Benton Foundation

[Commentary] “Our top story tonight concerns the Internet.” That may sound like us, but, in fact, it is the first line in a 12 minute sketch by comedian John Oliver during the June 1 edition of his new HBO show, Last Week Tonight.

And in those 12 minutes, Oliver did what even he said was impossible -- he made the network neutrality debate accessible and interesting.

Oliver, a long time “correspondent” on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, used nearly half his program to highlight the dangers of the Federal Communications Commission proposal to allow broadband service providers to charge content providers “more money for service that isn't entirely awful,” as Jordan Zakarin wrote in The Wrap.

Oh, funnyman, you might be able to get people to laugh at the arcane workings of government policymaking, but you can’t expect to get them to do anything about it. But Oliver tried anyway. He asked the Internet's worst “trolls” to take the "badly spelled vile" they normally pump into YouTube comments and send it the FCC's way -- all in the name of net neutrality. He asked commenters to channel their anger for the greater good by taking advantage of the FCC's open comment period.

"This is the moment you were made for," Oliver said. "We need you to get out there and for once in your lives focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls. Turn on caps lock and fly, my pretties."

Ha ha, funny, funny. No way this impact’s Washington policymaking, right? Well, um… by 3:45 on June 2, the FCC tweeted out: “We’ve been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic. We’re working to resolve these issues quickly.”

Welcome to the latest lesson in the public’s ongoing education of the Beltway, a course titled “Don’t Mess With the Internet.” But network neutrality isn’t the only nerve Oliver hit in his sketch. Oliver highlighted a recording of Comcast CEO Brian Roberts pointing out that Comcast and Time Warner Cable do not compete in any US markets.

We’ve already heard a lot about cable companies/ISPs having too much control over how content is delivered to their customers. And so it was quite a week in the ongoing debate over the Open Internet.

[Commentary] In many respects, Silicon Valley is the economic envy of the US. The area south of the San Francisco Bay led the nation in job growth in 2011 and in 2013, job growth in the South Bay and San Francisco metro areas was more than twice as fast as the countrywide rate. The technology sector drives this growth.

"The Bay Area, and particularly, the South Bay and San Francisco, are the epicenter for social media, mobile and Internet commerce," said Michael Bernick, a research fellow with the Milken Institute and a former California Employment Development Department director. "These strengths are why the Bay Area outpaces the state and the nation."

Demand is so strong for technology skills that Bay Area unemployment for people in the tech sector ranges from 1 percent to 3 percent.

But how inclusive are the opportunities that Silicon Valley offers? We have recently seen evidence that it is not for some groups. Although tech is a key driver of the economy and makes products that many Americans use every day, it does not come close to reflecting the demographics of the country -- in terms of sex, age or race. In the United States work force over all, 80 percent of employees are white, 12 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian. Forty-seven percent of the total work force in the United States are women and 20 percent of software developers are women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Why is a diverse work force so important? The data -- which in Silicon Valley usually reigns supreme -- shows that diversity of groups benefits research, development, innovation and profit.

[Commentary] At a May 20 House oversight hearing, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler emphatically defended the Commission’s latest open Internet proposal saying, “There is one Internet. Everybody ought to have open, equal access to the capacity delivered by the Internet." But what is the impact of open Internet policies on the digital divide?

Since May 15, Washington has been abuzz with addressing a fundamental question posed by the Federal Communications Commission: “What is the right public policy to ensure that the Internet remains open?”

At the Benton Foundation, we’ve been particularly interested in how the FCC made it a point to highlight that its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on questions designed to consider the impact of the open Internet on ensuring broadband access for all communities.

In particular, the FCC highlights, the NPRM: 1) asks whether any parts of the nation are being left behind in the deployment of new broadband networks, including rural America and parts of urban America; and 2) considers the impact of the proposals on groups who disproportionately use mobile broadband service.

[Commentary] Just about everybody understands the Internet to be the most opportunity-creating tool of our time. The question now is opportunity for whom? Is the Net going to be the tool of the many that helps us all live better -- or will it be the playground of the privileged few that only widens the many divides that are creating a shamefully stratified and unequal America?

Are we heading toward an online future with fast lanes for the 1% and slow lanes for the 99%?

The first step on the road to an online future that serves us all is for the Federal Communications Commission to get its pending proposals right. Classify broadband for the Title II communications it obviously is and prohibit fast-lane, slow-lane divides created for the commercial enrichment of a few.

At the same time, the Commission must step up to the plate and use the authority it has to preempt state laws that prohibit communities and municipalities from building their own broadband infrastructure instead of relying on Internet service providers (ISPs) that cherry-pick the country when they decide where to build and not build.

And let’s go on from there to demand that the FCC finally finds the wisdom and the guts to say “No!” to all these never-ending mergers and acquisitions that are monopolizing the market, disadvantaging consumers, and short-circuiting our democratic discourse.

But the first step won’t be taken by the Commission unless you take a step first. The FCC needs to hear from you. It plans to make its proposal public on May 15th. Here are some action ideas. Contact the agency now and tell it that you expect a Net-friendly proposal going in. You can also sign the Common Cause petition calling for the Title II reclassification of broadband. Then there will be a period after the formal May 15 launch of the proceeding for the public to comment on it. So you can contact the FCC again after May 15 with comments and suggestions on the handiwork they actually propose and these will become part of the official record of the proceeding.

Don’t leave these things for others for do. It’s up to each and every one of us. You depend more and more on the Net. Now the Net is depending on you.

[Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009]

[Commentary] Please don’t break the Internet before rural America gets it. What does network neutrality mean for rural folk, whether online or trying to get online?

What does it mean for rural businesses and the economy of rural areas? Network neutrality, or “net neutrality” for short, is the principle that the Internet is a neutral playing field where all information gets treated equally, no information gets preferential treatment and no player is blocked.

As my grandma would say, “O todos coludos, o todos rabones,” which roughly translates to “Either we all wear tails, or we all get our tails cut.” Even if you are on the wrong side of the digital divide, net neutrality affects you. The way to solve this problem and, coincidentally, to close the digital divide, is to reclassify Internet service as a Title II service. Translation: The FCC should treat the Internet as a common carrier service like telephone. The change will allow the FCC to regulate Internet providers so they don’t behave badly in the first place, instead of waiting for them to misbehave and then taking corrective action.

Reclassification allows the commission to enforce net neutrality and flat-out prohibit the creation of faster lanes. Reclassifying Internet under Title II would also mean that every person in our country would have the right to an Internet connection no matter where they live. Whoa! That means that an Internet provider could not cherry-pick areas to serve, which consistently leaves rural areas with bad or no service.

Title II reclassification would give the FCC the legal authority to ensure that Internet providers put people, not just profits, into their equations. So, please don’t break the Internet before rural gets it. We don’t want a hand-me-down Internet from our connected brothers and sisters.

[Commentary] In the library community, one of today’s highest profile, exciting national policy topics is modernization of the E-rate program.

We propose three initiatives:

1. School-library wide area network partnerships. Modify E-rate program rules, eliminate barriers, and provide incentives for schools and libraries to deploy high-capacity broadband in cooperation, rather than in isolation. Where this can occur, significantly improved economies will likely be realized.
2. Scalable technologies deployment program. Some libraries with poor broadband connectivity are in close proximity to broadband providers that can ensure scalable broadband at affordable initial construction charges and recurring costs after the deployment is complete. We urge the FCC to provide incentives and rule and process changes to encourage these efforts.
3. Network diagnostics and technical support program. Provide assistance to libraries in planning, purchasing, and implementing network infrastructure and Internet access through state library agencies or in partnership with such agencies.

[Inouye, PhD is Director of the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy in Washington, DC]

[Commentary] How much more do regulators need to know before they understand that the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger is bad news all around?

It’s bad for consumers, competition, and our very democracy. Word is it could take many months, maybe close to a year, for the two government agencies to conduct and complete their reviews. Really? The facts of the case should lead both agencies to speedy thumbs-down decisions.

• Fact Number One: The merged company would further diminish competition.
• Fact Number Two: Consumers, long hurting from over-priced cable and from scarce and costly broadband, would face even higher bills.
• Fact Number Three: This proposal, if approved, would wreak significant harm on our civic dialogue and, indeed, on our democracy.

I don’t believe that, apart from the cable barons themselves, anyone would welcome the cableization of the Internet. Yet that is precisely the danger here. And who better to cableize it than the biggest cable company? What a tragic denial of the promise of the Internet this would be!

