Network Neutrality

[Commentary] The internet is fundamental to economic opportunity, social action and innovation in the modern age. It has the power to democratize information, it allows us to communicate instantly and effectively, and in recent years, it has facilitated innovation and been the catalyst for social justice movements. That’s why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supports a free and open internet.

You may be wondering why the NAACP is weighing in on net neutrality. Throughout our 108 year history, the NAACP has always opposed discrimination and has fought for justice and equal opportunity for all. We see the fight for net neutrality as an extension of that mission. In fact, during our 108th annual convention in Baltimore, our board of directors and members unanimously passed a resolution firmly stating our position on net neutrality.

With the fate of net neutrality on the line, the NAACP urges Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to respect the congressional intent behind Title II of the Telecommunications Act, to protect the free flow of information and not jeopardize it by removing high-speed broadband from the equalizing framework of Title II. ISPs should not be able to discriminate against any information, or against any groups of people, based on their profit margins or their whims. Information is power and no one should be allowed to strip that power away—and definitely not on our watch.

[Derrick Johnson is interim president and CEO of the NAACP and founder of One Voice Inc.]

[Commentary] Private businesses can and should have the discretion to block web content they find objectionable. That discretion is, however, precisely the opposite position taken by Google and others in the network neutrality debate at the Federal Communications Commission. Under current FCC rules (47 CFR 8.5), “A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content...” If they were broadband Internet access service providers, GoDaddy, Google, and Scaleway would be prohibited by current federal law from blocking access to Daily Stormer. But none of these entities meets the FCC’s technical definition of a “broadband Internet access service provider.” Instead each of these entities has the power and the discretion to block Internet content that it dislikes. That discretion, however, is difficult to exercise.

[Harold Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute]

[Commentary] Although the Federal Communications Commission said it intends to alter the Open Internet rules, it won’t fill in specifics until probably this fall, after the comments are analyzed. That makes it hard to pin down precise effects on cost, although that hasn’t prevented predictions.

Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who came up with the phrase “net neutrality,” said it’s clear the rule changes would bring price hikes in a betrayal of the populist rhetoric that helped decide the election. “Did Trump voters really vote for higher cable bills?’’ he asked in a New York Times opinion piece the week the FCC announced its review. “Cable costs have gone up year after year, by multiples of the cost of living index,’’ said Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and now a special adviser to Common Cause. “The more monopoly power you have, the more prices are going to go up.’’ Opponents of net neutrality say the business model wouldn’t change with the new rules, so rates should remain stable. “I don’t think you would see very much difference,’’ said Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College specializing in law and telecommunications.

The more likely outcome, though, is that prices will go up for some, and perhaps down for others, while consumers have more options based on how and how much they use the internet. A key part of the likely change will be “paid-prioritization,’’ which means companies could pay for faster and dedicated bandwidth as well as better positioning for their content – the same way a Google ad goes to the top of your search listing. Those costs are almost certainly going to come back to consumers in one way or another.

[Anders Gyllenhaal is senior editor at McClatchy]

The debate surrounding the repeal of network neutrality has touched on everything from free speech to online innovation and consumer rights. But how will it affect consumers' wallets? The short answer: It depends.

Here's what the experts predict.
Your internet bill. If net neutrality is repealed, and Internet service providers take advantage of the relaxed regulations, some experts predict that you'll see changes to how your monthly internet bill looks and what it includes.
Content providers. Without net neutrality rules in place, some experts foresee content providers, such as Netflix, Hulu and other websites, needing to pay more to have their content travel via a "fast lane" in order to prevent slow loading times and other challenges. Those applications and websites may opt to pass those increased costs to customers.
Online research. For those websites and online applications that don't – or can't – pay for access to the "fast lane," it may be harder to access, load and use their sites.

An advocacy group is launching an ad campaign targeting lawmakers who want to roll back the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules. Fight For The Future, a pro-net neutrality advocacy group, bought billboards in six states to target Sens John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), as well as Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Reps Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Tom Graves (R-GA). The billboards show the lawmakers’ faces with text criticizing their stance and urging the public to call their offices.

