Network Neutrality

An interview with Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future. Fast Company asked her about the state of network neutrality and the prospects for resisting President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s policy effort.

Asked, "Beyond the day of action, is there an ongoing way that the campaign will continue?" Greer replied, "This is just the beginning. Even if the FCC moves ahead as quickly as possible, we’re not talking about a vote on this until at least the fall. And I think a lot of this will pivot to Congress. The FCC makes the decision on this specific proposal, but they answer to Congress, and every lawmaker should be paying attention to the fact that this is incredibly unpopular with constituents." Asked, "If the FCC does take away Title II designation, is the next move up to Congress?" Greer said, "After that, it would go to the courts. The FCC will have a tall order to prove in court that they have any good reason to do this. But I’m optimistic that we will never get there, because I do think this is going to be a tremendous mobilization on July 12th, that it’s going to change the conversation in a big way."

Three of the largest internet service providers and the cable television industry’s primary trade association have spent more than a half-billion dollars lobbying the federal government during the past decade on issues that include network neutrality, according to a MapLight analysis.

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies since 2008. The amount represents more than $100 for each of the 5.6 million public comments on the FCC’s proposed elimination of net neutrality rules. Despite the resources devoted to the rollback by the big internet service providers, net neutrality advocates haven’t been totally bereft of support in the nation’s capital. Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, has spent $41.1 million lobbying in the nation’s capital. Facebook, which boasts 2 billion unique monthly users, has spent almost $43.3 million.

Internet service providers have asked the Supreme Court for a 60-day extension of the deadline for filing their appeals to the Supreme Court of a DC federal appeals court decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission's Title II-based Open Internet order. They want an extension from July 30 to Sept. 28 in case the new FCC proposal to roll back Title II moots that appeal. Seeking the extension are NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, USTelecom, 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. Those comments are due July 17 (initial comments) and Aug. 16 (replies).

You are probably used to pop-ups on websites begging you to sign-up for an e-mail newsletter, enter a contest, or watch an ad. But tomorrow the web will be plastered in a different sort of pop-up as some the tech's biggest companies fight to maintain a free and open internet. July 12, sites across the web will place alerts on their pages encouraging people to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency not to jettison net neutrality. Hundreds of companies and organizations plan to participate in this so-called "Day of Action," from giants such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Netflix to Reddit, Etsy, PornHub, Spotify, and even some smaller internet service providers like Ting and Sonic. But not every company is equally committed to the cause of net neutrality. Here's where six internet giants stand on the issue, and what a world with fast and slow lanes might mean for them.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai plans to eliminate net neutrality protections. Without these protections, big internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will be free to block or slow down content as they see fit. We, as former FCC commissioners, believe that these rules are the only way of preserving real net neutrality that protects the internet as an economic engine and platform for democratic discourse.

If Chairman Pai has his way, we could see an Internet where big cable companies decide who should have a voice and which businesses succeed and fail. Only the current net neutrality rules give the FCC the authority to ensure that the Internet remains open for all, and can remain a watchdog to stop bad behavior before it harms consumers and innovation. Americans in both parties believe the government should prioritize preventing companies from harming consumers before it occurs. Eliminating or watering down the net neutrality rules would do just the opposite, giving companies free reign to control what Americans see and do on the Internet, changing the profound effect the open Internet has on the economy and our democracy.

Strong net neutrality rules are important to the future of continued innovation, free speech, and economic opportunity. Proponents of a free and open internet should ensure their support is heard by filing comments at the FCC. And, if we want an internet that truly lives up to our country’s ideals, the current FCC chairman better listen to the citizens he serves.

[Michael Copps is the Special Advisor at Common Cause and former FCC Commissioner and Gloria Tristani is a Special Policy Advisor at National Hispanic Media Coalition and former FCC Commissioner.]

With the July 12 Title II Day of Action protest targeting Internet service providers getting a lot of attention, Broadband for America (BFA), which backs and includes those ISPs, was pushing back with a backgrounder on why Title II fans are off base. BFA said the protestors will claim that the FCC wants to end network neutrality, that Title II is the only way to preserve an open internet, and that ISPs oppose net neutrality. Wrong, wrong and wrong said BFA.

