Regulatory classification

Comcast claimed that "the threat of Title II regulation" started harming broadband network investment in 2011—years before the US government decided to apply Title II regulations to broadband. Moreover, Comcast said that net neutrality proponents who claim that investment wasn't hurt by the Title II rules "aren't living in the real world."

This comes less than a week after Comcast accused net neutrality supporters of "creat[ing] hysteria." Comcast's new statements came in comments filed July 17 with the Federal Communications Commission and in a blog post by Senior Executive VP David Cohen, who urged the FCC to stop classifying ISPs as common carriers. Comcast's claims about network investment clash with what ISPs have told their own investors; even Comcast’s chief financial officer downplayed Title II's effect on investment in December 2016. Comcast's arguments about network investment this week also go beyond what even FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has claimed. Pai has continually cited research purporting to show that broadband network investment started declining after the FCC's February 2015 decision to impose net neutrality rules backed by the commission's Title II authority over common carriers.

Capital expenditures by US internet service providers have declined by $3.6 billion since the Federal Communications Commission adopted its Title II regime for internet regulation in 2015, Comcast regulatory chief David L. Cohen said. Cohen’s blog posting—and the associated comments made to the FCC—continued Comcast’s push to get the now-Republican-led agency to reverse its regulations.

The capex figure was quoted from economist Hal Singer, who said the top 12 ISPs invested 5.6% less in 2016 vs. 2014, before Title II was enacted. “A CTIA study found that capital expenditures declined for wireless providers by 17.4% from 2015-2016,” Cohen added. “A study by Dr. George S. Ford found that the threat of Title II regulation between 2011 and 2015 reduced broadband investment by about 20% to 30%, or about $30 to $40 billion annually. That reduction amounts to "about $150-$200 billion over the five-year period," or the equivalent of losing an entire year’s worth of investment. Those who say investment isn’t impacted by the Title II regime “aren’t living in the real world,” Cohen also said.

Offering up more proof that the term “cable” now strikes a very anticonsumerist tone, consumer group Fight For the Future is now labeling any Congressional representative who supports the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission’s quest to dismantle Title II internet regulation—or isn’t doing anything to stop it—as “Team Cable.” The group is now counting votes and public comments, putting representatives into two “camps.” Any representative scoring too low on Fight For the Future’s “congressional scorecard” gets put into the “Team Cable” camp and is subject to an unflattering crowdfunded billboard campaign.

The group plans to give the treatment first to House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in her home state. “The congressional scorecard divides Congress into two camps: Team internet (those who are speaking up to defend net neutrality rules that protect online free speech) and Team Cable (those who are supporting the FCC’s plan to dismantle those protections and give cable companies control over our online experience), said Fight For the Future spokesman Evan Greer.

With the Internet Day of Action targeting the Federal Communications Commission now receding in the rearview mirror, organizer Fight for the Future (FFTF) is shifting its focus to Congress in its fight to retain Title II-based Open Internet rules. According to campaign director Evan Greer, the group will start putting up billboards targeting legislators who support the proposal by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to roll back Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers -- Greer calls it dismantling net-neutrality protections -- and rethink the bright-line rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. Greer said the group has crowdfunded $50,000 toward the billboards, which will start going up in "the coming weeks." The group took the same outdoor advertising tack when trying, ultimately unsuccessfully, to block Republicans' rollback of the related FCC broadband privacy regulations.

The period of public comment on the network neutrality rule will close in mid-August, and the Federal Communications Commission could take a vote on a final decision as early as October. According to Sen Al Franken (D-MN), the strategy is to gin up so much negative public opinion that it pressures one of the Republican commissioners on the FCC board to change their mind, which would scuttle the policy change. If that fails, a court challenge is all but inevitable.

If the change does ultimately stand, some, like University of Minnesota professor Soumya Sen, are cautioning open internet advocates that not all is lost. He argues the principles of net neutrality can still be protected even without the current Title II protections — and that they could even be better protected under a different scheme. Thanks to market forces and public opinion, Sen suggests that ISPs won’t immediately move to make the draconian changes that some are expecting. He cited the example of widespread anger from consumers after Verizon and AT&T terminated their unlimited data plans, an unpopular move that both companies later reversed. “If there are changes, I think they will be gradual,” Sen said. “They will test the waters and see how the consumers react to them.”

