Public Knowledge

The current media ownership rules limit any one entity from owning too many of the newspaper, radio, and/or television entities within a local market, in order to ensure viewpoint diversity. These rules are under attack. Broadcasters are spectrum licensees, and without some strong public interest requirements on spectrum licensees, we are at risk of losing local, community-centric information.

Public Knowledge joined Communications Workers of America and 20 rural, consumer, civil rights, labor, and other groups in a letter urging Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to retain the agency’s tech transitions rules that protect consumers while providers like Verizon transition from copper to fiber networks. The agency plans to roll back these consumer protections on November 16, effectively downgrading rural America.

President Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has rubberstamped the elimination of several policies and protections that are critical to closing the digital divide. Among these now-battered policies is an item that will be decided on in November and will give telecom giants a green light to abandon their rural customers.

As we gear up to defend and protect the net neutrality rules, parties on both sides are speaking up. One particular group, small Internet Service Providers, claim that the Federal Communication Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order has been a death sentence for them, hindering their ability to invest and compete in the market. These small ISPs have taken to advocating against net neutrality rules but there is something missing from their claims: substance.

Usually represented by trade groups like the Competitive Carriers Association, US Telecom Association, and the American Cable Association, to name a few, small ISPs generally serve a customer base in the hundreds or thousands. Compare that to the likes of Comcast, Verizon, Charter, and AT&T, which control 70 percent of the market, with consumer counts in the millions. Given their comparatively small size, these small ISPs don’t believe the net neutrality rules should apply to them. Citing regulatory burdens of complying with the Open Internet Order and the uncertainty of the newly minted rules, they believe the rules put them in a high cost/low benefit situation because they don’t have the same market power or incentive to make deals with edge providers. But these claims are hollow. First, the idea that these companies don't have "market power" is wrong. Additionally, none of the small ISPs or trade associations that represent them actually point to or identify the particular regulations that are oh-so-burdensome to their businesses.

It’s essential to the future of network neutrality that we shed some light (and truth) on the baseless arguments being made regarding Title II and broadband investment.

Fact: Internet service providers have no plans to decrease investment in their infrastructure. ISPs have been reporting to investors that investment is up, up, up! Verizon’s CFO, Fancis Shammo, told investors that reclassification to Title II “does not influence the way we invest.” Similarly, Sprint stated that it would “continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime.” In 2016, AT&T reassured their investors that they would “remain one of the largest investors in the United States.” As technologies change and reliance on the internet only continues to strengthen, ISPs know the value in continued investment.
Fact: Investment has actually increased since the adoption of the Open Internet Order.

The Internet service providers most loudly insisting they support network neutrality - Comcast and Verizon, for example - are the same companies who’ve been behind the most significant legal and political opposition to any net neutrality rules, and the same companies that have been caught time and again pushing the bounds of permissible behavior, or outright violating net neutrality principles. So, let’s give them a quick fact-check and separate the truth from the “fake news,” at least where ISP positions on net neutrality are concerned.

Open internet principles were not the only value in classifying broadband under Title II. Like our telephone networks used to be, access to broadband has become necessary for full participation in society. Therefore, Title II classification is critical in protecting our fundamental values of universal service and consumer protection when accessing broadband networks.

While the Federal Communications Commission forebore from applying the majority of Title II to broadband networks, the agency kept a number of provisions in place to ensure consumers have ubiquitous and affordable connectivity, privacy, and other consumer protections when online.

One significant threat to the public interest under the new administration that is receiving increased attention is broadband privacy for consumers. The Congressional Review Act (“CRA” for you Washington types), is a little known bill passed in 1996 that allows Congress to completely get rid of rules passed by an federal agency within 60 days of being published in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress, whichever is later. Once Congress uses the CRA on a rule, it is like the rule never existed. In legal speak, the rule has no force or effect...

The practical truth is, if the CRA is passed, consumers will be left with no one to enforce their privacy rights. Congress should be in the business of protecting consumers, not eliminating protections, especially given the recent news showing the technological advances in monitoring Americans and the importance of data security rules to strong cybersecurity protections. It’s time for Congressional leaders to reassure Americans that their sensitive, personal information will be properly protected. The FCC broadband privacy rules were a strong step in that direction. They should not be repealed, and if they are, at a minimum Congressional leaders should be clear about how they will be legally replaced without weakening protections.