February 2015

The Internet Is Back to Solid Regulatory Ground

[Commentary] The news that the head of the Federal Communications Commission just proposed that the agency should use its authority -- under Title II of the Telecommunications Act -- to oversee high-speed Internet access services should be welcomed by all who use the Internet. But let's be clear about what this is and isn't. He's not proposing to "regulate the Internet" or the websites of businesses that use the Internet to reach customers. This would not constrain what Americans can say online, nor would it constrain the extraordinary innovation that has come about because of the Internet's borderless and permission-free nature.

Tom Wheeler is simply saying that the FCC should have solid legal authority over the physical wires, tubes and towers located in the United States that move information from Point A to Point B. And that's all he's doing. High-speed Internet access is indeed a regulated service. This may not be good news for Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and Time Warner Cable -- who, among other things, want to make more money by demanding extra payments from popular online companies like Netflix -- but it is great news for every other part of American society.

[Crawford is a professor at Harvard Law School]

Open Internet, But a Lack of Competition Among Providers

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler gave net neutrality advocates what they wanted with proposed rules that prevent Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down online content, and a ban on speeding up Web services in exchange for payment. But the proposal does little to address another problem Chairman Wheeler has promised to fix: a lack of strong competition among broadband providers, especially at higher speeds.

The United States used to require that DSL-based Internet providers let other companies lease access to their infrastructure, letting new competitors offer Internet service to consumers without having to install their own wires throughout each city or town. But after the FCC eliminated the requirement in 2005, the process of building a network became so expensive and time-consuming that it is difficult for most companies to compete against the dominant Internet provider in any given city or town. Wheeler may have angered the broadband industry with his net neutrality rules, but the big incumbents like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon can breathe a sigh of relief that they don’t have to share their infrastructure with competitors.

[Brodkin is a technology journalist for Ars Technica]

Don’t Make the Internet a Public Utility

[Commentary] Since its commercialization by the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the Internet has stood as a monument to the success of American entrepreneurship and innovation, a testament to the power of free markets largely unfettered by the dead hand of government regulation. The Federal Communications Commission will try to end that, upending two decades of bipartisan precedent by declaring the Internet to be a “public utility.”

We know what public utilities are; economists call them “natural monopolies.” Water and gas pipes; electricity distribution; bridges and tunnels. The Internet is not a monopoly. Wireline and wireless carriers compete -- and innovate -- at a furious pace. Declaring the Internet a public utility is not necessary, and it will surely prove to be unwise.

[Eisenach is the director of the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute]

A Legally Dangerous Avenue for Net Neutrality Rules

[Commentary] We don't know all the specifics of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wheeler’s proposal to transform the Internet into a public utility. Still, we know enough to say it’s a bad idea. How often does your local power or gas company -- both public utilities -- voluntarily replace its core technologies, multiplying capacity while lowering unit costs? But the biggest uncertainties of the proposal are the legal ones. And they won’t be resolved for at least a year, and maybe longer, as litigation is certain to wend its way slowly through the federal courts.

For better, but mostly for worse, the ultimate fate of Wheeler's latest proposal is a long way off — and will almost certainly remain unresolved until after Chairman Wheeler has left his poor choices to a successor.

[Downes is the project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy]

ALA welcomes strong network neutrality protections proposed by FCC Chairman

The American Library Association welcomes Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s affirmation of strong network neutrality protections. "The ALA commends the Chairman for asserting FCC authority under both Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide the strongest possible legal foundation for network neutrality rules," said Larra Clark, deputy director of the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy.

"We also are pleased these rules will apply to both fixed and mobile broadband, which ALA has long advocated." Chairman Wheeler also outlined provisions of Title II from which he would forbear from enforcing, including rate regulation or imposing new taxes or fees. "After the recent successful completion of E-rate program modernization to better enable affordable access to high-capacity broadband through libraries and schools, ALA has a particular interest in safeguarding FCC authority related to the Universal Service Fund," Clark said. "We are encouraged the Chairman specifically called out universal service and look forward to better understanding how a partial application of Section 254 will work."

