FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

Tom Wheeler

Tom Wheeler is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.

The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.

Guess Who’s Winning the Money Battle in the War on Net Neutrality

Guess Who's Winning the Money Battle in the War on Net Neutrality

Who’s spending the most to win the hearts and minds of Congress in the war on net neutrality? Verizon and AT&T, of course. Followed by—guess who?—Comcast. In other words, the companies that stand to lose money if the internet remains free and open are trying to shut it down.

The Sunlight Foundation recently published a series of graphics showing lobbyist spending from companies that support and oppose net neutrality. From 2003 to 2013, anti-net neutrality groups issued nearly three times as many lobbying reports mentioning net neutrality as those that support it, like AOL, Google, and Microsoft. Verizon and AT&T alone each issued 119 reports, while Google issued less than 25. None of this is surprising, though, because big telecom companies were spending millions on lobbying before companies like Google even employed lobbyists.

Guess Who's Winning the Money Battle in the War on Net Neutrality

It’s difficult to boil this all down into a dollar amount, though. While the Sunlight Foundation breaks out these companies’ total spending on lobbying to reveal that anti-net neutrality groups out spend pro-net neutrality groups by a five-to-one ratio, that graph fails to recognize that all of these companies hire lobbyists to do more than fight for or against net neutrality. The sharp increase in total spending from anti-net neutrality groups is, nevertheless, undeniable.

Guess Who's Winning the Money Battle in the War on Net Neutrality

This is only the beginning. Now that the FCC has pushed forward with a horrible set of proposed net neutrality rules that would allow internet fast lanes for those who paid for them, we’re going to hear more and more about how the war for a free and open the internet hinges upon a battle over profit margins. Companies like Verizon and AT&T stand to make more money if the FCC turns its proposed rules into policy, while startups that can’t even afford lobbyists in the first place stand to lose out.

But hey, why wouldn’t the FCC bend to big telecom interests? After all, high-paying jobs with big telecom companies are a popular destination for outgoing commissioners. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler himself is a former big telecom lobbyist. The elected officials on Capitol Hill can’t be bought and sold so directly (we hope) so it’s only natural that big telecom would shovel tens of millions of lobbyist dollars in their direction. We must just look like a bunch of idiots for letting them.

%d bloggers like this: