Network Neutrality

The government's top watchdog has agreed to investigate the reported cyberattack that targeted the Federal Communications Commission earlier in 2017 while the agency was preparing to roll back net neutrality regulations. A spokesman for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed it has accepted a request from two Democratic lawmakers to probe the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that the FCC said disrupted its electronic comment filing system in May. The spokesman said that the probe, which was first reported by Politico, is “now in the queue, but the work won’t get underway for several months.” The investigation will also examine the FCC’s broader cybersecurity efforts.

I am concerned the Federal Communications Commission is gearing up to approve a transaction that will hand a single broadcast company the unprecedented ability to reach more than 70 percent of American households. It hasn’t happened yet. But there are disconcerting signs.

Before I returned to the Commission, the agency inexplicably resurrected an outdated and scientifically inaccurate system for tallying station ownership, known as the UHF discount. It also reversed an effort to investigate joint sales agreements. Both steps helped speed the way for this transaction—which would combine two broadcasting giants: Tribune and Sinclair The bottom line is we are not going to remedy what ails our media with a rush of new consolidation. We are not going to fix our inability to ferret fact from fiction by doubling down on a single company owning ever more of our public airwaves.

Of all the more than 22 million comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission website and through the agency's API found that only 3,863,929 comments were "unique," according to a new analysis by Gravwell, a data analytics company. The rest? A bunch of copy-pasted comments, most of them likely by automated astroturfing bots, almost all of them—curiously—against network neutrality. "Using our (admittedly) simple classification, over 95 percent of the organic comments are in favor of Title II regulation," said Corey Thuen, the founder of Gravwell. Thuen was referring to a section of the Communications Act that imposes regulations designed to protect net neutrality. In 2015, the FCC voted to reclassify internet broadband as a "telecommunications service" under Title II, effectively institutionalizing net neutrality, handing a win to open internet advocates, and a loss to big telecom.

[Commentary] As an investor in and adviser to socially-minded startups—and as a parent of two young children—I spend a lot of time grappling with the question of how we can build a better world for the next generation. As the digital revolution remakes almost every aspect of our lives, it's more clear than ever that any forward-looking agenda must focus on expanding digital access and participation. We cannot build a more equal America, or a future with greater opportunity and economic mobility, if large numbers of Americans are stuck on the wrong side of a growing digital divide.

Above all, we need strong policies to make the internet open and free and prevent Big Tech monopolies from distorting or undermining opportunity and competition online. One of the most important things we can do to make this happen is to push Congress to enact a strong "net neutrality" law ensuring all viewpoints and communities have full access to the internet and that no one can block access to websites or manipulate the flow of data to silence critics or competitors.

[Jimmy Lee is president of Goodcity Chicago, a nonprofit that provides startup financing and organizational assistance to social entrepreneurs from low-income neighborhoods.]

[Commentary] The greatest concern today for our communications industry might simply be this: Are we prepared to learn from history? Do we want to break the pattern of the past and disrupt the political bargains of yesterday that have lessened free speech (for example, the fairness doctrine) and shielded incumbents from competitive entry (for example, the long-standing power of television broadcasters)? If so, the answer is to stop the intrusive government control that favors some companies over others. It is time to stop “mother may I” regulations.
[Babette Boliek is an associate professor of law and the associate dean of Faculty Research and Development at Pepperdine University School of Law]

The Trump administration is weighing one of the most significant rulings on how the internet will operate in the future — broadly affecting both the US economy and how Americans get crucial information — but the decision is already a foregone conclusion.

Unlike three years ago, when Washington was abuzz over the Federal Communications Commission enshrining network neutrality into hard-set rules, this time around it’s crickets. And that has net-neutrality supporters worried. When former-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler last proposed rules, internet providers were livid. Armies of lawyers and lobbyists representing AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others poured into FCC’s headquarters. They came armed with binders, briefs and PowerPoint presentations to confront and cajole FCC commissioners and staff. In all, FCC commissioners and staff held 79 meetings between the release of Wheeler’s proposal in May 2014 and the comment deadline in September 2014, more than a meeting every two days.

Now, three years later, current FCC Chairman Pai, a free-market Republican and staunch critic of government regulations, has proposed to reverse Wheeler’s rules, aggressively pushing a return to classifying internet providers as an “information service,” a designation with far fewer regulations. The change, which the FCC is likely to vote on later this year, would both neuter the commission’s ability to rein in providers and open the possibility, again, of creating slow and fast lanes for internet traffic — determined in part by who is willing to pay. This time around, Republicans control the commission. And it’s a lot quieter at the FCC — perhaps because the internet titans see a friend in the chair who isn’t prone to considering other opinions.

