Who Should Decide the Fate of Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality advocates held yet another Day of Action this week in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s removal of Title II designation of the internet last year. The activists want Congress to pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to bring back Title II.
In the midst of this debate, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) has outlined what he calls a “net neutrality compromise.” The Colorado Republican plans to introduce legislation that will “put in place common-sense rules of the road that will ensure the Internet is an open, competitive place for people to do business.”
Coffman said the frequent waffling at the FCC — where the rules governing broadband service continuously swing back and forth depending on which party is in power — is leaving businesses and consumers confused. The FCC, now led by Republican Ajit Pai, overturned new rules put in place in 2015 under former Democratic head Tom Wheeler that critics said were inhibiting innovation and broadband expansion. “The internet is too important to leave to unelected bureaucrats,” Coffman said in remarks earlier this month at the Internet and Competitive Networks Association (INCOMPAS) Policy Summit. “Frequent regulatory fluctuations are not good for internet providers nor for those who rely on it for business or personal use. It is time for Congress to act.”
Coffman’s bill would prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking content, throttling speeds, and establishing paid prioritization. It also would require ISPs to be transparent in their network management practices so that consumers can best decide which applications or websites they wish to use, not a third party. Finally, the bill would end the Title I versus Title II debate, placing broadband internet access services under its own new classification.
Coffman’s proposal comes on the heels of several efforts to undermine the FCC’s decision, at both the federal and state levels. Congressional Democrats have proposed using the CRA to reinstate the FCC’s reclassification of ISPs under Title II, effectively resurrecting net neutrality. (President Trump said he’d veto the CRA if it made it to his desk.) And more than 20 blue-state attorneys general have sued the FCC for overturning the Title II rules. Finally, a few Democratic governors are attempting to require ISPs who do business with their states to comply with the vacated federal rules.
TechFreedom President Berin Szoka has called the CRA “a distraction from substantive legislation,” pointing out that Wheeler’s efforts to rewrite Title II show how poorly the 1934 law served as a tool for regulating the new technology.
As for Coffman’s proposal, “this shouldn’t be controversial,” Szoka said. He explained:
Both parties have come to the table at one time or another with legislative proposals for enforcing neutrality principles. It’s time for both sides to come together to work out the details and put the internet on stable, consistent regulatory footing. Absent substantive legislation, the regulatory status of broadband will continue to oscillate wildly depending on which party runs the FCC. That uncertainty will necessarily chill the investment needed to bring broadband to all Americans.
TechFreedom joined a lawsuit against the FCC for its 2015 order. And while it applauds Pai for renouncing the overreach of the commission he now chairs, the group noted that “Pai can’t stop future chairmen from reclaiming broad power over the internet. Only Congress or the Supreme Court can do that.”
According to Tom Struble, technology policy manager for the R Street Institute, it’s noteworthy that Coffman’s announcement came at the INCOMPAS Policy Summit. Coffman was likely invited to speak at the event because he, like INCOMPAS, was a vocal opponent of the FCC’s 2017 Restore Internet Freedom Order that rolled back Wheeler’s rules. But while most in attendance likely expected the congressman to support the CRA, he threw them a curveball. Nevertheless, Struble thinks Coffman is being perfectly consistent and rational.
“Rep. Coffman, like many others — including myself — wants Congress to resolve the net neutrality debate once and for all,” Struble said. “That means codifying strong and enforceable net neutrality principles into law, while allowing administrative agencies … significant, but not unlimited, discretion to interpret and apply those principles.” He continued:
Passing the CRA wouldn’t do that, and it would likely delay the necessary congressional action from passing — since Democrats would have little, if anything, left to bargain for if the 2015 order is restored. So, it would actually be counterproductive to Rep. Coffman’s stated goal.
In addition to Coffman’s proposal, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has also introduced a bill that would prevent blocking and internet traffic throttling, while leaving the possibility of paid prioritization in place. It would also require ISPs to be classified as Title I information service providers, leaving them under the jurisdiction of the FTC instead of the FCC.
Both Reps. Coffman and Blackburn have offered viable compromises to ensure an open internet without heavy-handed government regulation. Lawmakers should heed them; the future of the internet is at stake.
Johnny Kampis is investigative reporter for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation.
