Network Neutrality

[Commentary] The network neutrality issue has reignited a debate that is as old as the Internet. Once limited to tech-savvy users with access to networked computers at academic institutions, laboratories and government agencies, the Internet has become a fundamental part of nearly everybody’s life. Billions of new users have come online over the past two decades. But the commercial interests that have enabled their entry have also threatened the core values of openness, freedom of expression and access that were so critical to the Internet’s early pioneers.

During the 1990s, public policies dramatically transformed the Internet by encouraging its privatization. As is true today, these changes sparked activism as individuals grappled with the tension between the technology’s commercial potential and its democratic ideals. The net neutrality debate is not just a reiteration of the same debate, however. It has forced Internet companies and users to confront the consequences — both positive and negative — that two decades of privatization have wrought on our digital public sphere. Commercialization has brought the digital world to the masses. But as a result, a handful of companies wield great influence over what we see online, and we are bombarded by spam, ads, and other costs of a profit-driven space.

[Carly Goodman is a historian of immigration and American foreign relations. She is a Mellon/ACLS Public Fellow and communications analyst at the American Friends Service Committee.]

Eleven House Commerce Committee Democratic Reps submitted public comments on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to roll back network neutrality regulations stating that the proposal fundamentally and profoundly run counter to the law. The lawmakers wrote that the FCC’s proposal misstates the distinction Congress made in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 between telecommunications services and information services.

The Committee Democrats also wrote that the proposal ignores the most critical issues affecting our country today—priorities such as free speech and democracy, small businesses, jobs and economic development, and privacy. Instead, the Commission narrowly focused on a single ill-conceived measure of broadband investment to the exclusion of all others. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to undo the rules "impermissibly ignores the Commission’s core mandate to fully consider the public interest before taking action," violating the commission's obligations under the Communications Act, the Democrats wrote in an FCC filing opposing Pai's plan. The lawmakers also questioned Pai's independence from President Donald Trump.

The FCC comment was submitted by House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA), and Reps Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Kathy Castor (D-FL), John Sarbanes (D-MD), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Joe Kennedy III (D-MA).

House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA) wrote to Republican Committee leaders with a list of eight additional witnesses that they say should be added for the full committee hearing on the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality hearing. The two Democratic Committee leaders wrote that it is the responsibility of the Minority to balance the panel of witnesses at hearings before the committee. Reps Pallone and Doyle have selected the following individuals to be invited to testify:

Jonathan Jackson is a co-founder and the Head of Corporate Branding for Blavity.
Ruth Livier is an actress, writer, and doctoral student who is a pioneer in the fight for equal representation in media.
Jesse Vollmar is co-founder and CEO of FarmLogs,
Myrna Morales is an expert in library science in Boston.
Johari Farrar is a performer with the Truthworker Theater Company.
Brandi Collins is the Senior Campaign Director for Media and Economic Justice at Color of Change.
Steven Renderos is the Organizing Director at the Center for Media Justice.
Bryan Mercer is the Executive Director of Media Mobilizing Project.

Democrat Sens are urging the Federal Communications Commission to extend the public comment period on its proposal to scrap the network neutrality rules. Fifteen Democrats, led by Sen Ed Markey (D-MA), wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. They asked that he provide more time for comments, citing the unprecedented number of comments on the rules.

To date, Pai's “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal to roll back Obama-era net neutrality measures aimed at creating a level playing field for internet companies has received more than 16 million comments, more than any other FCC item in history. The previous record happened during the FCC’s last net neutrality proceedings in 2014, in which the public filed about 4 million comments on the matter. The lawmakers also noted that the comment period for approving net neutrality in 2014 was 60 days. Chairman Pai has only allowed a 30-day comment period for his plan to rollback the rules. “This proceeding has the potential to impact all Americans and as the expert agency, you should ensure that the Commission provides ample time to ensure all voices are heard,” the senators wrote.

[Commentary] To keep things straight, “open internet” is synonymous with network neutrality, and “paid prioritization” is another way of saying “fast lane” for the internet. Foes of paid prioritization say it follows that if someone pays for a fast lane, then all who don’t pay are relegated to a slow lane — or worse. For two days during the week before the end of the comment period, news reports surfaced that Verizon Wireless — Verizon is one of the United States’ largest internet service providers — was intentionally slowing down video streaming services on its customers’ data plans. Open-internet advocates call that throttling. Verizon’s definition: optimization, adding it was just a network test that should not have disrupted their customers’ internet experience.

Trade group INCOMPAS wants the Federal Communications Commission to include redacted materials from recent mergers involving Comcast, Charter and AT&T in its review of Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to roll back the agency’s network neutrality rules. The group, which counts Netflix and Sprint among its members, said economic studies, internal company presentations and other data submitted as part of the commission’s merger review process shows that internet service providers have incentive to curb competition. The information would be vital in a court review of final rules, said INCOMPAS CEO Chip Pickering. “The FCC has taken a position that the ISPs do not have the means and the motive to act against online competitors,” Pickering said. “And if that’s the question, you have to look at all the evidence. And a refusal to consider the evidence, I think any court would find unreasonable.”

