Today, AT&T filed reply comments on the FCC’s proposal to restore the longstanding, bipartisan consensus that internet access service is an information service, a status that it enjoyed for all but two of the past 20 years. Opponents of returning internet access service to that status make no attempt to balance the costs and benefits of the overbroad and intrusive regulation that they favor, and assume that the alternative to Title II is no oversight at all. That is not the case. Virtually all internet service providers (ISPs) have made clear they do not oppose rules on blocking, throttling and transparency.
Some of the groups that oppose the FCC’s proposal have badly misled the public about what is at stake in this proceeding. They claim, nonsensically, that if the Commission reclassified internet services, ISPs will “block websites and content,” “shut down blogs,” or take away access to “email, banking, social media, music, or anything that requires the internet.”
Not surprisingly, those claims have garnered significant attention in the media and interest among portions of the public. But the concerns they have evoked are wholly misplaced. Nothing in the history of broadband remotely suggests that Title II regulation is necessary to ensure an open internet. While Title II proponents argue otherwise by pointing to a tiny number of alleged “incidents” during the past decade, most of these incidents are described in a misleading fashion and all of them were fully addressed without Title II. Other practices cited by the proponents of Title II, such as zero-rating, are unambiguously beneficial to consumers. Thus, far from demonstrating a need for Title II, the only conclusion that can be drawn from two decades of experience is that a light touch approach is more than sufficient to ensure an open internet. Indeed, the internet has flourished during this time in part because of the absence of Title II for all but the past two years.
There is good reason why that is so. As we explain today, broadband competition is more than adequate to protect consumers. Proponents of Title II claim otherwise, but they base their claim on a rhetorical sleight of hand that understates competition for fixed broadband by arbitrarily excluding any service below 25 Mbps, while ignoring the growing impact of mobile broadband services. In fact, they don’t even address mobile broadband competition when arguing that mobile services, as well as fixed, should be subject to Title II. They further rely on the analytically unsupported and economically incoherent “gatekeeper” theory from the FCC’s 2015 order, according to which every ISP, no matter how small, has monopoly power.
According to its supporters, Title II is necessary to support a flat ban on the never-observed practice of “paid prioritization.” Such a categorical ban is at best premature, given that there are literally no examples of this practice. But to the extent that prioritization services ever do develop, they may provide substantial consumer benefits and pose no risk to the open internet. Indeed, as we stand on the threshold of vast advancements in internet-driven health, prosperity and education innovation, a flat ban could undercut these initiatives or stop them dead in their tracks.
We also explain that there is no need for government intervention in internet interconnection arrangements that could justify Title II. Free market dynamics have operated for decades in this area to bring about efficient interconnection. Most importantly, there is no rational explanation for the peculiar approach taken by the Wheeler FCC, under which one party to an interconnection arrangement may be subject to Title II, while the other party is not.
Our reply comments conclude with an examination of the costs of Title II regulation. Economic theory as well as a growing body of empirical studies indicate that Title II has likely depressed broadband investment. The contrary “studies” done by Free Press and the Internet Association are riddled with empirical and logical flaws, as we demonstrate today.
One final note on the millions of mass-produced comments filed with the FCC and touted by opponents of the Commission’s proposal. Most of those appear to us to be fraudulent. Millions of comments were generated using phony email addresses. Millions of others were generated using duplicative email or physical addresses. And still others originated overseas. Consider this: nearly 450,000 comments were filed using Russian addresses, all but four in support of Title II regulation of internet services. While Title II proponents may claim that millions of consumers representing the large majority of commenters support Title II, in fact, most of these comments were not legitimate. And when only legitimate comments are considered, the large majority of commenters oppose Title II regulation of internet access.
The FCC should restore the information service classification that has applied to internet access for all but the past two years. It will foster innovation and investment in broadband infrastructure without creating any threat to internet freedoms.
It would seem that your views on this are largely out of touch with millions of Americans who are concerned that without net neutrality laws, ever fewer corporations have fewer incentives to keep open access a priority.
