Report on past event

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to undo the open internet rules argues that network neutrality has dissuaded internet providers -- like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T -- from investing in building out and upgrading their networks. Likewise, at the congressional hearing, Chairman Pai said that a convincing argument that investment in internet infrastructure actually was on the rise could persuade him to stop trying to roll back net neutrality protections. The problem with this argument, though, is that according to the internet providers themselves, investment in their networks actually has gone up since the net neutrality rules were passed. Chairman Pai’s claims that internet providers aren’t investing in their networks is misleading, at best, and potentially ruinous for the future of a vibrant internet if his proposal to gut net neutrality rolls through unchallenged without a big public fight. And the scary thing is that in the current political climate, with so many major changes underway all at once, net neutrality may become a casualty.

The Trump Administration’s plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure spending presents an opportunity not only to repair existing roads, bridges, and tunnels, but also to build out broadband internet coverage in rural areas. On July 24, the Center for Technology Innovation hosted a panel discussion at Brookings about how the administration, Congress, and the private sector can work together to address broadband needs of unserved (no access) and underserved (limited access) populations.

The event began with opening remarks from House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), focused on the congressional perspective on broadband infrastructure. To close the access gap, Chairman Blackburn seeks to eliminate regulatory barriers, increase investment in unserved areas, and redraft current Federal Communications Commission maps to more accurately reflect the percent of Americans that lack broadband access. The panelists largely focused on ways the government and private sector can work together to expand broadband internet access.

On July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became the law of the land. This landmark legislation gave the Federal Communications Commission a mandate to ensure access to telecommunications by Americans with hearing and speech disabilities.

Title IV of the ADA requires the FCC to ensure that nationwide telecommunications relay services are available for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a speech disability to communicate with other individuals in a manner that is functionally equivalent to people who use voice telephone services. In 2010, with passage of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), Congress authorized the distribution of free communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. The FCC used this authority to develop the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, also known as "iCanConnect." Since 2012, iCanConnect has provided the equipment needed to make communications services accessible to low-income individuals who have both significant vision loss and significant hearing loss. Among other things, this program has enabled people who are deaf-blind and were unable to access telecommunications relay services to now do so. Although iCanConnect started as a pilot FCC program, it became permanent as of July 1, 2017. Through iCanConnect, relay service programs, and other accessibility initiatives under the ADA and CVAA, the FCC is working to ensure that all Americans have equal access to essential telecommunications services so that everyone can take full advantage of all the latest life-enhancing innovations.

The House Commerce Committee’s Communications and Technology Subcommittee held a hearing on July 25, 2017. Lawmakers came to talk Federal Communications Commission oversight; they came to talk FCC oversight; but as with most telecommunications policy discussions these days, network neutrality grabbed the headlines.

Full Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) announced that he will hold a hearing on September 7 entitled “Ground Rules for the Internet Ecosystem.” He sent invitations to CEOs of leading tech companies -- including Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon, and Netflix -- and broadband providers -- including Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Charter Communications -- requesting they testify.

“A strong consensus is forming across party lines and across industries that it’s time for Congress to call a halt on the back-and-forth and set clear net neutrality ground rules for the internet,” said Chairman Walden. “In some form or another, we have been working for at least 20 years on the intertwined goals of incentivizing the huge investments needed to connect Americans, while keeping the internet open and protecting consumer privacy. With almost everyone in agreement about fundamental principles to prevent anti-competitive behavior such as throttling and blocking, I think we are closer than ever to achieving a lasting resolution. The time has come to get everyone to the table and get this figured out.”

In a letter requesting their appearance, Chairman Walden said the open internet rules put in place during the Obama administration — which subject broadband providers to utility-like regulation — “disrupted the longstanding regulatory balance that for years allowed the internet to grow and thrive.” He added, “With your help, I know we can craft a fair, predictable and sustainable solution that not only benefits edge providers and internet service providers, but also the billions of consumers worldwide that deserve a free and open internet.”

Chairman Walden is joined by his counterpart in the Senate, Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, in a desire to adopt legislation that will end the net neutrality debate.

But these lawmakers so far have offered few specifics, and for the moment, they don’t have much Democratic support. Many in that party have rallied to save the FCC’s existing rules, preferring the Obama administration’s approach. Sen Cory Booker (D-NJ), for example, fears that any attempt to tackle net neutrality with Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress will result in rules that are too weak — and give broadband internet access service providers too much power to tamper with internet traffic.

