Regulatory classification

[Commentary] Admittedly, “infrastructure” might not immediately come to mind when you think “Federal Communications Commission.” But maybe it should. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai often begins and ends his speeches talking about infrastructure investment. The analogy may be getting shop-worn, but in this day and age, who can doubt that reliable high-speed broadband networks are as crucial a component of the nation’s infrastructure as last century’s interstate highways.

Eliminating public utility-like regulation in the Restoring Internet Freedom rulemaking is an important part of the FCC’s focus on spurring greater investment by our nation’s internet service providers. And the pending proposals to encourage more investment in high-speed wireline and wireless broadband networks by eliminating, or at least curtailing, unnecessary or costly regulatory impediments have the same objective. Spurring private sector investment by internet service providers in high-speed broadband networks should be viewed as a key part of the nation’s infrastructure program. And the FCC should be viewed as a key infrastructure agency.

[Randolph J. May is president of the Free State Foundation]

One of the stranger ideas going around among the anti-net neutrality crowd (and in the Federal Communication Commission’s proposal to roll back the net neutrality rules) is the idea that the current rules, adopted by the previous FCC, contain a loophole that allows Internet Service Providers to block whatever websites they want to and generally avoid the rules, provided they use the right magic words--namely, that if they simply say ahead of time they intend to violate the rules, they’re no longer subject to them. This is wrong—the rules only cover broadband ISPs, which are defined quite precisely, but there’s no way for an ISP to continue offering what anyone would recognize as “internet access” without being covered by the rules.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently in the midst of efforts to streamline infrastructure siting requirements for telecommunications companies, having recently undertaken a review of how state and local processes affect the speed and cost of deployments. But FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn hinted the FCC’s plan to step in on the state and local levels and apply one cohesive framework for siting could be hampered by its separate attempts to roll back Title II regulation.

Speaking at the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference in Atlanta, Commissioner Clyburn said a reversal of Title II would do more than erase the foundation for net neutrality. It would also undermine the basis for universal service programs and streamlining pole attachment regulations. Without Title II, Commissioner Clyburn noted, broadband providers who do not also provide a cable or legacy voice service will not be able to take advantage of the rights granted to them under section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934. “There is a lot of talk in Washington right now about preempting states and localities in the context of both tower siting and rights-of-way,” Commissioner Clyburn observed. “But they propose to rely on section 253 of the Act to do so. That provision can only be used if the provider is offering a telecommunications service. I am not sure how a 5G deployment with a LTE and VoLTE fallback will qualify as telecommunications service within the meaning of the Act if the majority’s attempt at reclassification goes through.” Commissioner Clyburn indicated she disagreed with the blanket preemption of localities in the management of their rights-of-way, noting that this approach “ignores that some of the most interesting ideas in infrastructure deployment have come out of the states and municipalities.”

These days, it’s uncommon to see a Republican arguing in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s open internet rules, more commonly known as net neutrality, a set of regulations passed during the Obama administration that are now on the chopping block in the new Republican-controlled FCC. Chip Pickering, CEO of the telecommunications trade group Incompas and a former GOP congressman from Mississippi, who still considers himself a fiscal conservative, sees net neutrality as the “last great battle” in competition policy. “I think the open internet has been the most successful expansion of free-market capitalism in world history,” he said. You would be hard pressed to find a sitting Republican who shares his view on the FCC rules. In the past 10 years, his party has become all but united in its opposition to what it sees as Obama-era regulatory overreach. “He’s maintained those principles,” said Gigi Sohn, who was an adviser to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the architect of the current net neutrality rules. “He hasn’t sold out like many of his colleagues.”

A Q&A with Mark Lloyd, professor of communications at USC’s Annenberg School and former associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission from 2009-2012.

