Karl Bode

On April 8, the White House promised to veto the Save the Internet Act — a bill designed to restore network neutrality protections and undo the Federal Communications Commission’s unpopular 2017 decision to repeal them. To justify the veto, the statement painted a picture of surging broadband investment and robust new networks, free to flourish now that Title II was out of the way. Unfortunately for the White House, there’s no evidence to suggest any of those improvements had anything to do with killing net neutrality.

After spending the better part of the last decade fighting against more accurate broadband mapping data, the broadband industry recently proclaimed the sector was now “leading the charge” for better data. But industry experts are skeptical of the industry’s sudden about face, and worry the effort’s real goal is decreased broadband data transparency.

Democratic lawmakers continue to push their new network neutrality bill through Congress, but there’s signs that several members of the party are already eager to water down the proposal. During March 12 hearings on the proposal in the House Communications Subcommittee, some Democratic lawmakers, like Rep Darren Soto (D-FL), stated the bill was simply an “opening offer” and that Democrats would be open to amendments for the bill. Others, like Rep Kurt Schrader (D-OR), insisted that additional “compromise” would be needed to ensure passage.

The concept of “zero rating”—or the process of an internet service provider exempting certain content from broadband usage caps—has been controversial for several years now.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said he sees fifth-generation wireless (5G) becoming a “fixed broadband replacement product” within the next three to five years, providing consumers with faster speeds than most existing cable and DSL connections. But experts say there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the hype surrounding 5G, especially given these same companies’ long history of unfulfilled broadband promises. And, the shift to 5G won’t address one of the biggest — but largely overlooked — reasons for high wireless prices in the United States.

In the months leading up to the Federal Communications Commission assault on net neutrality, big telecom and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai told anybody who’d listen that killing net neutrality would boost broadband industry investment, spark job creation, and drive broadband into underserved areas at an unprecedented

You'll recall that one of the top reasons for killing popular network neutrality rules was that they had somehow supposedly crushed broadband industry network investment.  You'll be shocked to learn this purported boon in investment isn't happening. A few months ago, Verizon made it clear its capital expenditure (CAPEX) would be declining, and the company's deployment would see no impact despite billions in tax cuts and regulatory favors from the Trump Federal Communications Commission. Both AT&T and Verizon have similarly announced massive workforce reductions as well.

AT&T plans to launch its own streaming service in 2019, drawing on content from DC Comics and Harry Potter that was acquired as part of the recent Time Warner deal. But telecommunication companies have a unique advantage: they control the content and the networks that content travels over, presenting a wonderful opportunity to hamstring competitors and unfairly advantage their own services. Heavy-handed tactics like throttling and usage caps would have been blocked by the 2015 network neutrality rules.

The Federal Communications Commission released a new, 182-page Communications Marketplace Report it claims proves the US broadband industry is awash with vibrant competition. In reality, consumer groups, third-party data and the report itself paint a starkly different picture; one where consumers increasingly only have access to just one Internet service provider: Comcast.

In a speech Oct 24, Federal Communications Commissioner Michael O’Rielly insinuated, without evidence, that community owned and operated broadband networks would naturally result in local governments aggressively limiting American free speech rights.