Network Neutrality

[Commentary] The week of June 12, the European Union Directorate-General for Competition released a report on the effects of zero-rating practices on competition in broadband markets, commissioned from consultants DotEcon, Aetha, and Oswald & Vahida. The report reviewed both the theoretical arguments regarding zero-rating and competition (including work by myself and Roslyn Layton) and actual experiences with the practice from European Union countries.

The report’s findings are extremely informative, given the extent to which the purported harms from zero-rating alarmed a large number of United States advocates in the past. Notably, this resulted in the February 2015 Open Internet Order requiring case-by-case analysis of alleged breaches of a zero-rating general conduct standard in agreements between broadband internet access service operators and end consumers.

[Bronwyn Howell is a faculty member at the School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.]

I am heartened that at the very beginning of the latest [network neutrality] process, we have already seen another five million speak out. And as significant as that is, it still may not be enough. We must go broader, and deeper, form coalitions and interest groups, have discussions and town halls, about what all of this means to everyday people and communities large and small, and how we can never take any of this for granted. Our most important and precious protections, and the principles on which they are built, are at stake, and we can ill-afford to sit idly by, or get tired as they are sacrificed at the altar of small government and large business interests. You are in the most unique position to do just that. I am in a unique position to do just that. Together, united, we are the force, that will ensure that those First Amendment principles, that distinguish this great nation from so many around the globe, applies to a platform that is the most inclusive and empowering of our time.

Sixty-percent of respondents in a Morning Consult/POLITICO poll said they support rules that say internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon “cannot block, throttle or prioritize certain content on the internet.” The difference between supporters by party was 2 percentage points, with 59 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats backing the rules. The same percentage of tea party supporters and Democrats expressed strong support for net neutrality, at 37 percent.

In 2014, Tumblr was on the front lines of the battle for network neutrality. The company stood alongside Amazon, Kickstarter, Etsy, Vimeo, Reddit, and Netflix during Battle for the Net’s day of action. Tumblr CEO David Karp was also part of a group of New York tech CEOs that met with then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in Brooklyn that summer, while the Federal Communications Commission was fielding public comment on new Title II rules. But three years later, as the battle for net neutrality heats up once again, Tumblr has been uncharacteristically silent.

One reason for Karp and Tumblr’s silence? Last week Verizon completed its acquisition of Tumblr parent company Yahoo, kicking off the subsequent merger of Yahoo and AOL to create a new company called Oath. As one of the world’s largest ISPs, Verizon is notorious for challenging the principles of net neutrality — it sued the FCC in an effort to overturn net neutrality rules in 2011, and its general counsel Kathy Grillo published a note this April complimenting new FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to weaken telecommunication regulations.

One of the central arguments in the Net Neutrality debate is over whether the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial 2015 decision to reclassify broadband Internet access as a common carrier “telecommunications” service had a negative effect on network investment in 2016. The evidence is mounting that it did. Free Press believes the consistency in the data does not carry over to Broadband Service Providers’ (“BSPs”) advocacy, however. Comparing statements made by BSPs to the FCC and to Wall Street, Free Press contends that these apparent inconsistencies imply that the companies are lying to the Commission and to the public about the effect of Title II on investment. The Internet Association—a trade group of companies favoring aggressive Internet regulation—recently borrowed from Free Press’s report to produce an online video summarizing the Free Press narrative.

Ford subjects Free Press and the Internet Association’s anecdotal evidence to review, and finds that it is Free Press and the Internet Association—and not BSPs—who are not telling the whole story. Free Press and the Internet Association have presented a false narrative to both the FCC and the public at large, and that their evidence actually points to the harms of reclassification on investment incentives.

[Commentary] Do you think it’s okay for your internet service provider—the company, such as Comcast or Verizon, that connects you to the internet—to decide which websites you can visit or to determine which streaming services will look best on your smart TV? If the answer is no, you’re probably in favor of network neutrality. Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, thinks that rolling back the rules could diminish competition, harming consumers.

Comcast shares have tripled over the past five years even as network neutrality was debated and then approved by President Barack Obama's Federal Communications Commission in February 2015. Yet despite a pronouncement from President Donald Trump's new FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, that he plans to kill net neutrality rules that regulate internet service providers as public utilities, the outlook for Comcast's stock going forward isn't nearly as bright, media analyst firm MoffettNathanson LLC said in a reported published June 20.

