HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »
HideLast Call: Our Black Friday weekend sale ends tonight! Shop now to save on all Techdirt gear »
The Tech Policy Greenhouse is an online symposium where experts tackle the most difficult policy challenges facing innovation and technology today. These are problems that don't have easy solutions, where every decision involves tradeoffs and unintended consequences, so we've gathered a wide variety of voices to help dissect existing policy proposals and better inform new ones.

A Tale of Two Titles

from the correct-the-record dept

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a reliable broadband connection is a health and safety necessity. Families need the internet to connect to remote work, virtual classrooms, election information and telehealth care while maintaining social distance.

But roughly 60 percent of low-income parents say their students will experience digital obstacles when attending online school this fall — including 40 percent who say they will have to seek out public WiFi because they don’t have a reliable internet connection at home. And students aren’t the only ones who need internet access to learn, work and thrive at home — at all times, but especially now.

More than half of all low-income internet users say they are worried about paying their internet and cellphone bills during this crisis. And we know that even before the pandemic, the digital divide disproportionately impacted poorer families and people of color due to high prices and systemic racism (in sectors like credit, banking and housing) that depresses internet adoption too. These are the same communities bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 health and economic crises in all aspects of life.

Yet FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and his industry-lobbyist friends say U.S.broadband networks are responding well to the pressures of the pandemic, all thanks to Pai’s ideology and radically deregulatory agenda. To support this counter-intuitive notion that everything’s going great, they point to the FCC’s tremendously unpopular decision to toss away its authority over broadband service, scrapping broadband’s common-carrier status under Title II of the Communications Act and all the legal tools and protections that law provides.

Their twisted logic suggests that the Obama-era FCC’s decision to properly classify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II somehow burdened internet providers, leading to stifled broadband deployment and less robust infrastructure. They claim that since Pai got rid of Title II, U.S. internet providers have been motivated to invest more heavily, and consequently have been better able to withstand the stress of increased traffic as COVID-19 has driven more of our daily lives online. And they claim that U.S. networks have fared far better than have European networks, which Pai and friends describe as more heavily regulated.

The only trouble with these claims is that they’re plainly false, in every respect.

First, there’s scant evidence to suggest that U.S. networks responded materially better than others to the pressures of increased usage at home during the pandemic. A report by Cisco-owned ThousandEyes found that broadband networks across the North American, European and Asian Pacific regions all did fairly well with increased traffic loads, and that North America actually experienced one of the highest spikes in broadband outages as lockdowns and stay-at-home orders swept the region in March.

Independent researchers in the United States saw much the same result: a mixed bag at best. Speeds ticked up in some cases, based on tests run by internet users themselves. But more counties and states saw slower median speeds by the end of March, with everyone staying at home, than they had seen at the end of February before the nation started to shut down.

On the other hand, even the research touted by the USTelecom lobby suggests that speeds in the United States and the European Union dipped early on in the pandemic, and then recovered on both sides of the Atlantic as carriers added more capacity.

But cherry-picking data and blowing their conclusion out of proportion is just one of the many sins committed by Chairman Pai and his industry backers. The bigger sin is when they outright get the performance data and the causes for that performance all wrong, as they do with this FCC’s preposterous claim that the agency’s regulatory choices are the primary drivers of broadband-network investment and performance. That is, Pai and company don’t just blur and misstate the numbers; they take false credit for anything they see as a positive trend and ignore any bad news altogether.

As our research at Free Press has shown time and time again, broadband investment and deployment have nothing to do with the fight over Title II. Specifically, there is no evidence to suggest that Title II depressed investment — or that repealing it boosted investment.

Let’s look at the facts.

When fighting strong open internet rules as a commissioner in 2015, and then repealing them when he became Chairman after Trump won, Pai has always claimed that Title II stifles broadband investment. Yet aggregate capital expenditures actually increased during the two-year period when strong Net Neutrality rules and Title II authority were in place. Since Pai’s Title II repeal, aggregate investment has subsequently declined.

Aggregate investment is a bad metric, because it oversimplifies important details about expenditures made by individual firms. However, since Chairman Pai still insists on using incorrect calculations of this metric, it’s worthwhile to set the record straight — and to hold him to the same test he’s tried to use for his predecessors.

Plus, we see the same patterns of increased investment under Title II, and decreased investment after its repeal, when we look at the stories of individual firms. In fact, approximately 92 percent of the fiber deployments made since 2017 — for which Chairman Pai is so eager to take credit — were actually planned and announced during the Title II era. The same is overwhelmingly true for high-speed cable deployments made during Pai’s tenure.

The reality, as internet providers have repeatedly told their investors, is that other factors (like demand, competition and tax treatment) have a far greater impact on companies’ broadband investments than broadband’s regulatory classification as a Title I or a Title II service has.

So Chairman Pai is often taking credit for imaginary deployment gains, or else for expected improvements that he only imagines he caused.

If we look past Pai’s happy talk and his lies about broadband-investment impacts, we can see how the loss of Title II authority has actually harmed internet users during the COVID-19 pandemic. If the Trump FCC hadn’t gone ahead with its ill-advised repeal, the Commission would have had many more tools to get and keep people connected, both during and after the crisis.