In her opening remarks at the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) bristled at the suggestion that Republicans are opposed to network neutrality. "Let me be clear. Republicans have always supported a free and open internet." We are trying to "restore the culture of humility lacking under the regulatory cloud left” by former-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. She said it was time to move past partisan rhetoric and pass legislation clarifying net neutrality oversight. Subcommittee Vice Chairman Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) agreed and said there was common ground on the need for net neutrality and added that a light-touch approach has strong support.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA) pointed to the over 12 million net neutrality comments in the FCC's public file as evidence that there was nothing wrong with the FCC's current net neutrality rules. He said the rules are working and to roll them back would hurt small business and "regular people." Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA) agreed and said the FCC is barreling down the road toward eliminating critical protections and making it clear that start-ups and small business input is not as valued as special interests. “If the FCC moves ahead with its net neutrality plan the consequences will be severe,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the ranking member of the full House Commerce Committee. “Their plan will have a chilling influence on our democracy, cut away at our connections with each other, and limit economic opportunities for the future.”

Morning Consult reports that the key takeaway from the hearing is that Democratic and Republican members of Congress both support net neutrality — they just have different definitions for the term.

Chairman Walden asked all the FCC commissioners if they support net neutrality. Chairman Pai said he favors “a free and open internet.” But Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) took issue, telling him that his chairmanship “rests on the altar of dismantling net neutrality as we know it.”

“With all due respect to you, I don’t think it’s a credible statement to say that you support it,” she added.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said that maintaining classification of broadband services under Title II of the Communications Act will ensure competition and drive greater service availability. “Taking away Title II for broadband undercuts our ability to ensure universal service for broadband by taking away our clearest source of authority to make sure all Americans are connected,” Commissioner Clyburn said. “Undoing our classification of broadband as a Title II service also harms the FCC’s ability to enable competition. There is specific authority in sections 224 and 253 of the Communications Act that allows the FCC to enable competitive access to monopoly infrastructure, and to remove other barriers to competition. Without Title II, it will be far more difficult for the Commission to enact policies to enable competition.” Commissioner Clyburn also pointed to how Title II helps to ensure privacy.

“We adopted rules of the road for broadband privacy last October and they were stripped away earlier this year with the passage of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval which means today, there are no comprehensive rules on the books protecting broadband consumer privacy for Americans,” Commissioner Clyburn said.

But FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said “the term net neutrality means so many different things these days than it once did.”

GOP lawmakers presented themselves as advocates of the concept of net neutrality, while simultaneously targeting the 2015 Open Internet Order which reclassified broadband Internet access service as a Title II service. Chairman Blackburn, for example was drawing a distinction between supporting a rollback of the net neutrality protections and the idea that such a move would limit internet access for users, saying that “Republicans have always supported a free and open internet.” Republicans say net neutrality limits investment and growth of internet service providers, while advocates say a rollback of the Obama-era regulation would allow ISPs to throttle, block or slow connectivity. Their argument echoed one that has been used by ISPs like Comcast and Verizon.

“Everybody says they’re for an open internet,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT). “The question I have is: Why change the existing regime where everyone agrees that there is an open internet?”

Past network neutrality, the hearing considered a discussion draft reflecting, among other things, the Commerce Committee’s ongoing efforts to improve the FCC’s process and transparency. Here’s some quick notes:

1. Chairman Pallone questioned Chairman Pai about decisions that have favored Sinclair Broadcast Group. He asked if the Trump Administration has tried to influence these actions. Chairman Pai answered that the White House has not contacted him about the proposed merger of Sinclair and Tribune or the FCC's decision to restore the UHF discount, which helped pave the way for that deal.
2. Commissioner Clyburn criticized FCC Chairman Ajit’s Pai decision to allow Sinclair to purchase of Bonten's seven stations. She told the subcommittee that she was kept in the dark about the bureau-level decision, which, she suggested, was hardly in keeping with Chairman Pai's promise for more transparency.
3. Chairman Pai warned the subcommittee that unless Congress authorizes more money, broadcasters will have to pay some portion of their post-incentive auction repack expenses. FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly testified that it may be a little early to declare the $1.75 billion post-auction repack fund insufficient.
4. Chairman Pai said that if the facts warrant and the law allows it, the FCC will be aggressive about freeing up TV band white spaces for rural broadband.

