November 2014

The companies lobbying furiously against strong net neutrality, in one chart

The lobbying on network neutrality has been fierce and longstanding. But according to a review of lobbying filings by Alexander Furnas and Lee Drutman of the Sunlight Foundation, one side has lobbied far more than the other. The top five lobbying on the issue are all fighting against net neutrality: Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and the National Music Publishers Association. The top five lobbying for: America Online, Level 3, Google, Microsoft and Apollo Investment Management.

AT&T to pause fiber spending on network neutrality uncertainty

AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said the company will stop investing in new high-speed Internet connections in 100 US cities until regulators decide whether to enact tough network neutrality rules proposed by President Barack Obama. We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed," Stephenson said

Verizon optimistic FCC will make 'right' decision on net neutrality

Verizon’s chief financial officer, Fran Shammo, told investors, “I think the independent agency of the FCC will make the right decision” on how to regulate how Internet service providers manage their Web traffic. He said the FCC could restrict "paid prioritization" deals, where content companies pay for faster downloads of some websites or applications, without pursuing utility-style regulations under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. "We don’t need to bring Title II into this," he said.

Willner: Title II Will Stunt Broadband Funding

Michael Willner, president and CEO of Penthera and cable operator GreatLand Connections, opened up NewBay Media’s NYC Television Week by firing away at President Obama’s push toward stricter regulation of the Internet.

He said any movement toward Title II reclassification would be “one of the worst policy decisions” not only for the cable and wireless industries, but for consumers. He envisions a repeat of what happened 20-plus years ago after the Cable Act was enacted in 1992. At that time, cable industry was rebuilding its plant, putting in fiber optics to lay the groundwork for the Internet, which no one at that time could fully imagine would become such an integral part of daily existence. With the Cable Act, Willner said, the investment community “turned off the tap.” In turn, capacity slowed as did the formation of programming networks. “Everything came to a screeching halt,” he said. During this slowdown, Western Europe pushed ahead in fortifying its infrastructure and “we fell behind as a country.” Willner said that with the “heavy hand of Title II, we’re asking for the same kind of result. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result…We’re teetering toward a 21st Century repeat of 1992 in an even more competitive world.”

Dear FCC: Network Neutrality Is Part of a Social Contract

[Commentary] With his ringing endorsement for strong net neutrality protections, President Barack Obama has joined a public groundswell for the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify the Internet as a utility. This move would not only enable the agency to remain true to its mandate to regulate in the public interest, it would also, according to the President and many of the nearly 4 million Americans who filed comments with the FCC, promote democratic values of openness, fairness and freedom.

Such overwhelming public support for what may seem like a wonky regulatory debate reminds us that net neutrality is and always has been much more than a technocratic squabble over how Internet "pipes" are managed. It's about the role of media and information in a democratic society, and the role of government -- in this case the FCC -- to help ensure access to information because, as we all learn in school, democracy requires an informed populace. Put simply, this is about a social contract between information providers, society and government. The Internet is no longer a luxury for those who can pay or a profitable plaything for a handful of corporations. It is a daily necessity; Americans rely on it not just for entertainment, but also for schoolwork, health and their livelihood. It is much too precious to be left to the mercies of Internet monopolies. It must be protected by an FCC that governs not only in the public's name but also with its consent.

[Pickard is an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication]

Obama’s Presidential Moment

[Commentary] I keep saying that telecom policy is blood and guts stuff -- giant principles of equity, speech, and the importance of free markets run headlong into the extraordinary political powers wielded by Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and AT&T. All too often the drama is buried in an avalanche of acronyms and incremental influence.

Then came the message from President Obama. Here was our best Obama, telling the Federal Communications Commission in plain language that it should consider acting like a regulator. The message actually brought a tear to my eye. It’s the equivalent of the moving part of the war movie when the gruff but effective leader calls his troops to their better selves, reminding them why they’re there in the first place. So although the president sounded like the law-professor-in-chief yesterday (“I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act”), to me it was a General Patton moment. This is a battle cry designed to give heart to his administration -- and particularly the corner of the executive branch crouching in terror behind the walls of the FCC.

