Regulatory classification

This reply to "The Curious Absence of Economic Analysis at the Federal Communications Commission" (Faulhaber, Singer, & Urschel, 2017) makes three claims.

First, we document the paper's undisclosed origins as a white paper commissioned by an advocacy group with deep ties to the telecommunications industry. Second, we describe two of the authors' active participation, on behalf of clients, in a range of contested issues before the FCC in recent years, none of which they disclose. Finally, our review of FCC workshops, roundtables, seminars, dockets and rulings—including during its landmark 2015 Open Internet Order and several blockbuster mergers and acquisitions—provides detailed evidence to refute the paper's core "curious absence" charge. The stakes could not be higher, we conclude, as the new FCC chair Ajit Pai has repeatedly referenced the paper to justify his rollback of FCC regulations—including, crucially, the common carriage/net neutrality rules so vigorously opposed by the paper's funders.

In the fierce fight over Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's effort to roll back the network neutrality rules, it won't be Chairman Pai or his opposition who has the final say. The battle is almost certainly headed to a familiar place — federal court — where judges will determine its fate. Throughout the decade-old debate over whether and how to regulate internet access, the issue has sparked repeated lawsuits that sent FCC officials back to the drawing board. Players on both sides say it’s all but certain this latest go-around will end in litigation again. "When I was general counsel, I didn’t think that what the FCC said was the last word on the matter. I knew there would be a day in court," Jon Sallet, who served as the agency's top lawyer in the Obama era, said during a net neutrality town hall

[Commentary] Network neutrality matters to any Texan who relies on the internet to access journalism, stream videos and stay in touch with friends and family. It’s also particularly critical to Texan startups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the internet to reach new customers without meddling from big, established players.

At Mozilla, we’ve been collecting signatures, comments and voicemails from Americans to share with the FCC. The results have been overwhelming: We’ve already received more than 100,000 signatures, 21,000 comments and 50 hours of voicemails. So, what can Texans do? Speak up during the 90-day public comment period, which runs through mid-August. A broad network of individuals and organizations are preparing an official brief to submit to the Federal Communications Commission that will express our concerns with their policy during this open comment period. We’re also engaging with civic leaders and policymakers here in Texas to discuss the importance of net neutrality. We need to make the coming weeks count — for Texas, all Americans and the internet.

[Surman is executive director of Mozilla. Yokubaitis is co-founder and co-CEO of Data Foundry in Austin.]

[Commentary] Democracy and a stable economy demand access to information. Every citizen and business who values the freedom to search the Internet without restrictions and receive all content consistently should lend their voice to preserving network neutrality rules by submitting comments with strong arguments and clear facts and talking to your peers and representatives about the potential impacts of this plan. The comment period closes July 17, 2017.

[Stewart is a security fellow with Truman National Security Project]

President Donald Trump has nominated the Federal Communications Commission's general counsel Brendan Carr to be the agency’s third Republican commissioner — a move that could ensure the end of net neutrality regulations. Carr’s ties to big telecom could help tip the upcoming net neutrality vote in favor of deregulation, since FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to roll back net neutrality rules will likely pass along party lines — as it did for Democrats in 2015.

The FBI will not investigate a cyberattack that crashed the Federal Communications Commission’s website during an influx of comments on an agency plan to reverse network neutrality.

Agency chief Ajit Pai said the FBI declined to investigate the FCC cyberattack that followed a “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” segment in May, when Oliver called on viewers to submit comments opposing Pai’s plan to scale back net neutrality rules. “In speaking with the FBI, the conclusion was reached that, given the facts currently known, the attack did not appear to rise to the level of a major incident that would trigger further FBI involvement,” Pai wrote to a pair of Senate Democrats, who were skeptical of the attack. “The FCC and FBI agreed to have further discussions if additional events or the discovery of additional evidence warrant consultation.”

Some of the nation's biggest Internet service providers are begging a court not to weaken the power of a major regulatory agency — the Federal Trade Commission — in a case that has implications for businesses and consumers nationwide and puts the companies at odds with another key industry player, AT&T.

The request earlier this week by Charter, Comcast, Cox and Verizon seeks to shore up the FTC's ability to regulate Internet providers, in a case about whether the FTC can punish AT&T for allegedly misleading consumers with its marketing of "unlimited" data plans. But the case also has other implications. It could create an undesirable regulatory environment for the companies, they say. "At first glance, [our] position might seem surprising — four leading corporations are arguing in favor of restoring the FTC’s authority to regulate," the ISPs wrote. They added: "If the FTC is divested of jurisdiction," the companies wrote, "it is likely that a variety of federal, state, and local government agencies that lack the appropriate reach, perspective, and experience … will attempt to fill the perceived 'regulatory gaps,' thereby creating a patchwork of unreasonable, duplicative, and inconsistent rules."

Rep Don Beyer (D-VA) held a forum just outside of DC for his constituents to come learn and voice their concerns about the fate of network neutrality. Though Rep Beyer was the host, the real headliners of the event were former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and former FCC general counsel Jon Sallet, who both spoke at length to a packed house about how we got to where we are today, with the rules under fire, and what consumers can still do to try and make their voices heard. A couple key take-aways?

No Neutrality Without Title II: “What I hope you’ll think about is that that legal term is a smokescreen for not having to discuss” the bright-line net neutrality principles, privacy guidelines, and the FCC’s oversight authority, Wheler said. “Those who are trying to overturn the rules want to talk about them in these [legalistic] terms, instead of talking about the effect of Title II.” “We looked hard to see if there would be ways other than Title II to accomplish these goals,” Wheeler said. “They weren’t there.”

Why Commenting Is Important: Both Sallet and Wheeler admitted that the FCC’s mind is probably already made up, no matter what public comments come in to the proceeding now. But those comments become vital in the case of a lawsuit and “can shape what happens if it’s necessary to go to court one more time,” as Sallet put it. “We can all predict what can happen at the FCC, but I can tell you this,” Sallet said: “When I was general counsel, I didn’t think that what the FCC said was the last word. I knew there would be a day in court.”

[Commentary] Recently, Amazon, Netflix, and Mozilla have taken note of the success of astroturfing and are leveraging a “stick-it-to-the-man” ethos to advocate for internet regulation, in this case advocacy to regulate internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act, which empowers the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband through price controls as well as tax consumers to raise funds for government run networks. A culmination of their efforts will take place on a July 12th “Day of Action,” which will display their protests both on and offline to pressure Congress and the FCC to capitulate to its agenda to take control of the internet.

The event is yet another campaign funded by Battle for the Net, an organization of radical left-wing activists, including Free Press, Fight for the Future, and Demand Progress, seeking more regulation and government control over markets This July 12th, remember that what you will witness on website and browsers is one heck of an astroturf campaign, and their mission is straightforward: take control of the internet, by any means necessary.

[Roslyn Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute and served on the President Elect Transition Team for the FCC from 2016-2017.]

[Commentary] Some partisan activists have sought to leverage the public’s privacy concerns to advance their political agenda and have resorted to spreading accusations and false information that misleads the public. Immediately after the Congressional vote, the media was flooded with stories suggesting that internet privacy had been “repealed.” Other stories made misleading claims that Congress “voted to allow your web history to be sold to the highest bidder.” None of this is true. Congress did not repeal internet privacy. They kept the FTC’s two decades of privacy rules in place while preventing the inequitable Obama mandates from going into effect.

Congress did the right thing by stopping the FCC’s power grab to protect consumer privacy and indeed protect the internet itself. It is far better public policy to leave the internet in the free market to continue to bring us innovation after innovation which has transformed our lives for the better in the past generation. Take a moment and send an email of appreciation to the members of the Iowa delegation who stood up for you, your family, and your neighbors in this cause.

[Donald P. Racheter is president of the Public Interest Institute, a public policy research institute in Muscatine]