Attorney General Lisa Madigan led a coalition of 13 other attorneys general to oppose the rollback of critical net neutrality protections by the Federal Communications Commission. In comments submitted to the FCC, Madigan and the other attorneys general argue that the FCC must ensure open access to the internet and the continued equal access to all content providers. "The current Open Internet rules were based on the premise that consumers expect and deserve an open and transparent Internet and that their right to access their chosen content without interference from their service provider should be protected.

The existing rules recognize that the Internet has become an essential service in our society, and that role could be compromised by allowing private companies, many of which have conflicts of interest, to dictate the terms of consumers’ access to and use of the Internet. Consumers expect transparency and fairness from their Internet service when they go online, and those expectations should be reflected in the FCC’s rules,” the attorneys general stated in their comments. Joining IL AG Madigan in submitting comments were the attorneys general from: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, as well as Hawaii’s Office of Consumer Protection.

On July 17, Free Press submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission, demonstrating once again that the 2015 decision to base Net Neutrality rules on Title II got it exactly right. The 2015 Open Internet Order ushered in an era of broadband investment and internet innovation while giving users assurances that their service providers will not block, throttle or discriminate against their online communications.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood said, “Chairman Ajit Pai’s allegiance to the broadband industry is so great that he has continued to ignore the overwhelming evidence and political forces arrayed against him. The Net Neutrality rules and their Title II framework are working beautifully. Proof of that is everywhere, from the ISPs’ increases in investment and profits to the astounding levels of innovation from companies that use the internet to reach their customers. Phone and cable ISP profits are not the only thing at stake here, though they seem foremost in Pai’s mind. But the fact is that along with their finances, these broadband providers’ service speeds are also on the rise. Companies like AT&T, which industry lobbyists falsely paint as a victim of Title II’s fictional harms, have taken advantage of technological upgrades to deploy faster speeds while spending less than they used to. But don’t take our word for it: AT&T’s own CEO has bragged repeatedly about how it continues to get cheaper-to-deploy fiber and build out the company’s wireless networks."

Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, once again urged the Federal Communications Commission to abandon efforts to unravel popular network neutrality rules. In comments filed with the agency, the consumer group outlined why the 2015 Open Internet Order should remain intact to ensure consumers have unfettered access to the internet.

Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, “We do not support the goals of the FCC’s proposal to undermine the legal authority or repeal the net neutrality rules necessary to ensure an open internet. Moreover, the proposal’s arguments in favor of their repeal are simply unpersuasive, especially when considering ISPs have been caught doing the very things these rules now prohibit, including throttling and exploring paid prioritization. Treating ISPs as common carriers under Title II provides the proper legal foundation on which to for the Commission to base the net neutrality rules—rules essential to protecting consumers’ ability to access an open internet without anti-competitive interference from their ISP. These rules are working and serve consumers well, which is why the Commission needs to abandon its efforts to rollback both the net neutrality rules contained in the Open Internet Order.”

[Commentary] In the weeks leading up to July 12's day of protest over network neutrality in the US, big tech names signed on to join the fight to keep it. Among them were some of the biggest names on the internet, including Amazon, Google, and Facebook, all of which have a vested business interest in all Americans being able to access their sites quickly and frequently. But those sites did not go dark July 12. They didn’t slow down in an effort to mimic what life might be like for some were net neutrality to end.

Instead, they mostly pointed users to other, pro-net neutrality pages. Ultimately, the fight over net neutrality is about who controls the internet: users or major corporations. In that regard, there is only a degree of difference between the 20th century giants of the telecommunications sector and the those of 21st century Silicon Valley. It’s not too difficult a leap to make from wondering why your online access shouldn’t be free from walls erected by your cable company, to wondering equally why your online access shouldn’t also be free from limitations created by a social media platform, search engine, or e-commerce behemoth.

Sen Al Franken (D-MN) joined the millions of Americans who have weighed in with the Federal Communications Commission to protect network neutrality, the long-standing principle that what you read, see, or watch on the internet shouldn't be favored, blocked, or slowed down based on where that content comes from.

"Allowing giant corporations to pick and choose the content available to everyday Americans would threaten the basic principles of our democracy,"wrote Sen Franken in his public comment to the FCC. "While the FCC's vote to implement strong net neutrality rules was an important victory for American consumers and business, it also demonstrated the overwhelming power of grassroots activism and civic participation. In 2014, millions of Americans from across the political spectrum organized to ensure that their voices were heard, and-in the process-they redefined civic engagement in our country. But that kind of participation requires an open internet. Because of net neutrality, people from across the nation can connect with each other, share their ideas on the internet, and organize a community effort."