Network Neutrality

“The Open Internet exists today, and it is under attack.” That was the dire message Tom Wheeler, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, had for the audience of the Benton Foundation hosted event at 1871 on September 18. What is the Open Internet? Take, for example, the Facebook Live video of his entire speech. As Wheeler put it, no one had to ask permission from a major internet provider to broadcast it to the world. But the FCC under the current administration has done an about-face in policy, signaling they may be looking to reverse protections for consumers and make it much easier for large broadband providers to restrict access to certain content, throttle up and download speeds and perhaps prevent innovators and entrepreneurs from freely distributing their services.

The National Hispanic Media Coalition filed a joint Motion, with 20 additional organizations, in the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding asking the FCC to enter into the record all open internet complaints, ombudsperson correspondence, and carrier responses since the 2015 Open Internet Order, and set a comment period to allow for public input on the new evidence. NHMC initially asked for all related documents in May and, as of this writing, has not received any of the attachments to the ombudsperson emails and has received only 823 pages of the 18,000 carrier responses to consumer complaints about issues they experienced.

At first glance, Freeway looks like a good app. Through partnerships with content providers and mobile networks, Freeway can let users on limited wireless rate plans use services like YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify without eating into their precious data allowance. In return, Freeway charges a couple bucks per month through a mobile app, and also leverages sponsorships. In theory, it’s a neat way to help consumers access services without paying for an unlimited data plan or massive overage fees. But in practice, it creates the exact kind of anti-competitive environment net neutrality advocates are so afraid of.

Freeway has a couple different packages and tiers, all with different pricing that varies by carrier:

• Basic Bundle: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Spotify
• “Headphones In”: Amazon Music, iHeart Radio, Pandora, Spotify, and SoundCloud
• “Data Defense”: Sports bundle with ESPN, Facebook, LiveScore, MLB.com Ballpark, MLS, NBA, NBC Sports, Twitter, and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports
• “Study Break”: Bumble, HBO Now, Instagram, Lyft, Spotify, Starbucks, Tinder, Twitter, Venmo, and YouTube
• “Backseat Drivers”: “Cut the Rope: Magic,” Disney Junior, Nick Junior, PBS Kids Video, YouTube Kids

Two things stand out about the packages: they sound a lot like cable bundles; and they’re comprised only of brands you’ve heard of. That’s because Freeway is essentially pay-to-play: only the big companies are worth partnering with (or can afford to sponsor data), so you’re only going to see big names on there.

We gather today at a critical moment in the history of an Open Internet; in the fight for Net Neutrality. So, right here at the outset, let’s make clear something that will bear repeating throughout these remarks: An Open Internet is the law of the land and any change to that policy would take away from consumers, innovators and the competitive marketplace something they have today. The proof point that opponents to an Open Internet must hurdle is the factual basis for why it is necessary to remove existing protections? Those protections can be boiled down to one simple principle: Consumers must be in charge of how they use their broadband connections, free from manipulation by their broadband providers. Unfortunately, those of us who believe the internet should be fast, fair and open are in for a fight. The majority of the Trump Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Republicans in Congress, and the big broadband providers are ganging up on consumers. They mouth the words, “We support an open internet,” yet oppose meaningful protections of that openness. So let me say it again, the current effort is to take away protections that now exist. This is principally about four economically and politically powerful broadband providers – companies that control the connections to 70 percent of American homes – seeking to take something away from tens of millions of consumers and tens of thousands of entrepreneurial innovators. The Trump FCC’s ongoing proceeding to accomplish this is a sham, starting with its name. In the Orwellian world of alternative facts in which we now live, the FCC calls gutting the Open Internet: “Restoring Internet Freedom.” The only thing this effort frees are the broadband providers that escape from their obligations to consumers. The effort to repeal or revise the Open Internet rules is contrary to statute, and contrary to the facts demonstrating how broadband providers can, have, and will abuse their role as gatekeeper to the network that will define the 21st century. And the best its proponents can come up with to support their position are claims of reduced investment that add up to nothing more than special pleading by the biggest cable and telecommunications companies.
[Tom Wheeler is the Walter Shorenstein Fellow for Media and Democracy, Harvard Kennedy School; Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution; and Klinsky Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School. He served at Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission November 2013 - January 2017.]

