Network Neutrality

With the July 12 Title II Day of Action protest targeting Internet service providers getting a lot of attention, Broadband for America (BFA), which backs and includes those ISPs, was pushing back with a backgrounder on why Title II fans are off base. BFA said the protestors will claim that the FCC wants to end network neutrality, that Title II is the only way to preserve an open internet, and that ISPs oppose net neutrality. Wrong, wrong and wrong said BFA.

It said ISPs strongly support an open internet and have pledged to support enforceable principles and legislation to permanently protect against "blocking or unreasonable discrimination." BFA says that the current Title II regime has led to a $3.6 billion decrease in infrastructure investment and puts the entire internet ecosystem at risk. While Title II fans say that is the only foolproof legal framework for protecting the internet, BFA said legislation "can pass" that will protect it without the "burdens and problems" of utility regulations.

[Commentary] Common carriage, the time-honored civic ideal enshrined in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, remains an indispensable civic ideal. Yet it was never intended as a one-size-fits-all solution, and is by no means the only regulatory tool in US policymakers’ toolkit.

Network neutrality is predicated on a cartoonish caricature of the history of American communications that has long exaggerated the importance of garage-based startups, while discounting the innovative potential of the digital behemoths that dominate cyberspace today. Innovation is too important to be left to the lawyers or the economists. Now that it looks as if the Title II designation for ISPs is history, it is time to explore other options. What do to? To begin with, acknowledge that the current legal regime is anything but neutral and stop demonizing the ISPs. Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet, the parent of Google, have benefited hugely from the status quo without having channeled more than a trickle of their enormous profits into the maintenance and improvement of the existing information infrastructure. They are free-riding on a network that the ISPs built. Lawmakers should strike down existing laws that discourage innovation in municipal broadband, increase government spending on network expansion for thinly settled regions, and institute tax incentives to nudge existing content providers to fund high-quality local journalism and investigative reporting. The Title II designation for ISPs was a patchwork solution to an ongoing challenge. Differential pricing is not a panacea, but it worked for the late 19th-century telephone business, and it deserves a chance today.

[Richard John is a professor at the Columbia University School of Journalism]

July 12, tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Reddit will be participating in an event called the Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is the belief that internet service providers should treat all content, applications and websites the same, without favoring or blocking specific ones. What does that actually mean?

We asked experts in the field to explain by using metaphors and here is what they said: John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge: “Here is a simple metaphor: The telephone system, which has long been regulated to protect the public interest. You probably wouldn’t like it if you tried to order pizza from your favorite local place and were connected to a Papa John’s instead because it had got some special deal. Or if a Verizon telephone only connected to other Verizon phones. Obviously, there are a lot of differences between internet access and the telephone and how they work and how they are built, but the basic principle that essential communication systems ought to be non-discriminatory is the same.”

The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) wants the Federal Communications Commission to hold off on its proposal to kill network neutrality regulations. NHMC filed a motion to delay the FCC’s proceeding to undo its net neutrality rules, pending the release of documents the group has requested from the agency.

The NHMC says it filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for consumer complaints about the open internet since the net neutrality rules went into place in 2015. Carmen Scurato, the group’s director of legal affairs, said that the requested documents will affect the public’s view of the rules. “The information that NHMC urges the FCC to release would provide essential insight into the value of maintaining the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order,” Scurato said in a statement. “Millions of consumers have voiced their concerns about eliminating net neutrality protections and the agency should release all complaints that members of the public have submitted showing how the Open Internet Order has served as a tool in protecting our consumer rights.”

With a full set of commissioners and a chief economist named, the Federal Communications Commission is set to undo network neutrality rules put in place during the Obama administration, but thorny issues around industry consolidation remain.

Former FCC commissioners, antitrust scholars, and at least one GOP senator share competition-related concerns about discarding net neutrality — the idea that internet service providers, who perform a gatekeeping function, should treat all data online equally, with no blocking, throttling, or unreasonable discrimination of legal content. On July 5, FCC Chairman Aji Pai announced that Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at George Mason University with a focus on competition policy, will lead economic analysis for rule-makings. President Donald Trump nominated Brendan Carr to the FCC for a Republican-designated seat, along with former FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel for a Democratic opening. That will make for a 3-2 Republican majority, up from the current 2-1 edge, with Pai and GOP-appointed Commissioner Michael O’Rielly often on opposite sides of votes with Democrat Mignon Clyburn.

