Our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher has an op-ed in Thomas Jefferson Institute’s Jefferson Policy Journal arguing for bipartisanship, rather than heavy-handed regulation, to keep the Internet growing. An excerpt:
Not surprisingly, the policies that have fostered this growth and today’s open Internet have largely been bipartisan. Everyone favors good, clean, well-paying technology jobs and the companies that generate those jobs. This bipartisan consensus extended to the Federal Government as well. Back in the 1990s, during the Clinton Administration, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) raced to do all it could to get the Internet to as many Americans as possible and to keep it free from overly burdensome public utility regulation that then applied to telephone companies. Two decades later we see the results of bipartisan efforts in the form of the free, open, privately-networked Internet that we enjoy today.
And equally unsurprisingly, anything that threatens this consensus and the Internet on which our economy increasingly depends should be of first importance to Virginia.
Unfortunately, the FCC’s new “net neutrality” rules attempt to promote an open Internet by imposing regulations designed for public utilities, such as gas and water companies. Imposing these so called “Title II” regulations on the Internet introduces unnecessary uncertainty into the broadband marketplace, and it could threaten the future investment that is essential to promoting an innovative, growing, and vibrant Internet-centric economy.
By treating the competitive multi-media Internet as a 20th Century “common carrier”, the FCC’s decision opens the door to Internet regulations modeled on the rules that were developed for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly and for other monopolies that offered a single service and were regulated in virtually all aspects of their businesses. Under the light touch regulation that has applied to the Internet since the Clinton era, investment across the information ecosystem has produced an Internet economy that is the envy of the world. A regulatory environment welcoming to investment was at the foundation of that success, and it is now threatened.
1. The courts
3. A new president
4. The budget
These are the five perils Julian Hattem of The Hill recently highlighted as potential pitfalls for the FCC’s new net neutrality rules. Hattern’s full piece is required reading for anyone concerned about the future of the Internet, since it casts a light on sheer amount of uncertainty the rules are already causing.
An excerpt about the threat of deadlock from the piece, featuring our own Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher:
For now, given the FCC’s current makeup of three Democrats and two Republicans, any company asking for exemptions to the net neutrality rules is likely to be rejected.
But if that should happen to change — for instance, if a Democratic president is unable to move his or her nominees through a GOP-controlled Senate after the current commissioners’ term expire — the agency could be stuck in a 2-2 deadlock, which would automatically grant an exemption, known as forbearance.
“It’s not too far out there,” former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who helped write the 1996 law undergirding the FCC’s authority, recently told The Hill.
“In that circumstance, if a forbearance petition is filed and they don’t act on it, it could be deemed granted.”
In the wake of the FCC’s controversial decision to regulate broadband services under Title II, our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher spoke with Jim Puzzanghera at the Los Angeles Times about the possibility of Congress formally enshrining net neutrality into law. An excerpt:
Rick Boucher knows as well as anybody that net neutrality is the type of complex technology topic that Congress finds difficult to handle even when Democrats and Republicans are getting along.
But the former 14-term House member, a longtime player on Internet policy who now heads a telecommunications industry trade group, is optimistic that the controversial Internet issue could be a surprising source of compromise in a time of partisan gridlock.
“Each side can give the other the thing it wants the most,” Boucher, a well-respected Democrat who is honorary chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance. “This is an optimal moment to legislate.”
Check out Puzzanghera’s full piece over at the Los Angeles Times.
At the Washington Post, Larry Downes has penned a piece highlighting a recent Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy event commemorating the fifth anniversary of the National Broadband Plan. Headlined “Did the National Broadband Plan spur innovation?” the full piece is definitely worth checking out. An excerpt:
For the next five years, we need a significant policy reset to meet both the challenges and opportunities of the broadband revolution. Or rather, as I’ve argued before, a return to the bipartisan “light touch” policy embraced in the early years of the Internet revolution, in which regulators largely left broadband governance to the multi-stakeholder engineering-driven process that created the technology in the first place.
As the broadband revolution spreads its disruption farther from traditional computing, communications and consumer electronics industries, innovators need a kind of Hippocratic Oath from policymakers of all political persuasions. When considering regulatory intervention in quickly-evolving markets and technologies, our overriding public policy should be “first, do no harm.”
