Connect with us

Net Neutrality

Comcast-BitTorrent, Wireless Net Neutrality Issues Stir Debate at Broadband Policy Summit

June 14 – Critics and proponents of Network Neutrality squaring off on the topic on Friday agreed that recent actions by both cable and wireless providers had had re-vivified the debate about the topic.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, June 14 – Critics and proponents of Network Neutrality squaring off on the topic on Friday agreed that recent actions by both cable and wireless providers had had re-vivified the debate about the topic.

Comcast’s actions blocking upsteam traffic using the peer-to-peer program BitTorrent – currently under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission – continued to be a source of controversy between the cable industry and Net Neutrality advocates.

The debate, “Net Neutrality: It’s Back Again!”, took place at the Broadband Policy Summit IV, sponsored by Pike and Fischer.

Gigi Sohn, President of the non-profit group Public Knowledge, blasted Comcast’s practice, and the company’s response, after the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Associated Press reported about its tactics, last fall.

Comcast “lied about it, and they continue to lie about it,” said Sohn.

Dan Brenner, senior vice president of law and regulatory policy for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), didn’t respond directly. He did concede, however, that because of the work of non-profit groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press, “a lot of things have heated up” for the cable industry on Net Neutrality.

However, said Mike McCurry, partner of Public Strategies, which runs the AT&T-funded group Hands Off the Internet, said “Nothing has moved forward, in my mind, to suggest that we need to immediately move forward to rulemaking” in favor of Net Neutrality.

McCurry also said that consumers are closely watching the actions of network providers. “Any discrimination that flies in the face of [Net Neutrality] principles is instantly noted and debated.”

To that, Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, replied: “Do you know how long the forged packet resets were being deployed” by Comcast before they were discovered?

Scott said that Free Press, which was joined by Public Knowlege in filing the petition against Comcast that is currently under consideration by the FCC, was likely to go to court if the FCC does not fine Comcast.

However, the most substantive disagreement of the morning came over the state of wireless Net Neutrality.

Brian Bieron, senior director of federal government affairs for eBay, went mano-o-mano with Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the cellular telecommunications association.

Web auctioneer EBay owns Internet telephone Skype, and has sought guarantees from the FCC that Skype-style applications will be free to run on the wireless data networks of cellular carriers. An vote on eBay’s petition at the FCC was expected to have been made last Thursday, but delayed.

Bieron said that “the cellular network is a network that is more closed; the gatekeeper role is accepted [and] many carriers do not guarantee openness” in the applications and services that they offer.

Guttman-McCabe countered: “To say that this market is not moving forward and developing is a staggering comment.”

“Third party developers in the cellular world essentially don’t exist,” replied Bieron. Who are the Yahoos, Google and eBays of the cellular world?

What about T-Mobile, countered Guttman-McCabe? Why can’t T-Mobile be the application provider?

Because “T-Mobile is a network provider,” said Bieron.

Guttman-McCabe had also noted that Google and Skype both have applications on the Blackberry, among other wireless devices.

The two men also disagreed about the nature of competition in the wireless market. Guttman-McCabe cited Apple as an example of a vibrant new entrant. Speaking about the fact that Apple’s iPhone is available only on a single wireless carrier’s network, he continued: “People blamed that on AT&T, [but] Apple did that in about 20 other countries. Apple wanted that exclusivity.”

“I think that is what makes the market interesting” and vibrant, said Guttman-McCabe; witness Verizon attempting to turn a new LG phone into “an iPhone killer.”

These may be examples of competition, replied Bieron, but “in the Internet world, you don’t have a company like Apple signing a deal with broadband providers. In the future, we might, it is just a different [world].”

Guttman-McCabe had the last word of the debate, however: “The foundation [of Bieron’s statement] was that [the marketplace] was closed, and I challenge that.”

Also participating in the morning panel was Kathryn Brown, senior vice president of public policy development and corporate responsibility for Verizon Communications. She agreed with Guttman-McCabe that “the world is changing” and that wireless innovation is happening dramatically.

She also said that Verizon is willing to participate in open-forum discussions — to which groups like Public Knowledge would be invited — to discuss standard-settings for wireless devices.

With regard to the Comcast fiasco, Brown said that “Verizon is building capacity on the network to 100 Megabits per second.” While not disavowing the need for network management, she said that Verizon was more about “manag[ing] more capacity, not less capacity.”

She also said that Verizon had agreed not to impede or block traffic on the network, and also that “consumers need to get what they pay for” with regard to broadband service. “They need to know what they are getting” in terms of their speed and service offerings.

Breakfast Media LLC CEO Drew Clark is a nationally respected U.S. telecommunications attorney. An early advocate of better broadband, better lives, he founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for better broadband data in 2008. That effort became the Broadband Breakfast media community. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over news coverage focused on digital infrastructure investment, broadband’s impact, and Big Tech. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Clark served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative. Now, in light of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, attorney Clark helps fiber-based and wireless clients secure funding, identify markets, broker infrastructure and operate in the public right of way. He also helps fixed wireless providers obtain spectrum licenses from the Federal Communications Commission. The articles and posts on Broadband Breakfast and affiliated social media, including the BroadbandCensus Twitter feed, are not legal advice or legal services, do not constitute the creation of an attorney-client privilege, and represent the views of their respective authors.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

FCC

GOP Congresswoman Says FCC Puts Politics Over the Law

‘Our founders provided Congress with legislative authority to ensure lawmaking is done by elected officials, not unaccountable bureaucrats.’

Published

on

Photo of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R–Wash., obtained from Flickr.

WASHINGTON, October 28, 2022 – Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R–Wash., accused the Federal Communications Commission of politicized actions in excess of its statutory authority, in a letter sent in September and apparently released by the agency last week.

To prevent possible FCC overreach, McMorris Rodgers, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to provide a list of pending and expected rulemakings, and the congressional authorizations therefor. Rosenworcel responded earlier this month in a letter released with the congresswoman’s original correspondence.

The Washington Republican wrote that the Biden administration has been overly reliant on executive orders and cited recent Supreme Court precedent as evidence. McMorris Rodgers highlighted the Environmental Protection Agency’s loss in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court invoked the “major questions doctrine,” a legal doctrine limiting of the executive branch’s ability to permissively interpret Congress’s statutory language. She also referenced the Court’s rejection of the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s vaccine or testing mandate.

“Our founders provided Congress with legislative authority to ensure lawmaking is done by elected officials, not unaccountable bureaucrats,” McMorris Rodgers wrote.

“I assure you the Committee and its members will exercise our robust investigative and legislative powers to not only forcefully reassert our Article I responsibilities, but to ensure the FCC under Democrat leadership does not continue to exceed Congressional authorizations,” she added.

Is net neutrality coming back?

In April 2021, McMorris Rodgers co-signed a letter with numerous congresspeople urging Rosenworcel to reject net neutrality, a policy supported by the chairwoman.

Today’s FCC is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, one commissioner short of the standard five. President Joe Biden nominated Gigi Sohn for the fifth spot, but her nomination is stalled due to Republican opposition in the Senate. Since Sohn supports net neutrality, some experts believe the FCC may once again pursue the policy should Sohn be confirmed.

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Johnny Kampis: Democrats Needlessly Push Another Round of Net Neutrality Legislation

The Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act may harm the ability of broadband infrastructure to grow.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Johnny Kampis, director of telecom policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

It ain’t broke, but Democrats keep trying to “fix” it.

July 28 saw the introduction of a bill to reimplement Title II regulations on broadband providers, paving the way for a second attempt at “net neutrality” rules for the internet.

Led by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., along with co-sponsors Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., the comically named Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act would classify ISPs as common carriers and give the Federal Communications Commission significant power to regulate internet issues such as pricing, competition, and consumer privacy.

Markey claims that the deregulation of the internet under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai left broadband consumers unprotected. But as data has shown, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s own investigation highlighted, no widespread throttling, blocking or other consumer harm occurred after the Title II rules were repealed.

Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, noted after Markey’s bill was released that nearly all service providers’ terms of service contain legally enforceable commitments to not block or throttle the access of their subscribers to lawful content.

Markey said his legislation, which would codify broadband access as an essential service, will equip the FCC with the tools it needs to increase broadband accessibility.

The country already has the tools it needs to close the digital divide, with billions in taxpayer dollars flowing to every state to boost broadband access. For example, less than $10 billion in federal funding was dedicated to broadband in 2019, but an incredible $127 billion-plus in taxpayer dollars will be dedicated to closing the digital divide in the coming years. That doesn’t even count the nearly $800 billion in COVID-19 relief and stimulus funding that could be used for multiple issues, including broadband growth.

The bill’s proponents say that the FCC can foster a more competitive market with the passage of the legislation. FCC’s data already indicate the market is extremely competitive, with 99 percent of the U.S. population able to choose between at least two broadband providers. That doesn’t even account for wireless carriers and their rapid development of 5G.

The Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act may instead harm the ability of broadband infrastructure to grow without funneling even more taxpayer money toward the cause. Studies have shown that private provider investment increased after the regulatory uncertainty of Title II rules were removed. Prior to the reversal of the 2015 Open Internet Order, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6 percent, the first decline outside of a recession, the FCC reported.

US Telecom reported that capital expenditures by ISPs totalled $79.4 billion in 2020 and grew to $86.1 billion in 2021.

Michael Powell, president and CEO of NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, called the issue of net neutrality “an increasingly stale debate” with justifications for it that “seem increasingly limp.”

“In the wake of the once-in-a-lifetime infrastructure bill, we need to be focused collectively on closing the digital divide and not taking a ride on the net neutrality carousel for the umpteenth time for no discernable reason,” he said. “Building broadband to unserved parts of this country is a massive, complex, and expensive undertaking. Slapping an outdated and burdensome regulatory regime on broadband networks surely will damage the mission to deploy next-generation internet technology throughout America and get everyone connected.”

Again, the specter of Title II regulations rears its ugly head for no discernible reason other than the government’s insatiable need for control. The broadband market has proven itself as a market that functions better with a light-touch approach, so we hope that Congress says not to this misguided bill.

Johnny Kampis is director of telecom policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Net Neutrality

Democrats Seek to Codify Net Neutrality as Fifth FCC Commissioner Hangs

Some say the bill would add heavy regulation that will harm investments and consumers.

Published

on

Photo of Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) during virtual press conference on Thursday

WASHINGTON, August 1, 2022 – Democratic Senators introduced Thursday a bill that would enshrine into law the concept of net neutrality, which would prevent internet service providers from tinkering with internet traffic, in a move that comes ahead of midterm elections that could alter whether the Federal Communications Commission gets its Democratic fifth commissioner to take unilateral action on the matter.

The Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act would give the FCC regulatory authority over broadband by classifying those services as Title II as defined in the 1934 Communications Act. Under Title II, the FCC would have greater regulatory muscle to make providers respect the principle of common carriage – that is, the traffic on their networks will not be throttled, sped up or given preference. Under the current light touch Title I – which was reinstituted by the 2017 commission under chairman Ajit Pai – the FCC does not have that authority, and the commission has previously been blocked by courts to bring net neutrality under Title I.

“My legislation would reverse the damaging approach adopted by the Trump FCC, which left broadband access unregulated, and consumers unprotected. It would give the FCC the tools it needs to protect the free and open internet, creating a just broadband future for everyone in our country,” Senator Edward Markey, D-Mass., said during a virtual press conference hosted by Public Knowledge on Thursday.

Markey noted that the majority of Americans and Republicans favor restoring net neutrality rules in the country.

Public Knowledge, an advocacy group for an open internet, was co-founded by Gigi Sohn, who was nominated by President Joe Biden to be the fifth FCC commissioner. The vote to confirm in the Senate has not happened yet, as some Republicans have complained about Sohn’s ability to be impartial on the commission.