Prominent technology-industry leaders and venture capitalists gathered in the White House’s state dining room in June 2017 to discuss tech policy with President Donald Trump in an event that Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, helped organize. Seated at the rectangular table alongside the corporate luminaries, university presidents and senior White House officials was a less-prominent figure: Zachary Bookman, the 37-year-old CEO of a small startup called OpenGov. Kushner’s brother, through a venture-capital firm, is a part owner of OpenGov, according to government disclosures and data from Dow Jones VentureSource. Until earlier this year, Kushner owned stakes in the venture-capital firm that he sold to his brother, according to a person familiar with the matter. Kushner’s connection to OpenGov isn’t widely known. Many senior Trump administration officials hail from the business world, triggering concerns about potential conflicts between their private interests and public duties. The OpenGov situation—in which a top White House official helped organize a prestigious event where one of the participants was financially connected to his family—is an example of how such potential conflicts can play out.

Facebook, Google, Twitter and other companies, activists and startups that rallied in support of net neutrality probably aren’t going to stop the Trump administration from killing the rules currently on the government’s books. But the organizers of the so-called “day of action” insist they reached more than 10 million users with their message, while generating at least 2.1 million comments urging the Federal Communications Commission to rethink its plans. That’s a drop in the bucket, seeing as the tech companies that took part in the protest reach billions of users every day — but the event’s planners stress that they’ve touched a nerve. Some of the web’s largest companies — including Amazon, Facebook and Google — took a more reserved approach. They didn’t darken their webpages, like some companies did during a massive online protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act, and their alerts to users weren’t always easy to find.

On July 12, 2017, some of the world's largest companies, activists, and citizens protested the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to rollback (well, gut, really) network neutrality protections adopted in 2017. Here's a look at the news of the day.

The country's biggest broadband service providers, we learned, are huge, huge supporters net neutrality. Companies like Comcast and Verizon, who've sued the FCC after it's previous attempts at writing Open Internet rules -- just so the rules come out just right -- did not sit by quietly during the big online rally. They voiced their support for an Open Internet -- just not using the rules that a federal court upheld in 2016. The companies support the FCC reversing the 2015 decision so they can go back to court and find out if the FCC's next set of rules are enforceable.

• AT&T Vice President of External and Legislative Affairs Bob Quinn said the company supports the repeal of the current regulations set under Title II of the Communications Act, calling it “outdated”, and encouraged Congress to create bipartisan, net neutrality legislation.
• Verizon Senior Vice President of Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs Will Johnson said, “The Internet is too important to have policies that change with each election. It’s time to get past the rhetoric and the pendulum swings and work together to craft a durable set of rules that protect the open Internet without discouraging the investment in the next generation of broadband networks that will enable the next generation of online services. Open Internet protections deserve to be written in ink, not pencil.”
• “Title II regulation and net neutrality are not the same thing,” said Comcast Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer David Cohen. “While some seem to want to create hysteria that the Internet as we know it will disappear if their preferred regulatory scheme isn’t in place, that’s just not reality.”
• USTelecom, the lobbying organization for large broadband providers, dismissed the rally as a campaign of large Internet-based companies. "For many of the large, powerful internet companies who have signed on to today’s net neutrality protest, the real issue here is not protecting the open internet, but protecting their bottom lines," said President and CEO Jonathan Spalter. "What’s the solution? Clean, modern net neutrality rules that safeguard consumers’ online freedoms without sacrificing their equally keen interest in stronger, faster broadband networks—and all the innovation it makes possible. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai should be commended for seeking that balance in his net neutrality proceeding. And, Congress would do right by all consumers to make these protections permanent under the law."
• NCTA – The Internet & Television Association said, "[W]e agree that internet users should have the freedom to go anywhere on the internet or to run any application with confidence that internet traffic will in no way be blocked or throttled."

Free Press, BTW, was quick to point out 10 ways broadband providers could better support network neutrality. #4 -- quit suing the FCC over the 2015 Open Internet rules.

Internet-based companies voiced their support for preserving the FCC's 2015, court-upheld rules.

• Google said, "Internet companies, innovative startups, and millions of internet users depend on these common-sense protections that prevent blocking or throttling of internet traffic, segmenting the internet into paid fast lanes and slow lanes, and other discriminatory practices. Thanks in part to net neutrality, the open internet has grown to become an unrivaled source of choice, competition, innovation, free expression, and opportunity. And it should stay that way."
• Twitter Public Policy Manager Lauren Culbertson said, "Without the guiding principles of Net Neutrality, it is entirely possible Twitter would not have come from a somewhat quirky experimental 140-character SMS service to where we are today, an international company with thousands of employees and a service that incorporates pictures, video, and live streaming and connects the world to every side of what’s happening." She continued, "Net Neutrality is one of the most important free expression issues of our time because without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to charge content providers more to access the Internet or to reach other users, frustrating the free flow of information. Moreover, without Net Neutrality in force, ISPs would even be able to block content they don’t like, reject apps and content that compete with their own offerings, and arbitrarily discriminate against particular content providers by prioritizing certain Internet traffic over theirs. This is especially critical for smaller and noncommercial voices, who would be unable to pay a new ISP broadband toll for 'fast lane' service."
• The Netflix homepage included a banner that read, "Protect Internet Freedom. Defend Net Neutrality".
• Airbnb used its homepage to tell users the company was "protesting the FCC's plan to remove common-sense regulations" and provides a form for them to contact members of Congress.
• HomeAway featured a "Save #NetNeutrality" banner with a link to the Internet Association site.
• Reddit helped drive traffic to the "Battle for the Net" and included the message "The internet's less fun when your favorite sites load slowly, isn't it?"
• Dropbox General Counsel Bart Volkmer said, "[W]e strongly favor a free and open internet with fair rules that promote competition, choice, and innovation. We’ve shared this position before and it’s worth repeating."