But given the alarming rise in heavy-handed interventions from state and local regulators, as well as a growing list of federal agencies including the FAA, FDA, FTC, SEC and the FCC itself, the prospects for a return to more rational policies — the kind that encouraged the broadband revolution to achieve the remarkable progress we have already witnessed — seem dim, at least for now.
The seeds for the National Broadband Plan were sown in the early days of the Obama administration. Perhaps the next president will call for a second plan that will build on the successes of the first. And learn from its misfires.
This week marks the five year anniversary of “Connecting America,” the FCC’s National Broadband Plan to improve Internet access in the United States. One of the many important goals set forth in the plan is commonly referred to as the “100 Squared Initiative”:
At least 100 million U.S. 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.——- commonly referred to as the “100 Squared Initiative.”
That seemed like a doable — if lofty — goal back in 2010, but since Internet providers had already sextupled the number of people with >100 Mbps high-speed broadband by December 31, 2013 (the most recent numbers from the National Broadband Map), we thought it would be worth highlighting the progress.
That’s a pretty good leap in the three years that have been measured, but if the FCC is going to hit its goal by 2020, regulatory roadblocks to deployment and the billions in private investment needed to make it happen should be avoided.
For more on National Broadband Plan progress, check out the event being held by the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy today beginning at 9 am (EDT). Our own Bruce Mehlman will be participating in a discussion called “The Agenda Ahead” at 3:15 pm. Details on the event—“The National Broadband Plan: Looking Back, Reaching Forward”—can be found here.
In the wake of the FCC officially implementing Title II regulations on broadband providers, the organization Tech Freedom put together this handy infographic highlighting the problem with the Commission leaning on forbearance.
Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its net neutrality order. In response, IIA asks on Congress to step in with a non-partisan and long-lasting legislative solution that preserves and maintains the “open Internet” without the burdens of utility-style regulation. Our full statement:
Market uncertainty accelerates today with the release of the FCC’s decision to impose public utility regulation on the Internet. Long drawn out legal challenges to the agency’s embrace of Title II regulation without clear statutory authority now await the Internet ecosystem. Yet, Congress can still rescue the nation from this fate by crafting a non-partisan and long-lasting legislative solution that would preserve and maintain an ‘open Internet’ without the burdens of utility-style regulation. Now is the time for a bi-partisan Congressional effort aimed at creating statutory permanence that helps advance innovation, investment, and broadband deployment for the benefit of all Americans.
The need for a permanent legislative solution to guarantee an open Internet against all risks, present and hypothetical, has been greatly enhanced by the confusion and lack of clarity that Title II proponents have created, perhaps unavoidably, as we break with 20+ years of bipartisan support for light-touch regulation of the Internet and charge forward on treating the most innovative sector of our economy as if it’s among the least. Even net neutrality champions have seemed flummoxed.
For example, one of the loudest champions supporting public utility style regulation for the nation’s broadband ecosystem was Netflix. Netflix publicly pushed the White House and the FCC to embrace Title II as a means to achieve marketplace concessions and prevent assignment of higher costs for consumption of greatest bandwidth. Yet, when Netflix’s Chief Financial Officer was asked at an investment conference this week, “Were we pleased it pushed to Title II,” he replied: “Probably not. We were hoping there would be a non-regulated solution.”
Netflix’s CFO was hardly alone in expressing concern for the potential harms that could cascade from treating the most dynamic and innovative sector of our economy as the most in need of Washington’s control. CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince eloquently shared his “deep concerns” that the use of Title II to achieve net neutrality protections could well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – “proponents of a free and open Internet may look back on today not as a great victory, but as the first step in what may turn out to be a devastating loss”. According to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, erstwhile net neutrality champion Eric Schmidt even lobbied the White House against use of the thermonuclear Title II option.
The lack of appreciation for the harms associated with the FCC’s decision to impose public utility style regulation (Title II) on broadband has not been limited to Netflix. During a recent CNBC interview, Title II proponent David Karp, founder and CEO of Tumblr, similarly made statements regarding the proposed Net Neutrality regulations that ironically affirmed why a “light-touch” regulatory approach is superior to Title II to maintain the current open, robust, and investment-friendly Internet. Mr. Karp and others have been led down the proverbial primrose path to believe that Title II is the only solution to keep any potential abuse at bay. However, it is worth reviewing many assertions made by Mr. Karp and other Title II advocates and the realities that contradict them.