The NABU Network: A Great Lesson, But Not About Openness

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler argued that his experience at NABU Network in the 1980s helped inform his network neutrality decision. He writes that NABU failed because “The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.” But that’s not the whole story, and its lessons aren’t really about openness. Instead, it teaches us about the importance of investment and network effects. In order to subscribe to NABU, consumers paid not just a monthly fee, but also had to buy or lease a $299 NABU personal computer. Data networks tried to induce consumers to subscribe by making collections of software available. In the 1980s, however, most commercial data networks just could not provide enough of an incentive to attract or keep subscribers.

Creating reasons to subscribe played an important role in NABU’s failure. As one source put it, “ the NABU Network did not catch on due to lack of accessible resources.” Another reason for its failure appears to have been the inability of the then-existing infrastructure to fully deliver on NABU’s promises. Cable TV systems were not built to handle much upstream traffic—an issue they still face today. Upgrading the cable infrastructure for two-way communication required significant investment. Competition also made survival difficult for NABU. In short, the market wasn’t quite ready for the kind of service NABU was selling. Openness is a key part of the Internet. It just wasn’t a key part of the NABU story. Instead, it reminds us of the importance of network effects, the economics of multi-sided networks, and network investment. Unlike the 1980s, these are now working together in a virtuous cycle favoring innovation. Let’s make sure any new rules don’t change that.

What’s Certain About the Regulatory Uncertainty Debate

[Commentary] Regulatory uncertainty results when Congress fails to legislate despite changed circumstances, or when its laws lack clarity. Congress last addressed telecommunications in 1996, before the Internet changed everything. In that kinder and less partisan time, the legislature achieved consensus, albeit one rife with compromises that translated -- over time -- into statutory ambiguity. The Federal Communications Commission has acted in light of the vacuum generated by congressional inaction.

On two separate occasions, the FCC has failed to convince a reviewing court that its statutory interpretation is reasonable and that the judiciary should defer to its expertise in making sense out of an outdated and ambiguous statutory mandate. Incumbents sustain regulatory uncertainty based on an assumption that the FCC will raise their cost of doing business and somehow limit their ability to maximize profit. Regulatory uncertainty is a red herring, because incumbents surely know that if the FCC oversteps, a reviewing court will overturn the rules.
[Frieden serves as Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law at Penn State University]

"Morning Joe's" Net Neutrality Conflict Of Interest

MSNBC's Harold Ford, Jr. used air time to push network neutrality myths without disclosing his relationship to the telecommunications industry, which has contributed millions of dollars to lobbying against net neutrality regulations. On the February 5 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe", political analyst Harold Ford, Jr. raised the issue of net neutrality, claiming that the proposed Federal Communications Commission plan to regulate internet service as a utility would "stifle investment.

Neither Ford nor MSNBC disclosed that the analyst is an "honorary co-chair" of Broadband for America, an industry-funded group whose members have included major national broadband providers like Comcast (a parent company of MSNBC), Cox Communications, and Verizon. Among its members, Broadband for America received a $2 million donation from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which has spent millions of dollars to lobby against net neutrality regulations.

Is network neutrality becoming a partisan issue?

[Commentary] When the Federal Communications Commission votes February 26 on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed regulations to protect network neutrality, it will almost certainly be along partisan lines, with the agency's three Democrats supporting the proposal and its two Republicans opposing it.

Attempts by Congressional Republicans to broker a compromise on the issue have attracted little interest from Democrats, who seem happy to simply rally around Chairman Wheeler. Things used to be different. The network neutrality debate has never been perfectly bipartisan, but there used to be enough centrist Democrats and Republicans to make compromise a possibility. But the polarization that has divided so much of Washington has been seeping into the network neutrality fight, making it harder than ever to reach consensus. The big question is what will happen the next time Republicans capture the White House.

Four Things You Need to Know About Privacy of 911 Callers

The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to pass rules that will require mobile phone carriers to provide emergency responders with precise location information about customers who call 911. In months leading up to the Order, groups urged the FCC to resolve privacy and security concerns associated with mobile phone customers’ location information. Here are the four things you need to know:

First, the FCC clearly heard the privacy and security concerns.
Second, although the FCC heard these concerns, it is unclear whether and how these concerns will be addressed by the 911 location system when it is ultimately deployed.
Third, the FCC still has not addressed alternate uses of the underlying technology that will be developed and deployed to support 911 location accuracy.
Fourth, the FCC is uniquely positioned to protect privacy in telecommunications.

Benton

Search