Today, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Director of Communications Policy Studies Seth Cooper filed reply comments showing why the FCC’s proposal to convert Internet service providers into public utilities is unwise and unlawful.
Here are a few key excerpts from the Introduction and Summary:
"It's well-documented that proponents of public utility regulation of broadband Internet services decried the RIF Order’s
repeal of that regulation as the unleashing of a dystopian nightmare in
which the Internet would grind to a halt and broadband providers would
prey on consumers, innovators, and small businesses. Of course, their
deliberately outlandish claims were quickly proven wrong. For this
reason alone, the views of these pro-utility regulation advocates should
be given no credence whatsoever. Indeed, were they to be given
credence, the Commission’s own credibility would be further called into
question.”
"Despite being so spectacularly wrong about the effect of the RIF Order,
many of those same pro-regulatory proponents are back, calling for the
reimposition of the short-lived public utility regime established in the
now-repealed 2015 Title II Order.
The FCC cannot accord the claims of these parties – or the claims of
allied parties – any credibility whatsoever regarding the future of
broadband services when they were so wrong last time around. If it does
so, it will confirm that the Commission is intent on regulation as an
end in itself, not a means to an end when warranted. Since the RIF Order was
adopted in late 2017, Internet speeds have significantly increased.
Next-generation technologies such as fiber, 5G mobile wireless, and
fixed wireless access have deployed and offer significantly improved
capabilities as well as more competitive choices for consumers. And
broadband service pricing has been more consumer friendly and resistant
to price increases than most other service markets.”
"Title
II reclassification will not protect Internet openness, national
security, or public safety. To the limited extent that pro-utility
regulation comments actually try to prop up the Commission’s dubious
national security, public safety, cybersecurity, and network resiliency
rationales for Title II reclassification, such comments offer no
analysis or facts, or concrete dangers or solutions, to substantiate
those claims. There is no reason to expect government interference,
based on supposed bureaucratic expertise, will make networks perform
better or more safely. Comments opposed to the proposed rulemaking
rightly point out that broadband Internet service providers (ISPs)
already have economic incentives to make available high-performance,
resilient networks. Indeed, ISPs demonstrated their performance
capabilities under the stress of traffic demand spikes amidst
COVID-related government-imposed lockdown orders.”
"It
is no surprise that comments by many longtime supporters of public
utility regulation of broadband do not cite any specific credible
examples of ISPs blocking or throttling their subscribers’ access to
legal content of their choice. Instead of the predicted broadband
Internet wasteland following Title II regulation repeal, since early
2018 there is no record evidence that ISPs engage in such harmful
conduct or that they are likely to do so. The fact that ISPs do not
block or throttle indicates that the existing light-touch policy based
on the Commission’s transparency rules and Federal Trade Commission
enforcement of ISP terms of service pledges is working. ISPs’ consensus
against blocking or throttling cannot be explained away by pointing to
state net neutrality laws. Net neutrality laws exist only in a handful
of states, and yet blocking and throttling have not occurred in states
that have no net neutrality laws.”
"We
agree with comments opposed to the proposed rulemaking that the
Commission’s pretensions to secure or safeguard Internet openness,
national security, and public safety are illusory and arbitrary because
the rulemaking focuses on only one aspect of the Internet – Internet
access services – and does not address far more serious concerns posed
by other aspects of the Internet – including Big Tech platforms and
other online edge providers that actively censor, shadow ban, and
deprioritize speech content. Also, the Commission’s myopic focus on ISPs
for supposed security and safety purposes leaves completely untouched
numerous other major providers in the Internet ecosystem that may pose
much greater risks to security and safety than ISPs.”
A
PDF of the complete FSF reply comments, with footnotes, is here.
Posts