“We’ve gone 544 days into the Biden administration without a fully functional agency. It’s time for Senate leadership to end this senseless delay and get the agency back to full capacity,” said Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press Action, in a press release welcoming the bill.

Reintroduction of bill comes as Sohn’s nomination to FCC appears to falter 

Sohn, who would be the party tiebreaker on the commission, would have bolstered the FCC’s chance to press for a reclassification of broadband services under Title II. But the longer a vote is not held, the less optimistic some say they are getting that a vote will be held before a midterm election in November that could flip the Senate red.

“Confirmation is still possible, but with the extended August recess and looming midterm election, there aren’t a lot of legislative days to get the job done,” said former FCC Chairman Richard Wiley at an event late last month.

Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington previously said that he would welcome congressional action on net neutrality – instead of an FCC vote on it.

“I have previously stated that the FCC’s 2015 Net Neutrality rules were the right approach,” said FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks in a press release. “That approach is undergirded by a voluminous record and overwhelming public support, and it has been tested in court. The Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act would codify just that,”

The bill comes after FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has repeatedly said that she believes net neutrality should be the guiding principle for the internet economy. Rosenworcel was defiant in her support of the principle in response to a letter from Republican representatives who encouraged her not to change her mind on it.

She added in a statement after the bill’s introduction that despite the FCC having the authority it needs to implement net neutrality, “legislation that helps ensure it is the law of the land is welcome.”

“For anyone who wants more innovation, more voices and less corporate control of the internet, net neutrality is an absolute no-brainer,” said Ron Wyden, D-OR, who co-introduced the bill. In 2018, Verizon admitted to throttling the wireless speeds used by California firefighters who were working on a large fire – one of the examples used to illustrate the imposition of such rules.

As such, California has gone its own way in lieu of inaction from Washington. The state won a court battle this year from broadband industry that challenged its own net neutrality law. The law made AT&T pull free sponsored applications to residents.

Critics of the net neutrality measure from the broadband industry

But broadband service providers and the commission that reversed net neutrality rules don’t see it that way. They say that regulations imposed by a net neutrality framework hinders innovation and competition in the market – including being able to provide free access to certain applications.

Michael Powell, CEO of trade association NCTA, said this bill will have a negative effect on closing the digital divide.

“In the wake of the once-in-a-lifetime infrastructure bill, we need to be focused collectively on closing the digital divide and not taking a ride on the net neutrality carousel for the umpteenth time for no discernable reason,” he said.

“Slapping an outdated and burdensome regulatory regime on broadband networks surely will damage the mission to deploy next-generation internet technology throughout America and get everyone connected,” said Powell.

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association also came out against the bill, saying heavy regulation would hamper their ability to serve underserved areas of the country. “The bill’s Title II requirements would create real threats to their ongoing viability,” the release said.

“Net neutrality may be a mixed bag, but common carrier regulation would inhibit competition, private investment and innovation, and further confound the complex task of eradicating the digital divide,” it added.

Another trade group USTelecom said it is concerned such regulation would hamper investments in broadband networks. “There is bipartisan support for net neutrality, but legislative proposals that would put any of this progress at risk are not the right answer,” said CEO Jonathan Spalter in a release. “Let’s keep our focus on moving consumers’ internet experiences forward, not backward.”

Non-profit research institution the Free State Foundation added that this type of bill will impose heavy-handed regulation that will harm consumers.

“[T]here is no present evidence, and there hasn’t been any for years, that ISPs have engaged in any deliberate discriminatory conduct,” said the FSF in a press release. “Almost all ISPs’ terms of service contain legally enforceable commitments not to block or throttle subscribers’ access to lawful content.

“To the extent that a couple of old incidents are cited that conceivably would run afoul of stringent anti-discrimination prohibitions, they have been isolated and quickly remedied,” the FSF added. “That’s why the net neutrality advocates are left to conjecture about what ‘might,’ ‘could,’ or ‘possibly’ happen absent new regulation, rather than identifying any existing problem warranting costly new regulatory mandates.”

With reporting by Riley Haight.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending