Network Neutrality

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.]

[Commentary] As the battle around net neutrality rages again, we need to take stock, and ask ourselves: What is the debate really about, and why should business leaders and entrepreneurs care?

Businesses of all sizes create value, jobs and investment opportunities online. Their innovation and value creation are wholly dependent on access to internet connectivity. Net neutrality is the principle that all content must be treated without discrimination, be it commercial or political. Neutral networks are critical to ensuring fair, open competition in the content market and driving America’s growth in the digital era. Net neutrality allowed me to invent the World Wide Web without having to ask anyone for permission or pay a fee to ensure that people could use my idea.

Now imagine what would happen if internet service providers—usually a handful of big cable companies that control the connectivity market—were allowed to violate net neutrality. Their gatekeeping powers could be used to require businesses and individuals to pay a premium to ensure their content is delivered on equal terms—or even at all. This would create barriers that disadvantage small businesses and startups across all sectors that rely on the internet in any way.

[Berners-Lee is inventor of the World Wide Web and founding director of the World Wide Web Foundation]

[Commentary] Thanks to the open internet, a new generation of activists fighting for civil rights and equality has been able to make their voices heard in ways previously unimaginable. Now the Trump Administration is trying to turn back the clock and silence them by undoing the Network Neutrality rules. That is simply unacceptable. We have fought and won this fight before, and now it’s time to get organized again. Send your comment to the Federal Communications Commission today.

With the Trump administration waging a war on so many communities — from attempting to gut health-care coverage for millions of people to repeatedly trying to implement an unconstitutional Muslim ban — now, more than ever, we need the open internet to organize and fight back. I’ll work hard to protect Net Neutrality from inside the halls of Congress, but we need your voice too.

[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.