Regulatory classification

[Commentary] I authored a number of empirical studies examining the effect of network neutrality regulation on investment, employment, and broadband speeds. A few parties offered comments and criticisms on my research including the Open Technology Institute at New America, AARP, and Netflix. Of these, the criticisms levied against my work are either uncompelling or wrong. While I found no valid or meaningful criticisms of my work, one attempt to discredit it was so incoherent and inaccurate that I feel it is worth commenting on more fully to avoid confusion. It is clear from its comments that Free Press has zero comprehension of my empirical analysis.

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s recent Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) decision is a case study in the consequences of writing law through executive order. If congressional leadership does not take action, then network neutrality will meet DACA’s same fate.

Americans must demand that Congress provide pragmatic, bipartisan and sustainable solutions for DACA, net neutrality, and many other pressing issues confronting our country.

[Garrett Johnson is co-founder of Lincoln Network, a national community of technology professionals]

Here’s what Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai refuses to admit: by every conceivable measure Title II network neutrality is working.

There’s no real partisan divide or controversy about the need for net neutrality outside of Washington’s political circles and lobbying shops. In our reply to the FCC, we once again explained the history and importance of the net neutrality protections that fostered innovation and investment throughout the last twenty years — both before and after they were put on the right legal footing in 2015. We took down the ludicrous claims of companies like AT&T that they do not provide telecommunications services to the public. And we showed how at every turn these companies have telegraphed their intentions to thwart the Net Neutrality rules and offer worse service if the rules are overturned. The millions of comments in this proceeding is what it looks like when real people understand the stakes of policy decisions in Washington and participate in our democracy. In his crusade to roll back the rules Chairman Pai has chosen to ignore all available evidence about broadband deployment and ISP spending, along with millions of comments from the public. He hasn’t been able to state a single logical reason why the existing Title II Net Neutrality rules should be overturned. The Commission should wake up and listen, instead of refusing to address irregularities in the public commenting process while resorting to gimmicks to delegitimize and squelch the voices of concerned people.

In the spacious corridor of a trendy co-working space on Pittsburgh’s North Side, Michael Shenck runs through a list of all the ways his real estate startup, Ikos, uses the internet each day. “We are collecting a lot of market data to help better inform investors and all of that communication is over the internet, and also how we coordinate with insiders, our gig economy workforce,” Shenck explained. “It’s pretty critical to the flow of our workforce.” Ikos is a year-old business that connects landlords and renters, first virtually and then in-person. Without a fast website to facilitate that communication, Shenck, who is the vice president of engineering, said his company couldn’t operate. He said tech startups like his rely on the concept of net neutrality in order to succeed.

BendBroadband spokeswoman DeAnne Boegli said she’s not sure exactly how the Open Internet Order discourages capital investment by internet service providers. The company’s goal is to build a network with top speeds of 600 megabits per second to 1 gigabit per second, “so people don’t have those issues and can have unfettered access to the internet,” she said. Anyone whose business relies on internet traffic is watching this debate, said Lewis Howell, founder of the Bend startup Hueya.io, which makes software that helps consumers monitor their online privacy. “What they’re wanting to say is, ‘It’s our network,’” Howell said. But broadband is more than one company’s means of delivering cable television or web content, he said. “This is a utility everyone has a right to access freely and openly,” Howell said.

Four of the country’s most prominent city tech leaders visited Washington, D.C., to discuss concern over the federal government’s handling of a trio of issues: Internet privacy, local authority of public assets, and, most notably, a potential rollback of network neutrality, which the group uniformly opposes. The trip took place Sept. 8, and included a coalition made up of New York City CTO Miguel Gamiño, San Francisco CIO Linda Gerull, Seattle CTO Michael Mattmiller, and Austin CIO Stephen Elkins. In Washington, D.C., they met with congressional leadership to express concern over the three issues on behalf of themselves and the communities they represent.

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission repeals Title II and embarks on an uncertain new process, everyone has something to lose — which also means everyone has something to gain. Fertile ground for Congress to step in and solve the problem once and for all. An open internet statute would permanently lock in a signature achievement of the Obama years for progressives, while giving business the certainty and predictability conservatives have championed. It’s a moment of truth for the activists and meme brokers and even the late-night comics who say they care about the issues — not just ratings and clicks. Will they seize the moment and support forward looking action? Or will they burn down net neutrality just to have someone to blame when the next election rolls around?

[Lindsay Lewis is the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Progressive Policy Institute.]

I’m going to talk about what the Federal Communications Commission is doing to promote innovation and investment across the Internet ecosystem. Along with security, people primarily look to government leaders to help create the conditions that make it easier for the private sector to deliver economic growth, jobs, and personal opportunity. And to grow our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity in a world that’s gone digital, we need world-leading Internet infrastructure that serves as a platform for innovation and entrepreneurship.

House Republicans emerged from a month of network neutrality negotiations with no new draft bill text, said Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR). Before August, he set his sights on a hearing scheduled for Sept 7 on net neutrality legislation featuring testimony from top tech and telecom CEOs — but there’s no such hearing and, as a GOP committee aide confirms, no new draft bill. “Obviously there are some difficult issues yet to resolve with language,” Chairman Walden said. On the hearing, he cited “scheduling issues with the principals” and said a new draft “would be the topic of that hearing when it does happen, or if it does happen.” Republicans are still in discussions to “see if we can legislate,” said Chairman Walden, who has sought to codify open internet rules since 2015 without any real negotiation with Democrats. “Everybody’s operating in good faith, and we have other matters we can address in the meantime,” he said.

Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said of the cancelled hearing: "We're still working through that issue, and I think we're in pretty good shape." But she said she didn't know if the hearing would be re-scheduled, despite "great conversations" taking place. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he's heard of a draft net neutrality bill floating around, but said if that's the case, he and other Democrats hadn't seen it. "I'm sure at some point in time, in the distant future, there may come a time when it makes sense to put this into legislation, but I don't think we're at that time yet.” Democrats favor keeping the FCC's net neutrality rules.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 open internet order has long been a posterchild for bad law and worse economics. It has been labeled an “economics-free zone” by the FCC’s own chief economist. The data on the results of its fool hard decision to proceed with Title II despite reams of expert warnings bears this out. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai deserves credit for revisiting the issue in an economically serious way and attempting to restore some semblance of order to a renegade regulatory agency.

[George S. Ford, Ph.D., is an economist specializing in technology issues at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies.]