Your specious arguments that service under 25 mbps for example shouldn’t be excluded tells us that you’ve lost touch of what that means. Rural America and historically underserved minority communities are those you serve ‘broadband’ to and qualify this as 1.5mbps. Try living on that. Normal bandwidth usage and limited hotspot access rights means mobile access isn’t generally a financially reasonable alternative. This posting is just empty in so many ways. But of course you don’t actually care.
Demonstrably and verifiably false nonsense. You should be embarrassed by this amateurish attempt at spin.
Hahahaha:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/att-absurdly-claims-that-most-legitimate-net-neutrality-comments-favor-repeal/?comments=1
article on this ludicrous blog post from you Joan…
My comment was real, my opinion is valid. And the simple fact is that corporations do not care about me, or my family, or my community. Corporations only care about money and how to make more of it. I am for the Title II protections because it keeps all of the above using an internet that can not be censored unlike this blog and my inconvenient post.
By the way, I am also an AT&T customer. And so may be, if my business is so valuable to your company, then why haven’t you invested more to deploy fiber to the Silicon Valley? Why did I have to change over to Comcast so my wife, who has Fibromyalgia, could work from home and my kids do homework for school in the net? Why was your DSL so far behind the curve?
Welcome to the inconvenient truth…you do not care about us. Only how much you can get out of us matters. Yeah this post is not seeing the light of day and I know it. Good censoring of my speech…may be you all should complain less since your house is made of glass.
You’re a bunch of liars. I hope you feel sick of yourself and the rights you’re infringing on every time you pay your bills.
Wow. Disgusting lies and propaganda. Definitely won’t be doing business with AT&T.
Net neutrality prohibits throttling, creation of “favored customer” fast lanes, blocking of sites that don’t conform to at&t’s preference or cannot meet at&t’s price and pricing that favors higher-paying customers in general works against my best interests. I am not a robot. Send me trash mail at your peril. Even once.
Hey so, agree to disagree? I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about this. Want to wager a bet about if those comments are real or not? Are you scared they might be? Does that hurt your corporate agenda? So sorry. Maybe don’t be so greedy?
And what about the FAKE comments written by bots that are anti-net neutrality. You are a liar, your company is a rip off. You should be ashamed of yourselves but you’re not. You are pathetic, you are trying to destroyed net neutrality so that you can double dip and charge both your customers more and the content providers. You are pathetic for even thinking that this post was a good idea.
I highly doubt this comment will even be put forward because you’ll just censor dissenting opinions which is what you really want to be able to do by gutting net neutrality, you want to be a wall and pick winners and losers in a digital environment. You are bad for small business. You are not for the Open Internet, you are for an internet controlled and curated by the current ISPs. There’s a reason why people want other choices other than the big 5 ISPs and that’s because the big 5 are CROOKS.
Shame on you, liar!
I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
I have been a customer of yours for over 20 years. You are lying. Disgraceful.
These are lies, plain and simple. You are a liar and your company would rather ignore millions of people than give up the right to tax us for data. Get it through your heads: Net Neutrality is the popular choice.
From the article that sent me here, which references data and research on the comments about Net Neutrality:
“1.6 million filings appear to have “originated from individuals that took the time to type a personalized comment.” Of those, 1.52 million were against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to repeal the current Title II net neutrality rules, while just 23,000 were in favor of repeal.”
1.52 out of 1.6 unique comments *OPPOSE* the plans to repeal net neutrality – yet you still have the gall to claim that the majority of people support it’s repeal? Based on what information? The dollar signs rolling past your eyeballs cartoon-style don’t count as a legitimate source. This post is one big, fat, transparent lie, and you should be ashamed of it.
Does it hurt your soul to lie this transparently? Or does your paycheck fill the hole where your soul should have been?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/att-absurdly-claims-that-most-legitimate-net-neutrality-comments-favor-repeal/
Wow that’s a lot of lies and straw men in one place. You did a really good job wildly misrepresenting the concerns consumers have about your company.
Hey, speaking of all that “more than adequate” competition, remember when you sued the city of Louisville to try to control its public rights of way and ensure new ISPs couldn’t attach to telephone poles? That was right about the time Google Fiber was trying to get into the market. I seem to remember freedom-loving incumbent ISPs doing something similar in Kansas City and Chattanooga, too.
