Network Neutrality

The groups behind the July 12 internet Day of Action have launched "Team Internet," the next phase of their protest against the proposed reversal of the Federal Communications Commission's common carrier (Title II) classification of internet access. Taking a page from the "distributed organization" model of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, the groups say that next phase will include speaking out at meetings and town halls and pressing local officeholders. The Day of Action was targeted to Washington—both the FCC and Congress—and that remains the focus, but through coordinated self-organizing that enlists "neighbors, colleagues, family and friends," to expand their protest footprint.Coordinating Team Internet is the pro-Title II team of Demand Progress, Fight for the Future and Free Press Action Fund. They are looking to tap into what they say was the nearly half a million participants in the Day of Action.

In a recent paper published by the Internet Association, a trade group representing Internet edge companies, Dr. Christopher Hooton commented on my earlier work on the investment effects of the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet regulations. In addition, Dr. Hooton presents his own empirical study of investment effects, concluding that his analysis indicates “no (negative) impact from either the 2010 or 2015 [Net Neutrality] actions.”

Dr. Hooton’s conclusions differ materially from my research, which finds large negative impacts on telecommunications infrastructure investment following the FCC’s regulatory actions in 2010 and 2015. As for Dr. Hooton’s criticism of my work, I demonstrate why they are invalid. Moreover, I will consider Dr. Hooton’s own empirical contribution on the investment effects of Net Neutrality regulation. While Dr. Hooton’s analysis is fatally flawed (as he admits), his work is important in a few respects.

Verizon acknowledged using a new video optimization system but said it is part of a temporary test and that it did not affect the actual quality of video. The video optimization appears to apply both to unlimited and limited mobile plans. But some YouTube users are reporting degraded video, saying that using a VPN service can bypass the Verizon throttling. The Federal Communications Commission generally allows mobile carriers to limit video quality as long as the limitations are imposed equally across different video services despite network neutrality rules that outlaw throttling. The net neutrality rules have exceptions for network management. "We've been doing network testing over the past few days to optimize the performance of video applications on our network," said a Verizon spokesperson. "The testing should be completed shortly. The customer video experience was not affected."

With net neutrality fresh on the minds of many in the United States, it seems that the data speeds at which Verizon Wireless customers can stream Netflix videos have quietly been capped in some instances. Until one or both companies provide clarification, it’s a bit early to point the finger at Verizon. Verizon rivals AT&T and T-Mobile include some level of video “optimization” (better described as throttling) as part of their base unlimited data plans. Sprint does not, and Verizon has never given any indication that it would put a limit on video streaming speeds for unlimited customers.

The Supreme Court has agreed to give Internet service providers more time to decide whether to appeal a DC Court's ruling upholding the Federal Communications Commission's Title II Open Internet order. The court granted a petition by USTelecom and others to extend the deadline for appeal (filing a writ of certiorari) from July 30 to Sept. 28.

ISPs pointed out that the new FCC might have mooted that appeal by September—if it has voted on a proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to reverse the Title II classification and review the rules. Seeking the extension in addition to USTelecom were NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Alamo Broadband, TechFreedom and various individuals including VoIP pioneer Daniel Berninger. The FCC has sought comment on the proposal by the Republican FCC majority under chairman Ajit Pai to reclassify internet access—wired and wireless, fixed and mobile, customer facing and interconnections—as an information service not subject to Title II and to review whether rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization are necessary.

Big technology companies and their longtime allies on the grassroots left are at odds over how to deal with network neutrality — and the fight is getting nasty.

The companies, especially large ones, while supportive of the net neutrality rules, have been far more open to a legislative compromise to finally end the net neutrality bickering. Many activists, though, are taking a harder line against any movement from the current regulations. That tension has been simmering for months and is boiling over at a crucial point in the lobbying battle. "The public interest community is more skeptical that you can preserve all the protections you want if you move away from the old legal framework," said Gene Kimmelman, who leads Public Knowledge, which doesn't oppose all legislation but doesn't like past proposals. "And then tech companies are probably looking for some version of net neutrality that preserves that principal regardless of whether it's called Title II or something else."

Federal Trade Commission member Terrell McSweeny has doubts that the agency's consumer protection authority is sufficient to discipline the actions of broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers if Title II is rolled back and the FTC regains BIAS oversight.

In comments to the Federal Communications Commission, she said reversing Title II would harm consumers, and that the push to have the FTC regulate both edge providers (as it does now) and ISPs (as it once did) "mistakenly establishes a false equivalence between the static [and largely noncompetitive, she argues] broadband service provider marketplace on the one hand and the dynamic competition offered on the 'edge.' "The FTC is a highly expert consumer protection and competition enforcement agency, but there are limits to the effectiveness of our tools in policing nondiscrimination on networks and protecting competition in markets that are already highly concentrated," Commissioner McSweeny added. She also said antitrust laws may not cover the public-interest issues associated with consumers' ability to access content or express themselves online.

The US government has received more than 9 million public comments on rolling back network neutrality regulations, a record response to this hot-button issue that both sides argue plays an essential role in who gets Internet access. The first public comment period ended July 17, and now a one-month rebuttal period is underway. Already, about another million additional comments have been submitted. Those totals were boosted by July 12's online 'Day of Action' conducted by tech companies and liberal privacy rights organizations that support the net neutrality regulations, as well as opposing comments from those in favor of overturning the rules.

On July 7, 2017, Sens Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to express concern about the FCC facing a similar cyberattack on July 12 as it did during the May 7-8.

On July 11, Chairman Pai responded, writing, "Over the course of the last two months, the Commission has taken a series of steps to mitigate the chances of a disruption similar to the one that took place on May 7-8 from occurring again...In preparation for July 12, the Commission's IT professionals have taken additional measures to safeguard our comment filing system. Moreover, they will be on high alert over the next 48 hours and ready to respond as quick as possible to any attacks. Given the nature of this situation, however, I believe that publicly disclosing the specific steps that we are taking could undermine their efficacy."

[Commentary] The internet plays a critical role in the dissemination of information and services specifically tailored for people of color and other marginalized groups, including LGBT people, because it provides the opportunity for us to tell our own stories and to organize for racial and social justice. That empowerment relies on an open internet and net neutrality...

If you want to weigh in on net neutrality and the Federal Communications Commission’s role in implementing it, you can contribute by submitting a comment no later than August 16th. As the United States transitions towards this internet-based communications network revolution, we must remain focused on the right goals: ensuring that the internet is affordable and accessible for all, not just the privileged. Digital social justice demands no less.