Regulatory classification

[Commentary] Net neutrality advocates must shift their focus from the Federal Communications Commission to Congress, where they may well find the support and power they need to safeguard a fair and free internet. There is a strong historical argument for shifting attention to Congress: the Fairness Doctrine.  

As senators who have been working to close the digital divide, we believe federal policy must continue to promote the expansion of broadband access across rural America. Consumers and innovators deserve clear rules of the road that will continue to ensure the internet remains an open marketplace, will drive our online economy and will support investment throughout our internet ecosystem.

With the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of network neutrality rules set to go into effect in 2018, attention is turning to the pledges internet service providers have made to consumers about how they'll handle web traffic. Many are taking a fairly hard line against blocking or slowing down the delivery of content. It gets more complicated when it comes to whether internet companies will allow a website, such as Netflix, to pay for a "fast lane" to prioritize its content over sites' content. Comcast says it won't block access to content or slow down its delivery.

Proponents of major media mergers say that consumers will benefit if regulators approve the deals. But consumers, especially those who can least afford it, could get screwed by these deals.Multi-billion-dollar deals — along with regulatory changes such as the repeal of net neutrality rules — are often justified as ways to spur innovation and increase consumer choice, but consumer advocates argue the actions could actually make access to some popular content more expensive. The real question: Is choice at the expense of price really giving consumers what they want?

Even if the Federal Communications Commission wins in court, large Internet serivce providers still need to find a way to prevent any future FCCs from simply reinstating the network neutrality rules. That’s why the same giant ISPs that backed the FCC’s assault on net neutrality are now pushing for a “legislative solution” in Congress. The goal: they want a law that contains so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless, yet prevents the FCC from crafting any real, tough laws down the road.

The fight for municipal broadband has been a quiet drama unfolding across dozens of cities nationwide in recent years. In addition to Colorado, around 20 states have legislation on the books curtailing the construction of city-owned broadband networks, which threaten the dominance of corporate Internet service providers. But a growing number of communities like Fort Collins (CO) are pushing back against these laws. Their attempts could take on added urgency because of efforts at the federal level to rework how the internet is governed.

The Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality move gives fresh air to the arguments from municipal broadband proponents that city-run systems are the best way to ensure an affordable and free internet. Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has studied the systems that have popped up all over the country. He said that these systems have far greater incentive to maintain net neutrality and that local control has some benefits people may not immediately consider.

A core Republican talking point during the network neutrality battle was that, in 2015, President Barack Obama led a government takeover of the internet, and President Obama illegally bullied the independent Federal Communications Commission into adopting the rules. But, internal FCC documents, revealed using a Freedom of Information Act request, show that the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General—acting on orders from Congressional Republicans—investigated the claim that President Obama interfered with the FCC’s net neutrality process and found it was nonsense.

[Commentary] Who really thinks that allowing the large telecom corporations more control over what Americans see and read is a good thing? Giving monopolies more power will make it harder for new companies to enter the marketplace and limit the pace of innovation. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and the end of network neutrality exemplify everything that is currently wrong with Washington.

House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) announced plans to introduce a net neutrality bill soon. “Everybody is for a free and open internet, and that is what we want to preserve," Chairman Blackburn said in a video released on her Twitter page the same day as the FCC vote. "You can look for legislation next week where Congress will do its job.