Without the tools needed to mandate continuous, just and reasonable service during an unprecedented economic crisis, the centerpiece of the FCC’s response was its voluntary “Keeping Americans Connected” pledge, which called on internet providers to temporarily suspend their data caps, open Wi-Fi hotspots and stop service disconnections for people who couldn’t pay their bills due to the pandemic.

While this pledge was certainly a positive move, it was also toothless, unenforceable and — in the end — temporary. After only two months, Chairman Pai decided that even this inconsistently applied, spotty and voluntary pledge was too burdensome for internet providers.

With Title II, we could have faced the pandemic head on by outright prohibiting disconnections instead of meekly asking ISPs not to cut people off. And the FCC could have strengthened and modernized its Lifeline program, built on a strong legal foundation. That program offers low-income families a modest subsidy to make basic communications services more affordable. By scrapping Title II, this FCC jeopardized its legal authority to extend that subsidy to cover broadband services in the long run, and in the short term largely sat on its hands rather than exploring ways to make the program more useful to people who are disconnected or running out of data.

The D.C. Circuit court also highlighted this authority pitfall in its remand of portions of Chairman Pai’s Title II repeal order — but just this month, the FCC announced it’s planning to stick to its guns. Pai’s latest proposal said that even if a court decided the agency could not use Lifeline to cover broadband without Title II authority, the FCC’s Republican majority would be fine with that. They’d rather kill Lifeline for broadband at a time when record numbers of people are out of work and struggling to afford their internet bills.

In a pandemic, internet connectivity is a life-and-death issue, and it’s one this administration has failed to address. Chairman Pai’s Title II repeal didn’t set the industry up for a strong COVID-19 network response: It just left marginalized people high and dry during a historic crisis without protections from exorbitant broadband prices and corporate abuses.

It’s high time we got the facts straight about Title II and started using all the tools at our disposal to bridge this unconscionable divide.

Dana Floberg is the policy manager for digital-rights group Free Press.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, title ii


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    ECA (profile), 11 Nov 2020 @ 12:36pm

    Can we ask.

    How the rich like paying tons of money, IF they have it?
    I would think the rich would love to save money also.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Genuine Wright's Kitty-Hawk Soup, 11 Nov 2020 @ 1:16pm

    FIRST FACT about "net neutrality" is that GOOGLE and FACEBOOK

    bought special privileges from the Obama Administration.

    It's high time we got the facts straight about Title II and started using all the tools at our disposal to bridge this unconscionable divide.

    Now, "unconscionable" even if true isn't going to magically deliver broadband to everyone, especially not rural.

    But to start doing so, let's TAX GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK that inordinately profit for delivering almost nothing actual, just plaster parasitic advertising everywhere. A major purpose of corporations (which are mere money-machines) is to gather money for the gov't so that then civic good can be done for The People.

    But YOUR notion of fixing "unconscionable" would start by handing privileges back to vastly rich mega-corporations.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      You're a Gazelle! (profile), 11 Nov 2020 @ 2:06pm

      Re: FIRST FACT about "net neutrality" is that GOOGLE and FACEBOO

      Yep. another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory made without proof. Not enough of that going around the net these days...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      mattfwood (profile), 12 Nov 2020 @ 10:23am

      Re: FIRST FACT about "net neutrality" is that GOOGLE and FACEBOO

      In what way does Net Neutrality especially benefit any website over others, and where's your proof that Google and Facebook "bought" such benefits?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Genuine Wright's Kitty-Hawk Soup, 11 Nov 2020 @ 1:18pm

    (2nd comment being blocked, removed subject line...)

    Plainly false? You then HEDGE on every instance!

    The only trouble with these claims is that they're plainly false, in every respect.

    First, there's scant evidence to suggest

    a mixed bag at best. Speeds ticked up in some cases,

    "Scant" and "mixed bag" also cut against YOUR asserting. You cite no evidence that's "plainly true", just rant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Genuine Wright's Kitty-Hawk Soup, 11 Nov 2020 @ 1:19pm

      Re: (2nd comment being blocked, removed subject line...)

      Again, Techdirt's wacky whatever -- I can hardly call it a system when appears random -- blocked me until changed subject lines. Several tries using that first didn't go in, but the other did.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      mattfwood (profile), 12 Nov 2020 @ 10:27am

      Re: (2nd comment being blocked, removed subject line...)

      False in every respect refers to all of the claims Pai makes, described in the paragraph above. But thanks for reading, and for your reading comprehension no matter how poor it is.

      Here's one of the many longer pieces linked to above, in case clicking the hyperlinks was too hard, where we explain that the factual claims Pai makes are wrong, but so too are the causation he claims.

      https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/2020-09/free_press_2020_section_706_inquiry_co mments.pdf

      So yes, showing that speed decreases and increases during the pandemic were at best uneven is proving "plainly false" Pai's assertion that US speeds (1) uniformly went up, (2) BECAUSE of his actions.

      That's not hedging, that's logic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Salvatorel (profile), 12 Nov 2020 @ 9:02pm

    How is that title not reflective of the article content?

    "It's simply not true that fuel taxes cost low-income families more," Twyford said. "The figures show that the lowest-income families will be paying only a half or even a third as much as those on the highest incomes." https://krogerfeedback.bid/

    Kind of sounds like he's saying that based on the released data the fuel tax won't be regressive

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt

The Tech Policy Greenhouse
is a special project by Techdirt,
with support from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.