Regulatory classification

At present, 34 states (and the District of Columbia) have introduced some kind of open internet legislation.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA): “The Trump Administration’s decision to abandon net neutrality continues to harm consumers and small businesses, leaving a few large corporations in control of an essential component of modern life.  In April, the House passed the Save the Internet Act to restore basic consumer protections online and preserve a free and open Internet.

Recently a new study seeking to rebut the Federal Communications Commission’s conclusion on investment was made public. The author of the study is Christopher Hooton, Chief Economist of the Internet Association (a proponent of Title II regulation) and a scholar at George Washington University’s Institute of Public Policy. This new paper is not Hooton’s first attempt at an empirical analysis of investment and Net Neutrality, the first being an unskilled effort in 2017. In that work, Hooton fabricated large portions of his data and failed to understand what sort of investments he was studying

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: "Today’s decision is a victory for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet. The court affirmed the FCC’s decision to repeal 1930s utility-style regulation of the Internet imposed by the prior Administration. The court also upheld our robust transparency rule so that consumers can be fully informed about their online options. Since we adopted the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, consumers have seen 40% faster speeds and millions more Americans have gained access to the Internet.

Gigi Sohn, Distinguished Fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and a Benton Institute for Broadband & Society Senior Fellow & Public Advocate:  "The DC Circuit Court has spoken very clearly --  the states are now free to do what the FCC will not –- assert authority over the broadband market and protect an open Internet. Broadband providers will inevitably complain about having to comply with a so-called 'patchwork' of different state laws, but that is of their own making.

We uphold the 2018 Order, with two exceptions. First, the Court concludes that the Federal Communications Commission has not shown legal authority to issue its Preemption Directive, which would have barred states from imposing any rule or requirement that the FCC “repealed or decided to refrain from imposing” in the Order or that is “more stringent” than the Order. 2018 Order ¶ 195. The Court accordingly vacates that portion of the Order.

A new study has found the Federal Communications Commission’s primary justification for repealing network neutrality was indisputably false. For years, big Internet service providers and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai have told anyone who’d listen that the FCC’s net neutrality rules, passed in 2015 and repealed in 2018 in a flurry of controversy and alleged fraud, dramatically stifled broadband investment across the US.

This paper examines the impacts of net neutrality rule changes in the United States in 2010, 2015, and 2017 on telecommunication industry investment levels. The paper tackles the issue with a comprehensive dataset with full time series coverage for all SEC-registered telecommunications firms from 2009 to 2018. The author tracks new capital expenditures incurred, which reflects new investment decisions made rather than old investment decisions materialized, with quarterly data and exact issuance dates.

The US broadband and media industries are increasingly becoming consolidated, deregulated and freed of accountability, with little attention either from policymakers or the media. While Mexico is moving forward -- having recently developed new institutions and regulations intended to promote competition and accountability in telecommunications and media, the US is moving backwards. Competition in broadband and media in the US is vanishing as a result of decisions, big and small, by the Trump Administration. 

Like their south side University of Chicago economists, the Editorial Board of the Tribune waxes poetic and snarky about the virtues of the marketplace and how it can solve any and all network neutrality ills. The Editorial Board dismisses a particularly egregious throttling episode as “humiliating customer service failure” for Verizon when the company’s software automatically slowed transmission speeds of California first responder handsets as they tackled life and property threatening fires.  Does deliberate slowing down of transmission speed and commensurate service degradation wa