It said ISPs strongly support an open internet and have pledged to support enforceable principles and legislation to permanently protect against "blocking or unreasonable discrimination." BFA says that the current Title II regime has led to a $3.6 billion decrease in infrastructure investment and puts the entire internet ecosystem at risk. While Title II fans say that is the only foolproof legal framework for protecting the internet, BFA said legislation "can pass" that will protect it without the "burdens and problems" of utility regulations.

[Commentary] Common carriage, the time-honored civic ideal enshrined in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, remains an indispensable civic ideal. Yet it was never intended as a one-size-fits-all solution, and is by no means the only regulatory tool in US policymakers’ toolkit.

Network neutrality is predicated on a cartoonish caricature of the history of American communications that has long exaggerated the importance of garage-based startups, while discounting the innovative potential of the digital behemoths that dominate cyberspace today. Innovation is too important to be left to the lawyers or the economists. Now that it looks as if the Title II designation for ISPs is history, it is time to explore other options. What do to? To begin with, acknowledge that the current legal regime is anything but neutral and stop demonizing the ISPs. Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet, the parent of Google, have benefited hugely from the status quo without having channeled more than a trickle of their enormous profits into the maintenance and improvement of the existing information infrastructure. They are free-riding on a network that the ISPs built. Lawmakers should strike down existing laws that discourage innovation in municipal broadband, increase government spending on network expansion for thinly settled regions, and institute tax incentives to nudge existing content providers to fund high-quality local journalism and investigative reporting. The Title II designation for ISPs was a patchwork solution to an ongoing challenge. Differential pricing is not a panacea, but it worked for the late 19th-century telephone business, and it deserves a chance today.

[Richard John is a professor at the Columbia University School of Journalism]

July 12, tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Reddit will be participating in an event called the Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is the belief that internet service providers should treat all content, applications and websites the same, without favoring or blocking specific ones. What does that actually mean?

We asked experts in the field to explain by using metaphors and here is what they said: John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge: “Here is a simple metaphor: The telephone system, which has long been regulated to protect the public interest. You probably wouldn’t like it if you tried to order pizza from your favorite local place and were connected to a Papa John’s instead because it had got some special deal. Or if a Verizon telephone only connected to other Verizon phones. Obviously, there are a lot of differences between internet access and the telephone and how they work and how they are built, but the basic principle that essential communication systems ought to be non-discriminatory is the same.”

The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) wants the Federal Communications Commission to hold off on its proposal to kill network neutrality regulations. NHMC filed a motion to delay the FCC’s proceeding to undo its net neutrality rules, pending the release of documents the group has requested from the agency.

The NHMC says it filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for consumer complaints about the open internet since the net neutrality rules went into place in 2015. Carmen Scurato, the group’s director of legal affairs, said that the requested documents will affect the public’s view of the rules. “The information that NHMC urges the FCC to release would provide essential insight into the value of maintaining the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order,” Scurato said in a statement. “Millions of consumers have voiced their concerns about eliminating net neutrality protections and the agency should release all complaints that members of the public have submitted showing how the Open Internet Order has served as a tool in protecting our consumer rights.”

With a full set of commissioners and a chief economist named, the Federal Communications Commission is set to undo network neutrality rules put in place during the Obama administration, but thorny issues around industry consolidation remain.

Former FCC commissioners, antitrust scholars, and at least one GOP senator share competition-related concerns about discarding net neutrality — the idea that internet service providers, who perform a gatekeeping function, should treat all data online equally, with no blocking, throttling, or unreasonable discrimination of legal content. On July 5, FCC Chairman Aji Pai announced that Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at George Mason University with a focus on competition policy, will lead economic analysis for rule-makings. President Donald Trump nominated Brendan Carr to the FCC for a Republican-designated seat, along with former FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel for a Democratic opening. That will make for a 3-2 Republican majority, up from the current 2-1 edge, with Pai and GOP-appointed Commissioner Michael O’Rielly often on opposite sides of votes with Democrat Mignon Clyburn.