooga (TN) had the right idea when it requested and received Federal Communications Commission approval to expand broadband service – offered through its municipal utility provider, EPB – into neighboring Bradley County, an area overlooked by commercial providers. Unfortunately, that plan was sidelined in 2016 when Tennessee turned it into a state’s rights issue and successfully contested the approval in federal court.

After the ruling, state attorney general Herbert Slatery reiterated the case “was not about access to broadband,” but rather about preventing the federal government from exercising power it didn’t have. Meanwhile, many rural communities continue to lose out, either unserved or underserved by broadband providers. During a stop in Memphis a year ago, Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke outlined what the real goal here should be. “Broadband now is an essential part of people’s lives,” he said. “The highways and the roads that we drive on are what allow goods and services to transport at quick speed and grow the economy of our country. It’s the same thing with the internet. And everybody needs access to it.”