In the interview, Lloyd discusses media consolidation, saying, "The big challenge is that we have an FCC that is not really even looking at the impact of media consolidation on what it means to local communities, on what it means to whether or not folks in those local communities actually get the service that they need. So one of the things that I wrote about before, which is sort of obscure and sort of hard to figure out, is that there is this rule that local radio stations actually have to be in the local radio stations that they operate; it’s called the main control room....what’s happening now is not only that these rules are sort of vague and not really particularly well enforced; it’s that we have an administration that has sent signals to the broadcasters, to the telecommunications companies that provide Internet service, that these rules will not be enforced. They’ve been sent a very clear signal: you can do what it is that you want to do if you have a license to operate, if you are a broad band provider, you can do whatever you want, we’re not going to enforce net neutrality, whether it’s determined to be legal or not legal. This FCC is not going to enforce it."

[Commentary] Network neutrality rules are needed to protect individuals against cable companies and other giant internet service providers that want to put their own profits ahead of the public interest in a free and open internet where anybody can communicate and compete on an equal playing field. They want network neutrality protections removed so they can tilt the rules of the game in their own favor, and in favor of other giant internet companies that have the deep pockets to pay them for special treatment online.

Network neutrality protections are good not only for consumers, but they’re also vital to ensure competition and innovation in all the tens of thousands of competitive marketplaces that depend on an even playing field—such as travel services. They are also vital to ensure that everyone can communicate without interference by those who run the communications network.

[Jay Stanley is senior policy analyst for the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rollback of its 2015 Open Internet Order has put the term “net neutrality” back in the political zeitgeist. The phrase itself is more strategic marketing than precise meaning, but understanding that all it really means is heavy-handed government regulation of the internet makes it clear that net neutrality policy is bad for broadband consumers.

The net neutrality debate has little to do with making the internet open for users to go where they wish online. Americans have always enjoyed that liberty, even before the Open Internet Order was passed. Internet service providers have every incentive to provide that freedom to their customers.

[Jessica Melugin is an adjunct fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington]

In an effort to better understand the challenges facing rural broadband internet service providers, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has been traveling west from Milwaukee (WI) toward Wyoming for the past week, making stops in rural towns across America. On June 9, he made a stop at Black Hills State University for a roundtable discussion with area telecommunications stakeholders. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) was also in attendance.

Asked, "Can you speak a little bit about the FCC’s efforts to increase broadband service to rural areas as it relates to closing the digital divide between rural and urban areas?" Chairman Pai said, "This to me is the No. 1 issue that we need to be focused on." Asked, "There’s been a pretty consistent characterization of you as an enemy of net neutrality. What’s your reaction to this label? Is it wrong?" Chairman Pai said, "I would hope that people of goodwill would focus on the facts, and the facts are that everyone supports a free and open internet....No one is talking about leaving consumers to the mercy of any competitive monopolist. All we’re talking about is how to best preserve that core value of the open internet and preserve the incentive to invest in the networks going forward."

[Commentary] Over the last month, the Federal Communications Commission received 2.6 million public comments critical of Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to roll back President Obama’s "network neutrality" rules. This outpouring of public sentiment must be evidence of participatory democracy at it best, right? Not quite. A sizable percentage of these comments appear to be fake. What the net neutrality comment debacle underscores is that the Internet age may mean the collapse of the public comment process, at least for significant public policy issues.

Sophisticated bots and automated comment platforms can create thousands and thousands of comments from senders who may or may not be real. Most rulemaking pertains to subject matter that is less widely-watched than net neutrality, and usually concerns only a small sliver of the public. The public comment process has some virtues and should continue. It is time to recognize, however, that for rulemaking over issues on the scale of net neutrality, with entrenched and vocal participants on both sides of the aisle, the public comment process has become a farce.

[Peter Flaherty is president of the National Legal and Policy Center.]

[Commentary] The innovation economy needs competition, unfettered access for consumers and innovative flexibility. Working together, Congress should surprise the country, remove the politics from setting broadband internet standards and get something done most Americans can agree on.

[Jamal Simmons is a political analyst and a co-chairman of the DC-based Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA).]