Regulatory classification

July 12, AT&T will join the “Day of Action” for preserving and advancing an open internet. This may seem like an anomaly to many people who might question why AT&T is joining with those who have differing viewpoints on how to ensure an open and free internet. But that’s exactly the point – we all agree that an open internet is critical for ensuring freedom of expression and a free flow of ideas and commerce in the United States and around the world.

We agree that no company should be allowed to block content or throttle the download speeds of content in a discriminatory manner. So, we are joining this effort because it’s consistent with AT&T’s proud history of championing our customers’ right to an open internet and access to the internet content, applications and devices of their choosing.

[Commentary] The current Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, understands the dangerous nature of this government overreach [Title II] and is working to reverse these regulations, but I fear that those trying to invest in South Dakota’s broadband will have to slog through new regulations imposed by each new administration unless Congress protects the Internet with enforceable net neutrality legislation.

I ask Sen John Thune (R-SD) to help secure net neutrality protections by supporting legislation that protects consumer rights to an open internet, stabilizes oscillating Internet policy and encourages Internet companies to reinvest in the future of their networks and next-generation products and services. Legislation on net neutrality is needed to end the constant regulatory upheaval and help put this issue beyond the political bickering and agency turnover. Securing an open Internet will help broadband providers to deliver new breakthroughs and services to consumers – a goal shared by both parties. It is my hope that Sen Thune and all members of Congress will act by working with their colleagues to pass legislation that will lift these misapplied utility regulations and bring much needed security and stability to the Internet.

[Dave Roetman currently serves as the Minnehaha County GOP chairman and the South Dakota Republican Party finance director.]

[Commentary] House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has tried to argue that ending network neutrality is good for Nashville’s musicians, but she’s flat wrong. She says that musicians would have the opportunity to negotiate “paid prioritization deals,” but this is just payola with a new name and the same ugly consequences for music.

Working musicians want to spend their time making and distributing music to their fans, not cutting special deals with big media conglomerates; allowing paid prioritization and other forms of discrimination is only good for big media companies that can afford to cut big checks. That’s why organizations like the Future of Music Coalition oppose what the Federal Communications Commission is trying to do. It’s critical that musicians stand up for net neutrality and oppose the FCC’s plan.

[E. Michael Harrington is a composer, musician, consultant, Music Business Program Faculty Chair at SAE Institute Nashville, course author and faculty at Berklee College of Music]

An interview with Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future. Fast Company asked her about the state of network neutrality and the prospects for resisting President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s policy effort.

Asked, "Beyond the day of action, is there an ongoing way that the campaign will continue?" Greer replied, "This is just the beginning. Even if the FCC moves ahead as quickly as possible, we’re not talking about a vote on this until at least the fall. And I think a lot of this will pivot to Congress. The FCC makes the decision on this specific proposal, but they answer to Congress, and every lawmaker should be paying attention to the fact that this is incredibly unpopular with constituents." Asked, "If the FCC does take away Title II designation, is the next move up to Congress?" Greer said, "After that, it would go to the courts. The FCC will have a tall order to prove in court that they have any good reason to do this. But I’m optimistic that we will never get there, because I do think this is going to be a tremendous mobilization on July 12th, that it’s going to change the conversation in a big way."

Three of the largest internet service providers and the cable television industry’s primary trade association have spent more than a half-billion dollars lobbying the federal government during the past decade on issues that include network neutrality, according to a MapLight analysis.

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies since 2008. The amount represents more than $100 for each of the 5.6 million public comments on the FCC’s proposed elimination of net neutrality rules. Despite the resources devoted to the rollback by the big internet service providers, net neutrality advocates haven’t been totally bereft of support in the nation’s capital. Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, has spent $41.1 million lobbying in the nation’s capital. Facebook, which boasts 2 billion unique monthly users, has spent almost $43.3 million.

Internet service providers have asked the Supreme Court for a 60-day extension of the deadline for filing their appeals to the Supreme Court of a DC federal appeals court decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission's Title II-based Open Internet order. They want an extension from July 30 to Sept. 28 in case the new FCC proposal to roll back Title II moots that appeal. Seeking the extension are NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, USTelecom, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink , Alamo Broadband, TechFreedom and various individuals including VoIP pioneer Daniel Berninger.

The FCC has sought comment on the proposal by the Republican FCC majority under chairman Ajit Pai to reclassify internet access—wired and wireless, fixed and mobile, customer facing and interconnections—as an information service not subject to Title II and to review whether rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization are necessary. Those comments are due July 17 (initial comments) and Aug. 16 (replies).

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai plans to eliminate net neutrality protections. Without these protections, big internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will be free to block or slow down content as they see fit. We, as former FCC commissioners, believe that these rules are the only way of preserving real net neutrality that protects the internet as an economic engine and platform for democratic discourse.

If Chairman Pai has his way, we could see an Internet where big cable companies decide who should have a voice and which businesses succeed and fail. Only the current net neutrality rules give the FCC the authority to ensure that the Internet remains open for all, and can remain a watchdog to stop bad behavior before it harms consumers and innovation. Americans in both parties believe the government should prioritize preventing companies from harming consumers before it occurs. Eliminating or watering down the net neutrality rules would do just the opposite, giving companies free reign to control what Americans see and do on the Internet, changing the profound effect the open Internet has on the economy and our democracy.

Strong net neutrality rules are important to the future of continued innovation, free speech, and economic opportunity. Proponents of a free and open internet should ensure their support is heard by filing comments at the FCC. And, if we want an internet that truly lives up to our country’s ideals, the current FCC chairman better listen to the citizens he serves.

[Michael Copps is the Special Advisor at Common Cause and former FCC Commissioner and Gloria Tristani is a Special Policy Advisor at National Hispanic Media Coalition and former FCC Commissioner.]

With the July 12 Title II Day of Action protest targeting Internet service providers getting a lot of attention, Broadband for America (BFA), which backs and includes those ISPs, was pushing back with a backgrounder on why Title II fans are off base. BFA said the protestors will claim that the FCC wants to end network neutrality, that Title II is the only way to preserve an open internet, and that ISPs oppose net neutrality. Wrong, wrong and wrong said BFA.

It said ISPs strongly support an open internet and have pledged to support enforceable principles and legislation to permanently protect against "blocking or unreasonable discrimination." BFA says that the current Title II regime has led to a $3.6 billion decrease in infrastructure investment and puts the entire internet ecosystem at risk. While Title II fans say that is the only foolproof legal framework for protecting the internet, BFA said legislation "can pass" that will protect it without the "burdens and problems" of utility regulations.

[Commentary] Common carriage, the time-honored civic ideal enshrined in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, remains an indispensable civic ideal. Yet it was never intended as a one-size-fits-all solution, and is by no means the only regulatory tool in US policymakers’ toolkit.

Network neutrality is predicated on a cartoonish caricature of the history of American communications that has long exaggerated the importance of garage-based startups, while discounting the innovative potential of the digital behemoths that dominate cyberspace today. Innovation is too important to be left to the lawyers or the economists. Now that it looks as if the Title II designation for ISPs is history, it is time to explore other options. What do to? To begin with, acknowledge that the current legal regime is anything but neutral and stop demonizing the ISPs. Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet, the parent of Google, have benefited hugely from the status quo without having channeled more than a trickle of their enormous profits into the maintenance and improvement of the existing information infrastructure. They are free-riding on a network that the ISPs built. Lawmakers should strike down existing laws that discourage innovation in municipal broadband, increase government spending on network expansion for thinly settled regions, and institute tax incentives to nudge existing content providers to fund high-quality local journalism and investigative reporting. The Title II designation for ISPs was a patchwork solution to an ongoing challenge. Differential pricing is not a panacea, but it worked for the late 19th-century telephone business, and it deserves a chance today.

[Richard John is a professor at the Columbia University School of Journalism]

July 12, tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Reddit will be participating in an event called the Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is the belief that internet service providers should treat all content, applications and websites the same, without favoring or blocking specific ones. What does that actually mean?

We asked experts in the field to explain by using metaphors and here is what they said: John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge: “Here is a simple metaphor: The telephone system, which has long been regulated to protect the public interest. You probably wouldn’t like it if you tried to order pizza from your favorite local place and were connected to a Papa John’s instead because it had got some special deal. Or if a Verizon telephone only connected to other Verizon phones. Obviously, there are a lot of differences between internet access and the telephone and how they work and how they are built, but the basic principle that essential communication systems ought to be non-discriminatory is the same.”