Singh, Anurag

English

Texas ScholarWorks

Feb 22My Take on Net Neutrality and the FCCanurag singhThe Texas Orator recently published a week-long discussion by Wes Dodson and Shoumik Dabir regardingthe FCC’s decision to repeal 2015 “net neutrality” regulations, which banned Internet service providers (ISPs)from favoring or blocking certain Internet traffic over others. If anything can be taken away from thediscussion, it’s that Wes and Shoumik, henceforth abbreviated to W&S, are bright, articulate men — theirsubstantive and exhaustive analysis reflects a deep understanding of the issue from both of them.Nevertheless, a slightly less bright and articulate man wouldn’t be living up to his reputation of offeringunwarranted opinions if he chose not to give his two cents on the matter. That’s me, in case you hadn’tnoticed. I’ll begin by responding to specific topics brought up in the conversation and then pivot towardgeneral comments about the FCC.I’ll skip the tedious prerequisite history lesson; W&S provide a satisfactory summary of the backgroundsurrounding the net neutrality framework. What should be noted is that the battle surrounding these rules isfar from over. Unhappy state legislatures have undermined the FCC decision through a variety of ways. 22states have joined to file a lawsuit against the FCC. Executive orders, as seen in New York and Montana,mandate ISPs that do business with state governments abide by net neutrality rules. Some states, likeCalifornia and Washington, are introducing their own net neutrality laws. The legality of these moves will nodoubt be challenged in state courts. On the national level, proposals in the Senate to overturn the decisionhave received support from trade groups representing big-wig tech companies like Amazon and Google.V O X  P O P U L IMany of these tech giants have themselves filed lawsuits. It’s exactly for these reasons that continueddiscussion regarding the rules is vital.Wes rightly points out a common misconception about US Internet speeds — many areas still suffer fromInternet speeds that do not rise to the definition of broadband, or 25 megabits per second downstream and 3Mbps upstream. The divide is predictably rural/urban: 39 percent of rural areas lack access to 25/4 Mbps asopposed to 4 percent of urban areas. In fact, our country in general suffers from a relatively slower and moreexpensive Internet, not even rising to the level of the top ten internationally.This is a serious issue. Bad broadband is correlated with lower population growth and less economic andeducational development. Add to that the fact that more government services like Social Security, FAFSA,and tax-filing are moving online and the picture painted for these areas is gloomy, to say the least.And how does this new FCC headed by Commissioner Ajit Pai, a FCC that Wes no doubt believes iscommitted to expanding Internet infrastructure, address this issue? Aside from trying to lower the definitionof broadband to fool people into believing the problem’s solved, the FCC has been publishing hagiographicalreports that try to take credit for broadband deployments that began in the Obama years. So the idea that theFCC cares at all about this is hard to swallow, but more on that later.The point Wes makes about how the net neutrality rules have discouraged infrastructure is fairly dubious,given the murky data available. Shoumik responds with the accurate point that Comcast increased spendingduring the Title II years and Wes parries with the point that this isn’t specifically referencing broadbandspending. But rather than take the ISPs’ whining about the regulations at face value given their vested interestin repealing the rules, one ought to look at independent analysis, which concludes that there’s no real way totell whether the regulations did in fact limit broadband investment. So the jury’s out on that one, though theclaims are likely overblown. Says analyst Kevin Werbach, an associate professor of legal studies and businessethics at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania: “The idea that there’s a nuclear winter inbroadband, or even just in rural broadband, because of the Title II classification just doesn’t make sense.”Even the data the FCC itself cites works against the rural broadband boondoggle. The few case studies theFCC has provided of small ISPs allegedly burdened by these regulations are inaccurate and lack context, andthe empirical analyses caution against “broad policy intervention,” instead advocating for targeted solutionsto specific areas.There’s a pretty ludicrous claim that Wes makes while trying to defend the repeal of the net neutrality laws.He first states that there’s a “false dichotomy” being perpetuated — ISPs, he insists, aren’t out to throttleU.S.fcc, net neutrality, ajit paicompanies or consumers. According to him, “It is in the best interest of the ISPs to offer access to most of theInternet at the same speed.” This is simply not the case. It’s completely in the best interest of ISPs todiscriminate against certain services. Why else would they lobby so strongly to get rid of the rules? It’s clearlya huge benefit to ISPs if they’re able to favor certain kinds of services over others; it’s no surprise, then, thatthey’ve tried. Many. Many. Times. There is literally a practice known as “throttling” outlawed under the netneutrality regulations, with a litany of several well-documented ISP violations.Repealing net neutrality regulations is only one example of how this FCC is harming the health of theInternet. This is where we return to the discussion about what the FCC appears to care about.Does the FCC care about competition or fairness? If so, why did it scrap a plan to bring competition to thecable box market so we consumers could get rid of those set-top boxes? Why is it dropping any attempt toprevent prison phone monopolies from jacking up prices for inmate calls? Why did it dismantle mediaconsolidation rules in moves that help the giant Sinclair Broadcasting? Why is it weakening the verydefinition of competition itself in a move that small ISPs have decried?Does the FCC care about increasing coverage? Why is it pretending to ignore the serious lack of coverage byproducing self-aggrandizing reports like the one cited previously? Why gut the Lifeline program, whichprovides subsidies for poor Americans for broadband service? Why are they helping push for thediscontinuation of copper networks, which millions of Americans still rely on, without reasonablealternatives?In case it wasn’t clear, these are rhetorical questions. It’s clear that the FCC doesn’t care about these issues; if itdid, it wouldn’t be so ardently pushing the country backwards. As for what the FCC does care about, I’ll leavereaders to form their own conclusions. In the meantime, I’m off to convince W&S to form an indie rockband. I can see the album covers now…Related PostsFeb 25 More Than MedalsFeb 21 The R publican Party's Noodle ProblemFeb 3The Failures of PrivatizationFeb 14A N U R A G  S I N G HAnurag Singh is a freshman student studying computer science at UT Austin and is an avid readerof news. He also is part of KVRX, the radio station at the University, and is the host of Not FakeNews, a news program on the station.Leave a commentA Calm Conversation on NetNeutralityMar 29Into The Jungle, Or: The Charade ofStudent GovernmentThe Texas Orator is a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed political publication that was founded and is maintained byUniversity of Texas at Austin students. We value thorough analysis in our articles and strive to protect theideals of free speech and unhindered access to information on campus and nationwide. We seek to keep thestudent body informed of the implications of ever-changing political climates, both domestically and abroad,from a range of voices and perspectives.Join Our CommunitySubscribe to our weekly newsletter!Email Address  SUBMITD O N A T EPowered by Squarespace

My Take on Net Neutrality and the FCC

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/2152/64604/2/www-thetexasorator-com-blog-2018-2-22-my-take-on-net-neutrality-and-the-fcc.pdf

My Take on Net Neutrality and the FCC

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas ScholarWorks