Facebook and Google will be joining a mass online demonstration in support of the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules, apparently. The two internet giants join dozens of other companies and activist groups planning to rally grassroots support next week for the regulations, which require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally.

They had been conspicuously quiet as Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has launched proceedings to repeal the protections, arguing that the agency overstepped under the Obama Administration by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers. “We have not heard directly from either Facebook or Google, but we’re glad to hear that these companies are listening to their employees and Internet users and will speak out for net neutrality with the rest of the Internet on July 12,” Evan Greer, campaign director at Fight for the Future and an organizer for the event, said in a statement. “In previous years these companies have often been on the sidelines of these fights, so we hope that they plan to do something meaningful in the spirit of the protest and educate their users about what’s at stake if we lose net neutrality protections that protect our online free speech, and give them opportunities to take action.”

A group of more than 100 YouTube stars is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to preserve its network neutrality rules, which are currently in the process of being repealed. In an open letter, 132 internet entertainers said that eliminating the rules could imperil their industry. “Online video traffic already represents over 70% of all global web traffic and is estimated to grow to over 80% of all traffic by 2020,” the letter reads. “Our rapidly growing industry employs hundreds of thousands of people and yet it barely existed more than a decade ago. As creators in this fast-moving industry, changes to the existing Net Neutrality rules would have an outsized impact on our field and jeopardize our livelihood.” Among the acts signing the letter are Benny Fine of Fine Brothers Entertainment, a group that runs a popular comedy video channel on YouTube and other platforms. The Fine Brothers have 15.7 million subscribers on YouTube alone. Also signing on to the letter is Dane Boedigheimer, whose web series the Annoying Orange has nearly 6 million Youtube subscribers.

An interview with Vint Cerf, the co-creator of tech that makes the internet work.

Cerf said, "My biggest concern is to equip the online netizen with tools to protect himself or herself, to detect attempts to attack or otherwise harm someone. The term 'digital literacy' is often referred to as if you can use a spreadsheet or a text editor. But I think digital literacy is closer to looking both ways before you cross the street. It’s a warning to think about what you’re seeing, what you’re hearing, what you’re doing, and thinking critically about what to accept and reject...Because in the absence of this kind of critical thinking, it’s easy to see how the phenomena that we’re just now labeling fake news, alternative facts [can come about]. These [problems] are showing up, and they’re reinforced in social media."

To support the 2015 Open Internet Order (OIO), the Federal Communications Commission cited four potential violations of network neutrality over the previous ten years, only two of which it explicitly challenged. Why, then, did the FCC say a rule was desperately needed and Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS) providers say the rule would be devastating given that their past behavior meant that the rule would not affect them much? To mix common sense with econspeak, why did anyone care about the Order if it was not binding? Tim Brennan, professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and former FCC Chief Economist, addresses this question and explores the potential effects of the OIO 2015 rule in “The Post-Internet Order Broadband Sector: Lessons from the Pre-Open Internet Order Experience.” In particular, he explores what lessons policymakers might learn from the handful of cases as they continue to grapple with net neutrality.

This post is the fourth in a series featuring the contents of a recent special issue of the Review of Industrial Organization, organized by the Technology Policy Institute and the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Technology, Innovation, and Competition. The short answer to why the Order matters if it doesn’t matter is that it is likely to affect future business models and network development. The longer answer is more nuanced. In summary, Brennan notes that the current net neutrality debate can be informed by past events, and should include additional issues in the present. He contends that things might not change all that much, under 2015 OIO or future net neutrality rules, but policymakers must consider how BIAS providers will be incentivized to innovate while stuck between edge providers and end users.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering reversing so-called "Network Neutrality." "Minneapolis, the elimination of Net Neutrality might be good for them. I think up here in North Dakota it might be detrimental. I don't see any positives for us," Ronald Marsh, Chair of the University of North Dakota's Computer Science Department said. He says repealing Net Neutrality could lead to an even tighter monopoly on the internet in our area. Resulting in lower speeds and higher costs. "To squeeze every penny they can out of the customer. I think that's what the end result will be is not immediately but 5 years, 10 years down the road there will be the haves and the have nots when it comes to the internet," Marsh said.