Let’s get rid of this threat right now with clear and straight-from-the-shoulder denials of the merger by the Department of Justice and the FCC. This is a time for “No!”

[Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009]

[Commentary] On April 11, the Benton Foundation responded to the Federal Communications Commission’s request for public comment on how to preserve an Open Internet in the wake of the ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which struck down some of the FCC’s Open Internet (or “network neutrality”) rules.

Benton strongly believes that Open Internet rules are necessary for the Internet to continue to be a boon to commerce and our democracy, and they remain an important policy goal of the FCC. It is particularly important to enact strong Open Internet rules because of the disproportionate impact of an ISP’s discriminatory behavior on vulnerable populations, such as people of color, low-income populations, seniors, people with disabilities, and rural communities.

In the current proceeding, the FCC indicated its preference to enact Open Internet standards under Sec 706 authority and to enforce those standards on a case-by-case basis. In our comments, Benton encourages the FCC to take a close look at the issues surrounding use of Sec 706, and consider a pathway to achieve meaningful protections through reclassification of the provision of broadband as a telecommunications service. This may be a politically difficult choice, but it is an inevitable choice if the FCC is to ensure the continued value and viability of the Internet.

In addition, reclassifying broadband delivery services would further solidify the FCC’s authority to make necessary updates to vital universal service programs including E-Rate, Lifeline, and Link-up which ensure that telecommunications services are available and affordable throughout the country.

[Commentary] The newly released Pew Research Center’s report, “Older Adults and Technology Use,” shows substantial forward movement in Internet use and broadband adoption by America’s senior population.

However, given the increasingly important role that this 21st century technology plays in all of our lives, it is troubling that 41 percent of seniors still do not use the Internet (compared to 14 percent of all adults), and that 53 percent do not have broadband access where they live (all adults: 30 percent).

The Benton Foundation has been working with Senior Service America, Inc. (SSAI) to address the challenges of bringing senior non-Internet users online. This latest Pew research reaffirms what we’re finding in our work. SSAI conducted a two-year Digital Inclusion Initiative that helped seniors learn to use computers and the Internet. By training 555 participants of its Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) as peer coaches in using software developed by Generations on Line, the Digital Inclusion Initiative (DII) helped more than 26,000 seniors through the end of 2011.

SCSEP peer coaches provided free one-on-one assistance at 355 community-based sites in 16 states, using a non-classroom style, self-paced, peer coaching approach that proved to be very successful with seniors.

[Commentary] Blair Levin, who served as the Executive Director of the Omnibus Broadband Initiative at the Federal Communications Commission, gave a speech at the birthday party of sorts for the National Broadband Plan, which turned four years old. In his speech, Levin identified four key strategies from the US broadband plan -- and in every national broadband plan around the world: 1) Driving fiber deeper; 2) Using spectrum more efficiently; 3) Getting everyone online; and 4) Using the platform to improve delivery of public goods. Levin says the right question for the fourth anniversary of the report is ‘Are we improving in executing on those 4 strategies?’ In light of the first goal of the National Broadband Plan, that at least 100 million US homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second by 2020, the data shows that just less than 57% of US households (so roughly 78.5 million) have access to wireline broadband offering download speeds of 100Mbps or more and just more than 18% (approximately 25.4 million) have access to upload speeds of 50Mbps or more. If you’re thinking wireless Internet access could help, just 3% of US households can access wireless broadband offering download speeds of 100Mbps or more and 4.2% have access to wireless upload speeds of 50Mbps or more. Far from 100Mbps, the median wireless connection delivers just 2.1 Mbps.

In assessing the National Broadband Plan's execution to "drive fiber deeper," Blair Levin noted that Google Fiber has sparked activities in nearly 40 communities and inspired efforts by AT&T, CenturyLink, CSpire, and Gig.U. But most of these efforts can be characterized as neighborhood projects: bringing high-speed broadband to the sections of cities that display the greatest demand -- and the resources to pay for it. Given the poor broadband performance in the US and the ongoing digital divide, we're still a long way from realizing the top goal of the National Broadband Plan -- and a long, long way from bringing affordable, high-capacity broadband to everyone in the US.