It’s a big deal. The President and his Administration came to Washington to do big things. Now this battle has been joined. It is a fight we need to win -- for our pocketbooks, for our connectivity, and for our freedom. Americans at their best are never cynical. And, finally, on this issue our leader is standing up for us.

President Obama: Don’t mess with “our” Internet!

[Commentary] We know from cold, hard experience that our utility-regulation regimes have not been supportive of innovation because we have not achieved the same levels of innovation that we observe in the United States. We know with certainty that our Internet experience is so much richer because we can imitate successful US innovations. Some of us may have cheaper connections than the US; some of us have faster connections; but none of that matters if we don’t have access to the innovative applications and commercial models developed in the US. That is where the real value of the Internet economy lies. So President Obama – please don’t mess with “our” Internet. We will all be poorer if US innovation falls to the levels that we in the utility-regulated world have to live with.

[Howell is general manager for the New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation]

The 'clicktivist' in chief

[Commentary] Rather than lead, President Obama's network neutrality policy statement firmly places the President in the role of follower. The President's arguments are boilerplate net neutrality advocacy, calling for the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier telecommunications service and then adopt "bright line rules" that would prohibit blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.

As is standard with the reclassification argument, President Obama also suggests that the FCC use its authority under Section 10 of the Telecommunications Act to forbear "from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services" in order to create some sort of "Title II lite" to ease the sting of applying regulations designed for a monopoly telephone world onto the Internet. Given such platitudes, it is clear the President's advisers have failed to do their job. Obama's talking points offer nothing new to the debate other than an endorsement of regulations his team plainly does not understand. The Administration should lead and inject a little substance into the debate. In particular, the White House should have an agency of the executive branch (e.g., the Department of Justice, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration or the Office of Science and Technology Policy) file a detailed legal brief in the commission's Open Internet docket which not only spells out the exact particulars of the President's proposal, but also outlines the legal basis (complete with footnotes to relevant statutes, case law and FCC precedent, please) supporting it.

[Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]

FCC Commissioner Clyburn Pushes for Lifeline Modernization

Federal Communications Commission member Mignon Clyburn said that the FCC’s Lifeline program should be expanded to cover broadband Internet access and reformed in other ways so that it helps everyone connect in the 21st century.

“If we fail to take the next step and provide a mechanism to ensure that broadband rates are affordable for low-income consumers as required by the statute, we risk investing billions of dollars building technology bridges to nowhere,” she said during a forum at the American Enterprise Institute. She called for the FCC to establish minimum service standards for any company that gets the subsidy, she said, and the approval process for those companies to participate should be streamlined. She called on the FCC -- not individual companies -- to be responsible for determining who is eligible for the program. Finally, she called for changes to make it easier for people to enroll in the program while signing up for other government benefits and called for non-governmental organizations to get involved.

FCC’s Rural Broadband Experiments Draw Interest From Nearly 200 Applicants

The Federal Communications Commission’s experiment exploring how to expand robust broadband in rural America in the most cost-effective way has attracted almost 600 project bids from 181 applicants, representing nearly $885 million worth of projects. In total, the 181 applicants proposed to serve over 76,000 census blocks in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

In the coming weeks, staff will identify the provisionally winning bidders, who then will be required to submit information demonstrating their financial and technical ability to participate in the $100 million experiment. Finalists that are able to meet financial, technical and other regulatory requirements could launch their experiments as early as spring 2015.

The FCC’s rural broadband experiments will inform the agency’s broader effort to expand rural broadband through its Connect America Fund. They will also inform the FCC’s efforts to ensure that consumers everywhere can benefit from the sweeping technological advances occurring now in the communications industry, while preserving consumer protection, competition, universal service and access to emergency services during these transitions.

The $100 million available for the experiments is divided into three groups as follows:

$75 million to test competitive interest in building networks that are capable of delivering 100 Mbps downloads and 25 Mbps uploads – far in excess of the current Connect America Fund standard of 4/1 – for the same or lower amounts of support than will be offered to incumbent carriers in Phase II of Connect America
$15 million to test interest in delivering service at 10/1 speeds in high cost areas
$10 million for 10/1 service in areas that are extremely costly to serve.

Benton

Search