Network Neutrality

The Web is a key space for civic debate and the current battleground for protecting freedom of expression. However, since its development, the Web has steadily evolved into an ecosystem of large, corporate-controlled mega-platforms which intermediate speech online.

In this report, we explore two important ways structurally decentralized systems could help address the risks of mega-platform consolidation: First, these systems can help users directly publish and discover content directly, without intermediaries, and thus without censorship. All of the systems we evaluate advertise censorship-resistance as a major benefit. Second, these systems could indirectly enable greater competition and user choice, by lowering the barrier to entry for new platforms. As it stands, it is difficult for users to switch between platforms (they must recreate all their data when moving to a new service) and most mega-platforms do not interoperate, so switching means leaving behind your social network. Some systems we evaluate directly address the issues of data portability and interoperability in an effort to support greater competition.

With the open internet under attack, thousands of Free Press members heeded the call and donated to our $100K in 100 Days campaign to save Net Neutrality. Thanks to their generosity, we exceeded our goal and are continuing to work around the clock to stop the Trump Federal Communications Commission from handing control of the internet over to companies like Comcast and Verizon.

Public interest groups opposed to the repeal of network neutrality rules are asking the Federal Communications Commission to release a trove of documents in an effort to keep the rules in place. Sixteen groups signed a letter urging the FCC to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for tens of thousands of complaints that have been filed since the net neutrality rules were implemented in 2015.

They also called for the FCC to delay its repeal of the rules, which require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally, until the complaints have been released and reviewed. “It is disturbing that the FCC has apparently failed to review documents that are in its exclusive possession prior to crafting [a notice of proposed rulemaking] to repeal the very rules that established these enforceable mechanisms to redress consumer harms,” the letter reads. The letter was signed by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Common Cause.

[Commentary] To distract you while they smother network neutrality, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and acting Federal Trade Commission Chair Maureen Ohlhausen have offered confident assurances that the FTC can step into the role abdicated by the FCC and protect net neutrality with its antitrust and consumer protection enforcement authority. It sounds plausible (plus most people aren’t entirely sure what the FTC does), so you nod along, but don’t fall for it; it’s a ruse. The FTC would be far more limited in how it can protect net neutrality, because:

1) The FTC is prohibited from enforcing its laws against common carriers, like telephone companies
2) The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has broadly interpreted that law to mean that the FTC can’t act against even the non-telephonic services of telephone companies, like broadband
3) Even if the 9th Circuit decision gets reversed, the FTC can’t use antitrust law to protect individual websites and content providers
4) It’s doubtful whether net neutrality could be enforced through the FTC’s other enforcement tool, consumer protection laws

[Anant Raut is the former counsel to the assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, as well as a former FTC attorney. He is currently a visiting fellow at Public Knowledge]

[Commentary] The desirability of regulations applicable to broadband internet service should be measured against their impact on investment, competition, and consumer welfare. If the regulations cause more harm than good, it’s time to revise them. This type of analysis is going on now at the Federal Communications Commission as the agency examines the desirability of continuing to apply what is called “Title II regulation” to the internet. Title II regulation, whose name comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, was applied to the Internet two years ago by the agency at the behest of the previous Chairman. But the new Chairman has concluded tentatively that Title II regulation should be eliminated based on the test outlined above, and as a result, the agency is expected to decide soon whether to do so.

Go! Foton agrees with the new FCC chairman that Title II regulation does more harm than good. We therefore welcome the FCC’s action to examine the implications of Title II internet regulation and ultimately roll it back.

[Dr Simin Cai is Chief Executive officer at Go! Foton]

Verizon announced that its existing unlimited data plan is being divided into three new options: Go Unlimited (starting at $75 for a single line), Beyond Unlimited ($85 for first line), and Business Unlimited. Unlike the relatively straightforward unlimited plan that Verizon surprised customers with in February, these new monthly plans are chock-full of fine print and caveats. And in a move sure to anger network neutrality advocates, the regular “Go Unlimited” plan throttles all smartphone video streaming to 480p / DVD-quality. The new plans go into effect beginning tomorrow, August 23rd, so this change is happening fast. Existing postpaid customers can keep their current plan, but some things will change even for them.

Shortly before the inauguration, I outlined four general areas where actions could be taken to reinvigorate investment: one, undoing harmful policies; two, clearing regulatory underbrush; three, developing and executing a strong pro-innovation agenda; and, four, overhauling the Commission’s arcane processes and its organization. I’m pleased to say that we’ve seen significant progress on each front....The Internet is arguably the greatest man-made technology of my lifetime and a testament to free-market principles embodying the American Dream. The government must remain steadfast that this platform should be unfettered by regulation. Doing so is the way to ensure that the economic revolution and expansion of opportunity, unsurpassed in modern history, will continue for future generations and empower their American Dreams.

In “,” Bob Crandall conducts a series of event studies to explore how investors view the effects of the rules on the firms most likely to be affected. Crandall tracks daily equity prices to measure how investors believe the net neutrality regulations will affect Internet service providers (ISPs) and new and traditional media companies (edge companies, or ECs). Overall, Crandall’s analysis identified a limited market response to net neutrality, suggesting that investors did not expect net neutrality regulations to effect significant change in the market. In addition, the small changes in EC equities suggest that investors also believed that net neutrality regulations might not be the boon to EC growth and success that net neutrality proponents expect it to be. This result is particularly notable given the fervor that has developed around this issue. Both proponents and opponents of the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet order argue that regulations or lack thereof will have dire consequences. Crandall’s analysis suggests that the reality may be far more modest.

A Republican effort to reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission for the first time in 27 years has network neutrality advocates nervous as they worry that stronger congressional control over the agency would hamper its oversight of internet providers. In proposing a discussion draft at a hearing in July on the reauthorization of the agency, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), said it was necessary “to restore a culture of humility that was lacking” at the commission under its previous leadership. There have been efforts to reauthorize the agency since 1990, including one in 2016, but none have passed. Now, the reauthorization of the FCC is “at the top of the list” after lawmakers return from the August recess, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) said.

The most recent move to reauthorize the FCC has net neutrality supporters suspicious. Gigi Sohn, who was counselor to then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, said the draft bill appears to be punishing the FCC for implementing the 2015 Open Internet Order.

The current network neutrality fight is really a wide-ranging power struggle between internet service providers and internet activists, between Republicans and Democrats. The battle is only partly about the ends—a free internet—and much more about the means: potential heavy regulation of ISPs as monopolies. Classifying ISPs as “common carriers,” under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, means they could be regulated like monopolies.

That could go as far as setting rates for broadband, like public utilities commissions do for electricity, according to ISPs and other critics. Tom Wheeler’s FCC promised not to go this far, by forbearing, or refraining, from utilizing most of Title II. ISPs aren’t buying it. “Even if the FCC decides to forbear from regulating [ISPs] from certain or many provisions of Title II in the near term, the fact that at any time it could implement additional rules under Title II jurisdiction creates uncertainty in the industry,” says Comcast. Verizon and Comcast now advocate Section 706 regulations almost identical to what they fought against because they are so spooked by the prospect of Title II monopoly regulation—and perhaps because they know they can beat it in a lawsuit.

In arguing against the FCC’s net neutrality regulations, ISPs, Republicans in Congress, and the FCC chairman are saying that Title II is overkill. The previous FCC majority’s goal was to set some standards for equal access to the internet. Those who oppose the decision say it went overboard by pulling out a big club used to smash 19th- and 20th-century monopolies, not to nurture and fine-tune modern tech providers. But what if those modern tech providers are, in fact, acting like monopolies from 100 years ago?