But the debate over an Open Internet isn't just pitting the competing interests of broadband providers and Internet-based companies. According to a recent poll conducted by Civis Analytics, 77 percent of Americans support keeping the strong net neutrality rules we already have and more than 80 percent agree with the principles of net neutrality.

• “The FCC needs to listen to the public, not just lobbyists from big cable companies," said Evan Greer, campaign director for rally organizer Fight for the Future. "Today, the Internet is showing its political power. No one wants companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to have control over what we can see and do online, or to have to pay them extra fees to access the content we want. The Internet is outraged by censorship and corruption, this is our moment to defend net neutrality and fight for the future of freedom of expression. Lawmakers in Washington, DC need to understand that if they stand idly by and allow the FCC to gut these rules that are overwhelmingly supported by voters from across the political spectrum, they will be seen as enemies of the Internet and enemies of free speech.”
• "The facts are clear: The current net neutrality rules are working, they are popular, and they have been upheld in court challenges not once but twice," said Chris Lewis, Vice President at Public Knowledge. "No one should have to pay an extra toll or get permission from their broadband provider to deliver their content or services to consumers online. It’s time to take a stand to preserve these hard-fought rules that protect the internet and internet users everywhere, and the movement starts today."
• Free Press CEO Craig Aaron said, “The fact is, we have something that is already working, so why we would be urging people to take an incredibly popular policy with wide support from millions and millions of Americans and rewrite it to make it 5 percent less awful than whatever the FCC is proposing right now doesn’t make any sense."
• "The open Internet is a place for authentic storytelling by Latinos and communities of color, whose voices have been misrepresented or underrepresented by traditional media,” said Carmen Scurato, director of policy and legal affairs for the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which says undoing Title II would "slash the legal foundation" for online protections. “Strong net neutrality rules, that prevent corporate gatekeepers from standing in the way of how we access and use the internet, ensure that historically underserved communities will be heard online."
• "Net neutrality is essential to 21st Century democracy," said Michael Copps, former FCC chairman and special advisor to Common Cause. "Without real open internet protections, Big Cable gatekeepers are free to filter dissent and stifle online organizing. That's why millions of Americans—and so many of companies—are speaking with one voice. We will never compromise online free speech."

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said, "“Today I stand with those who believe that a free and open internet is a foundational principle of our democracy. Its benefits can be felt across our economy and around the globe. That is why I am excited that on this day consumers, entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including broadband providers and internet startups, are speaking out with a unified voice in favor of strong net neutrality rules grounded in Title II. Knowing that the arc of success is bent in our favor and we are on the right side of history, I remain committed to doing everything I can to protect the most empowering and inclusive platform of our time.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly were silent on the matter on July 12.

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, posted a video urging people to show support for net neutrality. “If we lose net neutrality, we lose the internet as we know it,” he said.

Many have called on Congress to address net neutrality protections in legislation. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman penned an op-ed for Recode saying, Like many organizers of today’s protest, I vigorously support an open internet. But as a senator representing a rural state, I am concerned that such protests often [give] short shrift to ensuring all Americans have access to high-speed internet." His solution: "passing enduring bipartisan legislation, is obvious and — no, I’m not kidding — within Congress’s reach. If Democrats and Republicans have the political support to work together, we can together enact a framework that provides the net neutrality protections wanted by so many internet users, reasonably limits the whims of partisan regulators and grants the necessary flexibility to protect consumers from future harm."

House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said, “Today’s Day of Action highlights the need for Congress to work together to protect consumers and ensure a free and open internet. The internet and the new technologies it unleashed have revolutionized the world in just a few short decades, and done so with little or no federal regulation. I again call on my Democratic colleagues, edge providers and ISPs, and all those who make up the diverse internet ecosystem that has flourished under light-touch regulation to come to the table and work with us on bipartisan legislation that preserves an open internet while not discouraging the investments necessary to fully connect all Americans. Too much is at stake to have this issue ping-pong between different FCC commissions and various courts over the next decade."