The Title II rules will not “slow down innovation.”
Not true. Innovation developed at the Internet’s ‘edge’ by companies like Tumblr depends on robust high-speed broadband wired and wireless networks to reach consumers. Innovative success stories such as Tumblr thrived precisely because Title II was not applied to the Internet ecosystem. Title II regulations that slow broadband investment by Internet service providers will ultimately harm Internet innovation by those hoping for robust and rapidly-improving service.
New rules are needed to achieve “a competitive market for carriers where they’re competing to deliver us the fastest, best Internet.”
That market exists today. It’s the very market in which Tumblr has thrived. The U.S. benefits from robust competition among both wired and wireline Internet providers – competition that exceeds that in Europe, which today maintains Title II-like regulations on Internet providers.
Concerns that Title II will restrict investment “have been disproven.”
Wrong. To the contrary, light-touch regulation promotes greater investment, as highlighted in a recent Internet Innovation Alliance study that compares broadband and telco investment in the U.S. and Europe.
There is currently “a lot of artificial throttling going on, [even though broadband providers] have the bandwidth to deliver this.”
Not really. Allegations of throttling are hypothetical. In fact, the FCC found only four instances of alleged anticompetitive throttling behavior, and all occurred before 2010. The core challenge remains: Managing the exponential explosion of content and data generated by “killer content”, such as Netflix’s popular “House of Cards.” Carriers desperately search for more spectrum for mobile broadband services, which is why wireless companies just spent $45 billion at the recent FCC spectrum auction gobbling up airwaves to provide mobile Internet services. But broadband providers, and new entrants such as Dish, may not make such desperately-needed investments in the future if they believe that Title II will inhibit their ability to recoup.
Title II will “move further in breaking down the near-monopoly situation we have right now.”
What monopolies? No broadband company has as much market share as the leading search engine or many of the leading tech players. Today’s broadband market is vibrantly competitive as consumers have multiple Internet options in markets across the U.S. Title II does not “break down” monopolies, since it was crafted to manage and regulate the one service provider that existed in the 1930s monopoly telephone market.
Despite Title II, providers will continue to build the broadband Internet at faster speeds and that the carriers are “just lying” when they claim otherwise.
Really? Public Internet service companies are responsible to their shareholders and logically invest only in markets where they have an ability to recoup their capital. Investment suffers in markets—like Europe—where a Title II-like regulatory regime prevails.
Today the FCC voted 3-2 to impose Title II regulation on the Internet. In response, our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher had this to say:
The FCC’s decision to embrace Title II regulation over the Internet now creates an opportunity for Congress to craft a non-partisan legislative solution that provides the legal certainty necessary to preserve and maintain an “open Internet” without the burdens of utility-style regulation. After more than a decade of wrangling about the proper regulatory classification of broadband services and the scope of the FCC’s authority, it is time for Congress to provide the certainty that consumers and industry need. IIA looks forward to working with members of Congress to ensure that the promise of broadband remains available for entrepreneurs, innovators and America’s consumers without a return to the days of utility regulation.
Earlier today, our Honorary Chairman Rick Boucher testified before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on the effects the FCC’s Net Neutrality proposal will have on the future of the Internet. In his testimony, Boucher — who served on the House Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees, along with the subcommittees on Communications, Technology and the Internet during his time in Congress — urged Congress to take up the issue via legislation. An excerpt:
If a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, the new Administration would be unlikely to support a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court if the rules are struck down by a U.S. Court of Appeals. It would be unlikely that in such an event the FCC in a Republican administration would initiate a new network neutrality proceeding. In fact it is probable that an FCC with a Republican majority would, as an early order of business, undertake a reversal of the reclassification order that will be approved tomorrow.
For these reasons, the network neutrality assurances of tomorrow’s reclassification order rest on a tenuous foundation. They are at risk of being lost. Legislation is, therefore, a superior solution. It would be virtually impenetrable from a judicial challenge, and would resolve this debate with a statutory permanence and degree of certainty not available through the regulatory process.
Read Rick Boucher’s full testimony.