Network Neutrality

A group of small Internet service providers urged Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to preserve the FCC's network neutrality rules and the related classification of ISPs as common carriers. "We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet," the ISPs said in a letter to Pai that was organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The current rules are necessary "to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market," but "the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability," the companies wrote.

[Commentary] For some time now, the related issues of control and intelligent infrastructure have fuelled the network neutrality debate. Proponents of network neutrality are concerned that if internet service providers get to charge Netflix, YouTube or any website for the privilege of being downloaded at a faster speed than others - allowing some companies to avoid becoming slowed down - society would allow deep pockets to hijack our attention.

It's tempting to back Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai if it means we'll be able to stream movies faster and buffer-free. But while smart systems seem attractive, they'll inevitably be optimised for corporate profit and control. The principle of first-come, first-served is our best protection against interference. We need it on the web - and on the roads.

[Brett Frischmann is a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York City. Evan Selinger, Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology]

[Commentary] Recently, without any reference to the Net Neutrality debate, the cable industry trade association NCTA made the unsurprising observation that broadband speeds in the US continue to rise, as they always have. Seeing all things through the lens of Net Neutrality, Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld immediately laid claim to the trend, asserting that the data in NCTA’s post supports the FCC’s reclassification decision. According to Feld, the speed trend confirms that the “Title II Virtuous Circle” is “totally working” because “the rate of increase has accelerated since the FCC adopted the Title II Reclassification Order in February 2015.”

Feld sets up a direct test of the wisdom of Title II reclassification based on the pace of speed increases following the 2015 Open Internet Order. An empirical question requires an empirical answer. Using the Akamai speed data, Ford subjects Feld’s “theorem” to a battery of statistical tests. Without exception, the data reveal a statistically significant decline in the rate of average broadband speed increases for the US subsequent to the 2015 Open Internet Order. Ford finds that “but for” the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order, US broadband speeds would have been about 10% higher—or about 1.5 Mbps faster—on average. Thus, in direct contradiction to Feld’s claim, reclassification appears to have significantly retarded expected broadband speed increases.

[Commentary] Network neutrality rules are not the way to maintain a free and open Internet, according to Michael Katz, professor of economics and director of the Center for Telecommunications and Digital Convergence in the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. Regulation never “levels” a playing field because that assumes we know the optimal balance between firms. We don’t, and if an optimal balance exists today it might be different tomorrow.

In this case, proponents believe tilting the field more towards edge providers is important for innovation. One problem with that belief, Katz argues, is that the Internet has never been neutral. For example, the Internet was designed in a way that “works relatively poorly for applications that are highly sensitive to packet loss and require very low latency (e.g., telepresence) and works relatively well for applications that require little bandwidth and are not time sensitive (e.g., email).” Another problem with the level playing field argument is that it should apply to many industries and services, not just the Internet. Yet, we know that paid prioritization has become crucial in other areas, like package delivery (think FedEx, UPS, or expedited shipping in e-commerce). Finally, the argument tends to focus on particular firms that might not do well with paid prioritization at the expense of consumer welfare. However, consumer welfare may be improved by new services that cannot currently exist, or must exist via workarounds that are not technically “paid prioritization.” The point is not that one of these necessarily outweighs the other, only that it is incorrect to automatically conclude that the net effect of paid prioritization is negative.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai unveiled new details about a reported cyberattack that came after comedian John Oliver urged his viewers to flood the agency with pro-network neutrality comments. In response to a series of questions about the incident from Sens Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chairman Pai said he was taking the issue seriously. “I agree that this disruption to [the Electronic Comment Filing System] by outside parties was a very serious matter,” Pai wrote in a letter. “As a result, my office immediately directed our Chief Information Officer (CIO) to take appropriate measures to secure the integrity of ECFS and to keep us apprised of the situation. The Commission's CIO has informed me that the FCC's response to the events sufficiently addressed the disruption, and that ECFS is continuing to collect all filed comments."

The ECFS slowed to a crawl after Oliver’s HBO show addressed the net neutrality proceeding in May, leading many to assume that the system was bogged down by an influx of public filings. But the next day, FCC CIO David Bray said the disruption was caused by a malicious distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, a move designed to take down a site by flooding it with fake traffic. “I appreciate the FCC’s response,” Sen Wyden said. “I’m waiting to draw any final conclusions until the FBI weighs in. However, it is clear that FCC wasn’t ready for this attack. In the future, the agency should consider other ways to submit comments if its web portal fails again.”

Free market group Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE) says according to its analysis of the Federal Communications Commission's open internet docket, a majority (65%) favor repealing the Title II-based Open Internet order, as FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed to do. But it also points out that a vast majority, 75%, of those comments are from "letter campaigns" coming from both sides of the issue.

In addition, nearly 6% of the comments have been submitted by self-identified international filers. The group said it looked at the 4,990,000 filings as of June 20 and said it would do similar assessments in the future. Of those, it said, 3,237,916 support repealing the order, while 35% (1,752,084) oppose repeal. It said that assessment was based on analysis of "clear language" one way or the other—including the language encouraged by HBO's John Oliver—mostly on the form letters that make up the 75% of comments, though it said the percentage might actually be more since it was looking at varieties and permutations of the same language, and there could be more.

[Commentary] Sharing economy companies have had no shortage of regulatory battles, but companies such as Uber, Airbnb, and TaskRabbit are innovating and improving regulation by incorporating the very trust created through their platforms. Arun Sundararajan, author of “The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism” (MIT Press, 2016), observes that regulation need not originate with the government. He writes that it can take a myriad of forms while still being rational, ethical, and participatory. He describes three models of regulation used by sharing platforms: peer-to-peer, self-regulatory, and data-driven delegation.

The way that sharing economy platforms are innovating regulation with digital trust systems exposes the effort by digital elites to impose Title II utility regulation from 1934 on the internet as backward and out of date. While sharing economy entrepreneurs are creating a decentralized, innovative, and distributed world and are finding and transforming passive assets into productive ones, Title II advocates want to centralize and aggregate power beneath a single government agency that we the people have never authorized to regulate broadband. We should resist this like we would any faction that wants to usurp power. Meanwhile, we should encourage the Federal Communications Commission and Internet service providers to experiment with these innovative forms of regulation.

[Roslyn Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark. She is also a member of the Trump FCC Transition Team.]

The United States is ahead of the global curve when it comes to delivering “broadband for all.” But we too face challenges. First, a quick snapshot: 93% of Americans have access to fixed broadband with a speed of at least 25 Mbps down. An estimated 73% of Americans subscribe to fixed broadband at home. And approximately 80% of Americans use smartphones. When you dig deeper into those numbers, however, you begin to see some real divides. In urban areas, 98% of Americans have access to high-speed fixed service. In rural areas, it’s only 72%. 93% of Americans earning more than $75,000 have home broadband service, compared to only 53% of those making less than $30,000. Too many identify with the lines in One of Us, in which ABBA sang: “One of us is lonely / One of us is only / Waiting for a call.”

Every American who wants to participate in our digital economy should be able to do so. Access to online opportunity shouldn’t depend on who you are or where you’re from. I’m pleased to say that since my first days as Chairman, the Federal Communications Commission has taken significant actions to make that a reality.

Mountain View's (CA) tech startups are girding themselves for a big political fight over the data vital to their businesses. Smaller web companies say they could be crippled by slower bandwidth while premium data service is reserved for the large tech giants. The issue is network neutrality, the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally. If the proposed changes go forward, the internet as we know it would come to resemble cable TV, said Gigi Sohn, a Mozilla fellow who previously served as an Federal Communications Commission attorney.

[Commentary] Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission placed controversial, sweeping regulations on the internet. The goal was worthwhile – to establish universal net neutrality rules to protect consumers and content alike. However, rather than construct a modern regulatory framework for ever-evolving services, regulators simply jammed the internet into ill-suited public utility regulations, known as Title II.

If we want equal opportunity for students in Montana, if we want to encourage the use of technology in more sectors of our local economies to spur job creation, and if we want our burgeoning tech industry to continue to grow, we need to encourage broadband deployment and investment. Congress needs to step in and codify open internet principles into law. This would provide certainty, encourage innovation and finally put the issue to rest.

[Senator Fred Thomas is the Senate Majority Leader in the Montana State Senate.]