[Commentary] The front-page story in The Wall Street Journal announced, “Walt Disney Co. just became the biggest cord-cutter Hollywood has ever seen.” The iconic company announced it was starting two online streaming services that will bypass its traditional cable television distribution. Thank you, Open Internet Rule!

The sine qua non that made it all possible was the Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Rule that the cable operators cannot deny, degrade or deprioritize Disney access to their broadband service, even when it is competitive to their cable service. This is the very same rule that the Trump FCC, at the request of the lobbyists for the big broadband companies, has announced an intention to eliminate. And the very same rule that Republican legislators are pushing content providers to help them scuttle. The Open Internet Rule – especially the General Conduct Rule portion – is like Disney’s famous character Jiminy Cricket, who acted as Pinocchio’s conscience. As the Jiminy Cricket of the Internet Age, the Open Internet Rule sits on the shoulder of broadband providers to make sure they do the right thing.

[Tom Wheeler is a visiting fellow with the Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation, and former Chairman to the FCC.]

Though they received only a two-week extension to a deadline for public comments on proposed changes to network neutrality rules, rather than the eight weeks they had sought, net neutrality proponents say they remain focused on making sure the Federal Communications Commission continues to hear from the public.

On Aug 11, Daniel Kahn, chief of the Competition Policy Division for the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, announced that the Aug. 16 deadline for comments had been extended until Aug. 30. Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said that while a longer extension would have bolstered net neutrality proponents’ arguments, the most important thing was ensuring the FCC actually listened to the public. “Most of us feel that while we’d like more time to make our arguments better, the truth is what’s most important is if the comments would be heard with an open and fair mind and not presumptively judged ahead of time — which seems to be the signals that are coming out of the leadership of the FCC,” Black said.

In a recent perspective, I reviewed a report authored by Dr. Christopher Hooton of the Internet Association on the impact of Net Neutrality regulation on broadband infrastructure investment. My earlier review of the IA Report focused mainly on Dr. Hooton’s difference-indifferences (“DiD”) model, which from an empirical perspective is the only analysis he offered that could plausibly quantify the effects of the regulation since it involves a counterfactual.

In this perspective, I return to Dr. Hooton’s analysis. My interest in further analysis stems from Dr. Hooton’s claim that his evidence leans in the direction of a positive investment effect in that his “regression coefficients of interest were positive in all but one case.” (That negative case being his primary DiD analysis.) Closer inspection of these “positive” cases reveals errors as severe, if not worse than, the errors plaguing his DiD analysis, including the fabrication of much of his data.

[Commentary] The proposed witness list for a September network neutrality hearing at the House Commerce Committee betrays a dismaying ignorance about why net neutrality is an issue.

The committee set the hearing up as something of a clash of titans, inviting the chief executives of the largest broadband providers and the biggest Internet companies, such as Google, Facebook and Netflix. The only thing missing was a steel cage. The point of having net neutrality rules isn’t to protect multibillion-dollar Internet companies. It’s to give other companies a chance to join or topple them. The rapid pace of technological change makes even companies with enormous economies of scale vulnerable to disruption, especially when consumers can easily switch from one shiny online object to the next. Curiously, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and other Republicans have voiced less concern about the prospects of these smaller online businesses — the ones likely to inject a crucial dose of innovation into the 21st century economy — than the ability of giant, consolidating broadband providers to invest in faster, more widely available services. Better broadband connections in rural America, poverty-stricken inner cities and other underserved areas is a most worthy goal. But those connections shouldn’t come at the cost of net neutrality.

If Republican lawmakers don’t like applying decades-old utility-style regulation to broadband providers, they need to work with Democrats to give the commission explicit new authority to protect the open Internet from interference. Otherwise, the fight over how to do that will be always-on too.

By this Order, the Federal Communications Commission extends the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking until August 30, 2017. The Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking set dates for filing comments and reply comments of July 17 and August 16, 2017, respectively. While it is the policy of the Commission that “extensions shall not be routinely granted,” we find that an extension of the reply comment deadline is appropriate in this case in order to allow interested parties to respond to the record in this proceeding. We find that permitting interested parties an additional two weeks in which to file their reply comments will allow parties to provide the Commission with more thorough comments, ensuring that the Commission has a complete record on which to develop its decisions.