"We understand people have some passionate feelings on the issue, and we expect to hear those," said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). But she predicted the day of action will "only be another day of confusion for consumers and users" and criticized Democrats for refusing to engage on net neutrality legislation. "What I find interesting is that we have asked Democrats for years to come to the table on this issue, only for them to hide behind political excuses."

Rep. Darrell Issa said, "You can look at criticism as an opportunity to improve your own game or you can look at it as a nuisance. Rep Issa backs an antitrust approach to open internet protections relying on the Federal Trade Commission rather than the FCC.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said, "President Obama enacted historic and tough net neutrality rules for good reason — we need strong guidelines designed to protect budding startups and businesses from large corporations that might want to stamp out their competition. We need to fight to preserve the power a free and open Internet gives the marginalized and underrepresented to organize and have their voices heard."

“Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it ends,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), speaking alongside other Democratic lawmakers outside the U.S. Capitol. “It’s just that simple.”

“The FCC and everyone in this city is going to know what the political consequences are if net neutrality is repealed,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) stressed that Democrats had been “fighting to protect and promote a free and open internet for a long time” — and did not plan to stop. “Now, the Trump administration and the ISPs want to take that away,” he charged. “I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go back to their districts and ask their constituents if they want slower internet.”

In any case, no one expects Congress to take up this issue fast enough to get ahead of the FCC. Rep. Anna Eshoo said Republicans don’t want to give the FCC any authority, and that “if I drew up the bill right now they wouldn’t support it. Congress is on the wrong side of history on this."

This means the net neutrality fight may end up in a very familiar place: federal court.

Gigi Sohn, who was at the FCC when it passed the current regulations, says that Pai’s rules will face an immediate legal challenge that could actually lead to a durable victory. The basis of a lawsuit could deal with something even more arcane than internet regulation: the limits on the rights of regulators to change their minds.

“It will certainly make a difference to the extent that Pai has to respond” to the comments, said Sohn, a longtime champion of net neutrality who served as counselor to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

“This is not the end of the campaign,” she added. “This is just the beginning. This is just the kickoff.”

President Donald Trump said that expanded access to broadband internet service in rural areas will be part of the infrastructure plan he will submit to Congress, helping to bridge a digital divide that leaves small towns behind.

"I will be including a provision in our infrastructure proposal -- $1 trillion proposal, you’ll be seeing it very shortly -- to promote and foster, enhance broadband access for rural America also," President Trump said. Trump’s plan to use $200 billion in federal funds to leverage investment in national infrastructure improvement has prompted rural groups to fight for broadband’s inclusion, arguing that such access is a 21st-century version of the electrification and water projects that brought prosperity to sparsely populated areas in the past.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told reporters while aboard Air Force One en route to the event that private investors haven’t found rural areas as profitable as urban ones, potentially making a greater federal role in expanding broadband appropriate. "We think we ought to have the same push to have broadband connectivity all over the country because in the 21st century it is just as important as a telephone, water, sewer, roads," Sec Perdue said. "It has become an infrastructure of necessity."

President Donald Trump called for “sweeping transformation of the federal government’s technology” during the first meeting of the American Technology Council.

Eighteen of America’s leading technology executives – including Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google parent Alphabet – convened at the White House for the summit. “Government needs to catch up with the technology revolution,” said President Trump. “America should be the global leader in government technology just as we are in every other aspect, and we are going to start our big edge again in technology – such an important industry.” The tech leaders spent four hours meeting officials including Vice President Mike Pence, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross before meeting with the president. Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, was also present.

They discussed modernizing the government’s technological infrastructure, cutting fraud and government costs and improving services for taxpayers. The White House believes these measures could save up to $1 trillion over 10 years.

Mounting security concerns surrounding the proliferation of wireless devices is renewing a long-running internet privacy debate. Traditional partisan rifts over regulation of private companies exploded at a hearing of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Democrats were still steaming about repeal in late March of Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules, passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump, under the guise of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), aimed at eliminating regulations considered burdensome by Republicans. The FCC’s privacy rule did not outline specific security measures for ISPs but recommended they follow a cybersecurity framework set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and gave the FCC oversight over complaints of security breaches. “When Congress repealed privacy rules in the CRA, they also removed security measures,” said Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. The since-repealed FCC privacy rules included a provision requiring that internet service providers take “reasonable” measures to protect user data, such as Social Security numbers and health information.