INCOMPAS noted that its request would not make the information available to the general public. Instead, only certain parties would be able to see the documents — the same confidentiality the FCC used in the merger reviews. Comcast, Charter and AT&T opposed the request, arguing that sharing the information in the net neutrality proceeding risks disclosure of sensitive documents. Charter said the “unprecedented request is a harmful fishing expedition, which, if granted, would violate federal law.” Pickering finds the companies’ opposition suspect: “Their nuclear reaction for simply asking for the evidence to be included continues to beg the question, ‘What do they have to hide?’” INCOMPAS asks the FCC to act by July 31. Agency representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

Amazon, Facebook, Google and Netflix — along with their telecommunication industry foes —have not committed to sending their chief executives to testify before the US Congress in September on the future of network neutrality. Not a single one of those companies told the House Commerce Committee, which is convening the hearing, that they would dispatch their leaders to Washington (DC) in the coming weeks, even at a time when the Trump administration is preparing to kill the open internet rules currently on the government’s books.

The panel initially asked those four tech giants, as well as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon, to indicate their plans for the hearing by July 31. For now, though, the committee said it isn’t giving up and would extend its deadline, as it continues its quest to engage the country’s tech and telecom business leaders on net neutrality. “The committee has been engaging in productive conversations with all parties and will extend the deadline for response in order to allow for those discussions to continue,” a spokesman said.

The House Commerce Committee on July 31 asked for input from Google parent Alphabet, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon.com and other major companies on a proposed rewrite of rules governing consumer internet access. Last week, committee Chairman Greg Walden (D-OR) asked the chief executives of those three companies, as well as AT&T, Verizon, Netflix, and Charter to testify at a Sept. 7 hearing on the future of net neutrality rules. None of the companies have agreed yet to testify. On July 31, a lawyer for the committee, Robin Colwell, asked the companies to weigh in on what net neutrality legislation could look like. "So all we are looking for at this stage is a list of asks. From your perspective, what needs to stay, what needs to be added, and what needs to go?" she wrote in an e-mail.

While Verizon is telling the Federal Communications Commission to get rid of Title II classification and to weaken the open internet rules, Verizon Wireless is already trying to undermine the open internet by experimenting with potentially anti-consumer discrimination practices. Unfortunately, Verizon Wireless is proving why millions of Americans are correct in voicing their concern over the FCC’s proposal to repeal its 2015 net neutrality rules.

Recently, many Verizon Wireless customers reported their Netflix and YouTube speeds appeared to be capped at 10 Mbps. Verizon acknowledged that it was conducting “network testing” to “optimize” its video streaming, and claimed that it was reasonable network management. Verizon’s actions and the cloud of uncertainty surrounding their practices is a timely reminder that, absent a strong regulator, Internet service providers can and will use their gatekeeper power to harm consumers and grow their own market power. If you want to connect to the internet, and access all the services that you can get through that connection (from entertainment to education to employment) you must go through an internet service provider. Broadband companies know they have substantial leverage in the internet ecosystem, which is why it is so vital for the FCC to actively combat harmful practices such as throttling.

A Q&A with former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

Asked, "Do you think it will be Congress that eventually decides how the internet is regulated, and the fate of net neutrality principles?" Wheeler responded, "The question is what does Congress do? There is a law on the books right now. So if Congress is going to renege on that, or walk back the safeguards that are in existence and that have been in existence since 2015 then that’s the wrong thing to do. And it seems to me that the people who are championing doing this are the big ISPs–Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter–and they’re Republican supporters and are not the people who have historically stood for a fast, fair, and open internet."

Asked, "[FCC Chairman Ajit] Pai likes to say that ISP spending on infrastructure has been chilled by the Open Internet order. Is that a true assessment of what’s happened?" Wheeler responded, "First of all, that assertion is balderdash. That so-called study is highly suspect because it was done by somebody who has never liked the open internet rules, has always taken the position of the ISPs, and during my tenure was exposed for having selectively chosen information to make that same point. So let’s go to what the ISPs tell their financial regulator. You know there’s an important thing that the ISPs have a lobbying message at the FCC and the Congress that is designed to accomplish their goals of giving them free rein. But then over at the Federal Trade Commission they are under the penalty of law required to tell the truth. How does what they say in their financial filings differ from what they say at the FCC? Well, in their financial filings they say they are spending a constant amount–they say they are spending about 15% of revenue on infrastructure investment. Two days ago, Comcast had their quarterly report and reaffirmed they are spending 15% of revenue on building infrastructure. So if this is the best thing the Trump FCC can come up with, the impact on infrastructure argument, then they are playing a pretty weak hand."