From May 18, when the FCC released Pai’s proposed rules, to the end of the public comment period on Aug. 30, commissioners and agency staff met only 16 times with companies and other organizations — about one meeting every six days, or one-fifth as many as when Wheeler issued his proposal in 2014. No one from AT&T set up a meeting. No Verizon. No Comcast. In fact, of the 16 meetings, the FCC met with only two, relatively small, internet providers: Antietam Cable Television Inc., a provider serving a rural county in Maryland, and Home Telephone Company Inc., which provides service north of Charleston, South Carolina.

Most of the people sitting down with the FCC worked for advocacy groups such as the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which lobbies for inclusive and affordable communications, and the Voices for Internet Freedom Coalition, a group of minority organizations that support net neutrality.

[Commentary] Those against the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rollback of network neutrality regulations fear that allowing Internet service providers to control internet speed based on ability-to-pay will lead to an internet tilted in favor of companies with deeper pockets, not necessarily better services. But according to the rollback’s supporters, the current net neutrality regulations put in place by the Obama administration are an egregious overstepping of power on the part of the federal government, and serve to stunt growth and innovation in the industry.

But both sides fail to realize there is a middle ground — one that benefits consumers, but still keeps control from being pushed too far in either direction. It does not have to be either the federal government in control or ISPs. It does not have to be one to the exclusion of the other. In fact, one could argue that a very workable compromise would be to move back to a regulatory regime — whether through FCC efforts, a narrowly focused legislative solution, or some combination of the two — in essence representing the original rules in the first Open Internet Order (no blocking, no throttling, etc.), but not including the current Title II classification.

[Doug Sicker is the Department head of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. He is also the previous chief technology officer at the Department of Commerce and the chief technology officer at the Federal Communications Commission.]

[Commentary] Without legislating specific net neutrality rules, Congress could take three important steps to clear away irrelevant legal impediments and make the debate more productive for regulators and the public alike.
1) Separate classification from regulation: Congress could enact legislation that removed the distinction between “telecommunication” and “information” services. The economic case for whether and how a firm should be regulated has nothing to do with what service it provides.
2) Restore a focus on the ‘public interest’: The Federal Communications Commission made a mistake by treating net neutrality as a competition problem rather than as a tool to protect speech.
3) Restore the role of antitrust in telecommunications: Focusing the FCC on the public interest would be easier if the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division or the Federal Trade Commission could guard against internet service providers engaging in monopolistic practices. At present, the antitrust agencies may not have that authority.

[Timothy Brennan is currently professor public policy and economics at the University of Maryland. He was chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission during 2014.]

Broadband industry lobby groups have appealed to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to kill the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules. The groups want the Supreme Court to rule that the FCC exceeded its authority when it reclassified Internet providers in order to impose stricter regulations. Such a ruling could prevent future FCCs from implementing net neutrality rules as strict as the current ones, which outlaw blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. A ruling for the industry could also prevent future FCCs from reviving other consumer protections that are likely to be overturned by the commission's current Republican majority.

Lobby groups also allege that the FCC didn't do enough to justify its decision and that it didn't follow the required administrative procedures. But for potential long-term impact, the question of whether the FCC has the authority to classify broadband as a common carrier service is probably more significant. Whether the Supreme Court will actually decide to hear the case is far from certain.

[Commentary] One of us is the inventor of the personal computer, and the other a former commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it.

If FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s majority permits fast lanes for the biggest internet service providers (ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T), companies could speed up or slow down the sites and services they prefer. That’ll be great for their business affiliates and corporate friends, but woe to the startup that wants to build the next great web service — it could find itself in the slow lane, unable to compete with established firms. And pity the local blogger who criticizes her ISP’s crummy service — the broadband gatekeeper would be free to slow or silence her.

The path forward is clear. The FCC must abandon its ill-conceived plan to end net neutrality. Instead of creating fast lanes for the few, it should be moving all of us to the fast lane by encouraging competition in local broadband connectivity and pushing companies to deliver higher speeds at more affordable prices. It’s the right thing for us as consumers and as citizens.

[Steve Wozniak is a computer engineer who co-founded Apple Computer, Inc. with Steve Jobs. Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2011, is a special adviser for Common Cause.]