Network Neutrality

Network neutrality doesn’t just cover streaming video. It also ensures that you can use the devices that you want. Under the current net neutrality rules, your internet provider can’t stop you from connecting any laptop, tablet, smartphone, or Wi-Fi router you want to your home network. Without net neutrality, the days when broadband companies and cell carriers could let traffic flow faster to one brand of phone or computer over another could be coming. And that’s just the start.

With people connecting more and more devices, from voice-controlled personal assistants like Apple’s forthcoming Home Pod to thermostats to cars, net neutrality becomes that much more important, even as the federal government moves to drop its own protections. Dismissing the rules could be a big problem for the future of the Internet of Things, since companies like Comcast–which is already working on its own smart home platform–certainly have the motivation to create fast and slow lanes for particular gadgets and services. If your internet provider can decide which personal assistant or smart home gadgets you can or can’t use, the broadband can dictate the winners and losers in the Internet of Things race. That wouldn’t bode well for competition, innovation, or you.

As detailed in this BULLETIN, a proper implementation of Title II precluded the Federal Communications Commission’s approach, forcing the Agency to ignore the “vast majority of rules adopted under Title II” and “tailor[] [Title II] for the 21st Century.” Surprisingly, the DC Circuit found in United States Telecom Association v. FCC that the agency had wide latitude to interpret the Communications Act and not only upheld the agency’s decision to reclassify but also its gross distortion of Title II. In so doing, the DC Circuit has extended Chevron deference beyond any reasonable limit, greatly expanding the Commission’s authority well beyond its statutory mandate.

This BULLETIN first presents several examples of how the 2015 Open Internet Order ignores both the plain language of Title II and the extensive case law to achieve select political objectives, followed by a discussion of the DC Circuit’s acceptance of such legal perversions. Next, this BULLETIN discusses how the FCC attempted to use the same theory of the case found in USTelecom to regulate the prices of Business Data Services. Conclusions and policy recommendations are at the end.

[Commentary] What America needs is clear, consistent, and sustainable internet policy. That can only come through legislation. We need a diligent rewriting of the 21-year-old act that guides telecommunication and internet policy. At the time of the law’s passage, there were just 13 million internet users in the United States. Today, there are 287 million.

The new telecom and internet law doesn’t have to be long and complicated, but it does have to be comprehensive. It has to enshrine the Clinton-era principles into law. It’s time to remove any ambiguity about whether the internet’s infrastructure is a public utility. It should not be. Competition and light-touch regulation built the internet, and they should keep on building it.

[Glassman was a former president of The Atlantic, publisher of The New Republic, executive vice president of US News & World Report, and editor-in-chief and co-owner of Roll Call.]

[Commentary] This post kicks of a series of blogs examining some of the more pernicious myths and misunderstandings in telecommunications policy. With a new fire lit under the network neutrality warriors, misinformation runs rampant and spreads quickly.

Let’s turn to the first myth: that financial data shows that Title II isn’t hurting Internet service providers’ investment in their networks.

Financial filings shows broadband investment went down roughly 2-3 percent after the Open Internet Order, consistent with industry’s own findings. It’s especially important that we see continued investment in the infrastructure that supports “best-efforts” open Internet. And there is good reason to think Title II would affect this. Not only did the Open Internet Order take potential business models off the table, and throw others into uncertainty under the Internet Conduct Standard, it represents the first step down the slippery slope to more onerous utility regulations, such as network unbundling requirements or price regulation.

Free Press and Free Press Action Fund sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission’s general counsel calling on the agency to address its crackdowns against First Amendment freedoms during recent FCC meetings. “We write to express grave concerns about recent actions that call into serious question the Federal Communications Commission’s commitment to fostering free expression,” reads the letter authored by Free Press and Free Press Action Fund Deputy Director and Senior Counsel Jessica J. González and Policy Director Matt Wood. “In particular, the actions of FCC security and other FCC staff have chilled free speech and public participation in FCC decision-making processes that are supposed to be open to the public, and they have violated the due-process rights of Free Press and Free Press Action Fund staff and members.”

The letter details a series of incidents in which the federal agency and members of its security staff have silenced dissenting voices, manhandled a reporter and barred members of the public from attending the agency’s monthly open meeting without due process. During one incident, on the morning of March 23, 2017, two Free Press Action Fund members, Joe DeGeorge and David Combs, attempted to attend the FCC’s open meeting wearing plain white T-shirts that read “Protect Net Neutrality” in black letters. FCC security personnel informed the two that they would not be allowed to enter the public meeting room unless they removed the T-shirts or flipped them inside out to conceal their message.

The Federal Communications Commission's open internet docket, dubbed "Restoring Internet Freedom," has seen a huge wave of comments—or at least a major update of the number posted—since June 2, with over 4.9 million posted, up about 2 million from June 2's 2.9 million-plus. Sen Ed Markey (D-MA), an opponent of Republican FCC chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back Title II, said earlier in 2017 he thought the comments would dwarf those in the docket for the 2015 Open Internet order—over 4 million. With still more than two months left in the comment cycle, he could be right.

[Commentary] Reverting back to a voluntary approach to network neutrality potentially threatens the well-being of many people, particularly those at risk for health disparities due to low income or rural residency. Not only does this voluntary approach shift winners and losers to favor large telecommunication giants, we are specifically concerned with several areas of health care being negatively impacted, including innovative solutions for telemedicine, health enhancement, and cost effective scalable sharing of health care data.

In summary, the new FCC may be proceeding in directions that may make it harder to use telehealth, cloud-based EHRs, and remote sensing technologies that improve access to care and potentially lower costs for all. A thoughtless move toward free enterprise on the Internet could have a negative impact on the health of the most medically underserved Americans. We urge the FCC to investigate the unintended consequences of policy changes to insure that they do not amplify issues of health disparities in lower income and rural populations.

To make sure the network neutrality rollback survives court challenges, newly appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai must justify his decision to redefine broadband less than three years after the previous change. He argues that broadband isn't telecommunications because it isn't just a simple pipe to the Internet. Broadband is an information service because Internet service providers give customers the ability to visit social media websites, post blogs, read newspaper websites, and use search engines to find information, the FCC's new proposal states. Even if the ISPs don't host any of those websites themselves, broadband is still an information service under Pai's definition because Internet access allows consumers to reach those websites.

[Commentary] Amid the raucous political debate, there is a critical issue many are overlooking: the threat to network neutrality. Net neutrality is a critical component of the future of the Internet, but the real issue is the lack of fast, affordable Internet in America — directly caused by a lack of adequate competition. If consumers had more providers to choose from, the market would solve the issues of privacy protections, network neutrality and much more. People would not stand for poor privacy practices and content restrictions, usurious prices and poor quality. They would seek other options, forcing providers to change their practices.

So how can you get involved to keep the FCC from dismantling net neutrality? Spread the word — talk to your friends, family and neighbors. Educate them on the subject and encourage them to take a stand and engage the appropriate government representatives at the federal, state and local level. We must band together for the long journey ahead to effect change.

[Dane Jasper is the CEO and founder of Sonic, an Internet and telecommunications company in Santa Rosa (CA)]

As the Federal Communications Commission prepares to deregulate the telecommunication and cable industry by rolling back the agency's network neutrality rules, some people on both sides of the issue already say the battle is pretty much moot. On May 31, Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings signaled he thinks the current fight is unwinnable. "I think Trump's FCC is going to unwind the rules, no matter what anybody says," Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings said. "That's going to happen, and then we get to see what's going to come out of that."