Network Neutrality

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission repeals Title II and embarks on an uncertain new process, everyone has something to lose — which also means everyone has something to gain. Fertile ground for Congress to step in and solve the problem once and for all. An open internet statute would permanently lock in a signature achievement of the Obama years for progressives, while giving business the certainty and predictability conservatives have championed. It’s a moment of truth for the activists and meme brokers and even the late-night comics who say they care about the issues — not just ratings and clicks. Will they seize the moment and support forward looking action? Or will they burn down net neutrality just to have someone to blame when the next election rolls around?

[Lindsay Lewis is the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Progressive Policy Institute.]

I’m going to talk about what the Federal Communications Commission is doing to promote innovation and investment across the Internet ecosystem. Along with security, people primarily look to government leaders to help create the conditions that make it easier for the private sector to deliver economic growth, jobs, and personal opportunity. And to grow our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity in a world that’s gone digital, we need world-leading Internet infrastructure that serves as a platform for innovation and entrepreneurship.

House Republicans emerged from a month of network neutrality negotiations with no new draft bill text, said Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR). Before August, he set his sights on a hearing scheduled for Sept 7 on net neutrality legislation featuring testimony from top tech and telecom CEOs — but there’s no such hearing and, as a GOP committee aide confirms, no new draft bill. “Obviously there are some difficult issues yet to resolve with language,” Chairman Walden said. On the hearing, he cited “scheduling issues with the principals” and said a new draft “would be the topic of that hearing when it does happen, or if it does happen.” Republicans are still in discussions to “see if we can legislate,” said Chairman Walden, who has sought to codify open internet rules since 2015 without any real negotiation with Democrats. “Everybody’s operating in good faith, and we have other matters we can address in the meantime,” he said.

Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said of the cancelled hearing: "We're still working through that issue, and I think we're in pretty good shape." But she said she didn't know if the hearing would be re-scheduled, despite "great conversations" taking place. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he's heard of a draft net neutrality bill floating around, but said if that's the case, he and other Democrats hadn't seen it. "I'm sure at some point in time, in the distant future, there may come a time when it makes sense to put this into legislation, but I don't think we're at that time yet.” Democrats favor keeping the FCC's net neutrality rules.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 open internet order has long been a posterchild for bad law and worse economics. It has been labeled an “economics-free zone” by the FCC’s own chief economist. The data on the results of its fool hard decision to proceed with Title II despite reams of expert warnings bears this out. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai deserves credit for revisiting the issue in an economically serious way and attempting to restore some semblance of order to a renegade regulatory agency.

[George S. Ford, Ph.D., is an economist specializing in technology issues at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies.]

[Commentary] Network neutrality is having a Gilda Radner moment. After years of debate, protests, name calling, and the like, technology is leaving net neutrality behind. Here are at least three indicators that technology is outsmarting net neutrality:

1. 5G will use network slicing, which enables multiple virtual networks on a common physical infrastructure. Each slice can be customized for specific applications, services, customers, etc. Network slicing means the end of treating all internet traffic the same — if that ever really happened — which was supposed be a core principle of net neutrality. 5G explicitly customizes the network to different types of traffic.
2. Netflix and other large edge providers are bypassing the internet. More specifically, they are building or leasing their own networks designed to their specific needs and leaving the public internet — the system of networks that only promise best efforts to deliver content — to their lesser rivals.
3. Mobile internet is leaving wireline internet in its dust in numbers of users and traffic. Mobile internet increasingly bypasses the World Wide Web because about 90% of customers’ mobile time is spent in apps, not the web. Apps are gatekeepers that direct customers only to resources that the app makers choose.

[Mark Jamison is the director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business. He served on the Trump FCC Transition Team.]

A Q&A with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.

Asked about Congress' role in the network neutrality debate, Chairman Pai said, "Well a few years ago after one of the court rulings in 2014, I suggested that, you know, I think Congress would be well-positioned to take hold of this issue and just figure out what the rules of the road are going to be long-term. And I think in the past couple of months, we've seen increasingly a desire from all sides of the debate to involve members of Congress. And obviously if Congress sets the rules in statute, then the FCC, the American public, is duty-bound to follow it. And so we'll see what they do in the time to come."

Because whether and how to regulate various parts of the Internet supply chain (or, if you prefer, ecosystem), I will try to explain below why common carriage obligations, such as network neutrality, are different from public utility regulation (even though most utility providers are common carriers), which is different from natural monopoly regulated rate of return/tariffing/price regulation. I will briefly explore some of the arguments in favor of applying some sort of public forum doctrine or common carrier obligation to social media platforms, and — because this invariably comes up in telecom space — why platform or other infrastructure providers are not and should not be covered by Title II or the Federal Communications Commission, even if we agree they should have some sort of public forum or even public utility obligations.

[Commentary] We have come to the end of the comments period set by the Trump Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during which the public could respond to the FCC’s efforts to deregulate high-speed Internet service and roll back network neutrality rules that designate the Internet a utility. There have been over 22 million comments to the FCC’s proposed rule making, or ‘rule unmaking’ — surely a testament to the Internet’s potential to encourage participation — and it appears the huge majority of those comments have spoken against the FCC’s proposal to deregulate.

The public now understands, just as the courts have always understood, the the Internet is an incredible information transmission utility that has fallen into the hands of monopolists and should be regulated in the public’s interest. But the Trump FCC has only free market solutions to problems we don’t have in 2017, so it is highly likely that this FCC will indeed do away with the Net Neutrality rules set forth by the FCC in 2015.

[Fred Johnson is a documentary maker and telecom policy analyst]

[Commentary] Is broadband internet an “information service,” as concluded repeatedly over two decades by Democratic and Republican commissioners, or a “telecommunications service” as a partisan majority decreed two years ago? This is a distinction with a profound legal difference under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Telecommunications services are subject to the same restrictions and government controls that applied to the old Bell monopoly starting in the 1930s. Information services have far more freedom to compete and innovate. The real-world effects of this heavy vs. light regulation are dramatic, and they turn on the question of how consumers use broadband internet. 72% of U.S. adults frequently read or watch news, sports or other content online. Sixty-one percent use search engines; 52% purchase items online, and 48% check or post on social media. Smaller percentages store photos, grocery lists and other items. That broadband internet access that enables these activities is precisely what makes broadband an “information service” under the statute. It is impossible to make use of popular video-rich information applications on today’s internet using old-fashioned dial-up access because of the need for higher speeds and lower latency. Returning to the longstanding light-touch framework will offer many benefits to American consumers and encouraging Congress to do its job and modernize the Telecommunications Act for the broadband era, developing and passing bipartisan legislation that ensures the open internet, protects consumers and maintains investment in the nation’s high-speed broadband networks.

[Bruce Mehlman is a lobbyist for broadband service providers]

Apple is breaking its silence on network neutrality, urging the Trump administration to preserve strong rules that prevent the likes of AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon from blocking or interfering with web traffic. In its new comments to the Federal Communications Commission, the iPhone maker specifically urged FCC Chairman Ajit Pai not to roll back an existing ban against so-called “fast lanes,” which might allow broadband providers someday to charge for faster delivery of tech companies’ movies, music or other content. Apple doesn’t take an explicit position on the Title II legal issue at hand. Instead, Apple only shares its more general views about the need for net neutrality safeguards.

“Broadband providers should not block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services,” Apple said . “Far from new, this has been a foundational principle of the FCC’s approach to net neutrality for over a decade. Providers of online goods and services need assurance that they will be able to reliably reach their customers without interference from the underlying broadband provider.”