The Federal Communications Commission has ignored a public records request for information that might shed light on the legitimacy of comments on Chairman Ajit Pai's anti-net neutrality plan, according to a lawsuit filed against the FCC. Freelance writer Jason Prechtel filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request on June 4 asking the FCC for data related to bulk comment uploads, which may contain comments falsely attributed to people without their knowledge. But while the FCC acknowledged receiving his FoIA request, it did not approve or deny the request within the legally allotted timeframe, Prechtel wrote in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Trump administration, the Federal Communications Commission, Congress and greedy companies are attacking people’s rights to connect and communicate so relentlessly that staying on top of everything that’s happening can feel like an impossible task. That’s why we’ve put together this handy list of five of the biggest threats people are facing:

1) The FCC’s scheme to kill Net Neutrality
2) Anti-Net Neutrality legislation
3) Mega media mergers
4) Local news crisis
5) Lies, lies and more lies: The proliferation of fake news — which Trump embraces — is making it hard to get the truth out about these attacks on our rights to connect and communicate, what’s at stake and what we can do about it.

Network neutrality advocates are planning two days of protest in Washington DC in Sept as they fight off plans to defang regulations meant to protect an open internet. A coalition of activists, consumer groups and writers are calling on supporters to attend the next meeting of the Federal Communications Commission on Sept 26 in DC. The next day, the protest will move to Capitol Hill, where people will meet legislators to express their concerns about an FCC proposal to rewrite the rules governing the internet. Participating organizations in the protest include Fight for the Future, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Media Justice, Common Cause, Consumers Union, Free Press and the Writers Guild of America West.

[Commentary]

• Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai plans to reverse the agency’s open internet rules passed in 2015.
• The Open Internet Rule makes sure that the internet, the most important network of the 21st century, is open and available to everybody, and not controlled by a handful of companies.
• More than half of American consumers don’t have a choice when signing up for internet service, allowing monopolists to make the rules.
• The Open Internet Rule, as it currently stands, ensures that there is oversight in the internet marketplace.
• There are four companies, cable and telephone, that provide three-quarters of the access to the internet for American consumers, and they would prefer to be unregulated.
• The Open Internet Rule is the law of the land that protects consumers. If Congress or the Trump administration’s FCC eliminate the rule, consumers will lose their current protections. Without the Open Internet Rule, cable and phone companies will pick what you see, what you pay, and what you have to pay extra for. Congress plays an important role in the oversight of the FCC and in how the internet is regulated.
• The Open Internet Rule has been successful in protecting consumers, in stimulating innovation, and in providing good returns for those who provide internet service. If it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed.

[Wheeler is a visiting fellow in Governance Studies. Wheeler is a businessman, author, and was Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission from 2013 to 2017.]

[Commentary] I authored a number of empirical studies examining the effect of network neutrality regulation on investment, employment, and broadband speeds. A few parties offered comments and criticisms on my research including the Open Technology Institute at New America, AARP, and Netflix. Of these, the criticisms levied against my work are either uncompelling or wrong. While I found no valid or meaningful criticisms of my work, one attempt to discredit it was so incoherent and inaccurate that I feel it is worth commenting on more fully to avoid confusion. It is clear from its comments that Free Press has zero comprehension of my empirical analysis.

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s recent Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) decision is a case study in the consequences of writing law through executive order. If congressional leadership does not take action, then network neutrality will meet DACA’s same fate.

Americans must demand that Congress provide pragmatic, bipartisan and sustainable solutions for DACA, net neutrality, and many other pressing issues confronting our country.

[Garrett Johnson is co-founder of Lincoln Network, a national community of technology professionals]