That's partly to do with Comcast's prosperous run-up -- sales grew to $80 billion in 2016 from $55 billion in 2011 -- as well as accelerating declines in cable TV subscribers and a flattening picture for internet growth. For MoffettNathanson, it all comes down to pricing power. Yes, your friendly neighborhood (monopoly) broadband provider can be expected to use Washington's deregulatory mood to raise prices. But it's unclear whether Comcast and other broadband providers will be able to hike prices enough to offset broader slowdowns in their core businesses: internet services and pay-TV.

[Commentary] Presently, we are on the cusp of another internet reinvention called Web 3.0, and its opening act, the internet of things. Whether the promise of Web 3.0 is fully realized, however, will depend on the policy decisions we make today. The promise of Web 3.0 is finished without open networks to connect it. Precisely, the kind of openness the Trump Federal Communications Commission is trying to remove by undoing the existing Open Internet Rules. Thus far, the debate surrounding the Trump FCC’s undoing of the Open Internet Rules has been an echo of the arguments of 2014 and 2015 prior to the adoption of those rules. In fact, the entire open internet debate is rooted in arguments that have been frozen in time. There has never been a better description of the issue at the heart of the open internet debate: whether the companies that sell internet access to consumers should also be able to exploit their often-uncompetitive position to impose terms, conditions and fees on the activities that connect to the internet. An open internet means access to any content can’t be constrained. But the future and Web 3.0 are way beyond media. The call and response mechanism for Netflix to deliver a movie over broadband internet is a far cry from channeling the flood of intelligence created by billions of connected microprocessors. Hopefully, the nation’s tech leaders will help President Donald Trump see that future and the importance of keeping the internet fast, fair, and open.

[Tom Wheeler is a former chairman of the FCC]

[Commentary] Given the current climate at the Federal Communications Commission, it is not surprising that instead of writing a genuine apology, the FCC chose to dispute the fact that John Donnelly, a reporter for CQ Roll Call, was manhandled by FCC security as he attempted to ask Commissioner Michael O’Rielly a question. Following the “Save the Internet” rally that took place ahead of that day’s FCC vote to revoke net neutrality protections, open internet advocates — myself included — were treated with hostility in the FCC building when trying to access the meeting. Advocates were directed by guards to throw away signs tucked away in their bags before entering the building, and once inside, directed to the overflow room. Despite being a former FCC commissioner, guards and FCC officials made it difficult for me to enter the main meeting room even though I explained that a seat was being saved for me. I was also told that I could not stand in the back of the room. When finally seated in the press section, I was told that I could not move to any other vacant seats. It is not normal for public input to be unwelcome at the FCC, as it appears to be today. Chairman Pai must welcome comments from people of all stripes, return civility and respect to the debate and ensure that the FCC electronic filing system is prepared to handle the many more millions of comments that are expected. Americans, who have come to rely on the internet as an integral part of their lives, deserve and expect no less.

[Tristani is a special adviser to the National Hispanic Media Coalition and served as a FCC commissioner from 1997 to 2001. She is also a former executive director of the Benton Foundation.]

A Q&A with former Federal Communications Commission member Michael Copps.

CBS CEO Les Moonves said it best: “I don’t know if Donald Trump is good for the country. but he’s damn good for CBS.” The election was just a glorified reality show and I do not think it was an aberration. Until we get that big picture straightened out and we get a civic dialogue that’s worthy of the American people and that actually advances citizens’ ability to practice the art of self-government — that informs citizens so they can cast intelligent votes and we stop making such damn-fool decisions — we’re in serious trouble. To me, that remains the problem of problems, it remains at the top of the list. Journalism continues to go south, thanks to big media and its strangulation of news, and there’s not much left in the way of community or local media. Add to that an internet that has not even started thinking seriously about how it supports journalism. You have these big companies like Google and Facebook who run the news and sell all the ads next to it, but what do they put back into journalism? It isn’t much. I don’t think right now that commercial media is going to fix itself or even that we can save it with any policy that’s likely in the near-term, so we have to start looking at other alternatives. We have to talk about public media — public media probably has to get its act together somewhat, too.