As for the legitimate comments being opposed to Title II, you have got to be kidding. Everyone knows that isn’t the case, and everyone can see the conflict of interest here.
You are a liar. Shame on you. I’m so glad I’m not an AT&T customer.
You are not representing my interests effectively. As a customer, you’re going to pay for this.
Your company funded hackers who stole public data on citizens and posted, in alphabetical order (blatantly obvious, incompetently so) comments favoring your company’s position. The time has come for accountability. Stand by.
This is just not true. With a platform like this you have responsibility to not misrepresent the sentiment of actual public comment (~99 to 1 in favor of regulating the internet as a Title II public utility). When you look back on your life and career, will you be able to say you made a positive impact on society? Intellectual dishonesty is not going to help.
Att better remove the comment section. It’s going to get rough.
Did you previously work for a tobacco company or something, or maybe Exxon? I expect better from AT&T to be honest. I am an AT&T Wireless, DirecTV, and Fiber customer, mostly because I have no better choices, although this anti-internet freedom policy you are pursuing really makes me question whether I should remain one.
Here’s a “legitimate comment” for you. You’re lying about how customers feel about net neutrality to justify gouging us in the future by removing it. I WANT NET NEUTRALITY, AND I WANT YOU TO LOSE YOUR JOB, LIAR.
You don’t get to be Donald Trump. You don’t get to just say any facts you want are “fake” if they don’t agree with what you want, you unhinged sociopath.
Hmm, funny how even with pre-moderated comments there isn’t a single comment in support of your view here, Joan. Are all these comments here illegitimate? I can tell you I’m a real boy, and really disagree with your assumptions.
Deplorable and sad. Let me guess, all of the comments here are fake too? No, you’re feeding into your own lies to fill a pocket. I was on the fence about AT&T, but now they will NEVER have my buisness.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/isp-funded-study-finds-huge-support-for-keeping-current-net-neutrality-rules/
98.5% of unique comments oppose killing net neutrality
I agree with your statements addressing the concerns of those supporting Title II regulations. AT&T has found clever phrasing and techniques to operate with the appearance of adhering to Net Neutrality. There is a gross disconnect between Net Neutrality and the kinds of consumer protections that Title II can provide, so proponents of Title II need to stop making up doomsday censorship scenarios and focus on the real problems that can come about with the lack of strong regulatory oversight.
One look at your mobile broadband packages can quickly point out that you are limiting access to online services that do not operate with special agreements with AT&T, such as sponsored data. No, AT&T is not offering fast lanes, they’re just offering slow lanes for companies that can’t pay the “sponsored data” tax to access AT&T subscribers. Now AT&T can vehemently deny paid prioritizatiom while severely degrading service for competing content providers. We need Title II to stand up to this
This is entirely disingenuous and specious. Clearly, In a study paid for by the broadband industry, the majority of unique, real comments to the FCC during the public comment period outweigh the comments against by ~98.5%. Title II protections benefit customers. Please look at Mexico for an example of an internet industry unregulated by Title II. Everything is basically too costly for average citizens.
You mention that the internet was unregulated by Title II for 18 of the last 20 years and that is true. What you don’t mention is that it was unnecessary for those regulations during that time because consumers and businesses were both learning how to both use and monetize it. When monetization started coming at the expense of consumers, the FCC wisely (with a great outcry from the public) decided that internet communications needed Title II protections because of the need for equal access for all. That is why it is regulated as a communication, rather than an “information service.”
“Our reply comments conclude with an examination of the costs of Title II regulation. Economic theory as well as a growing body of empirical studies indicate that Title II has likely depressed broadband investment. The contrary “studies” done by Free Press and the Internet Association are riddled with empirical and logical flaws, as we demonstrate today.”
Source this please…Do your job.
There are two types of members of the general public who have an opinion about Net Neutrality:
1. Those who support it.
2. Those who don’t understand it.
Net Neutrality is the 1st amendment of the Internet, and your arguments here are completely ridiculous. Look at your *own* comment section on this article and you will see massive support for it.
Of course maybe in response you’ll hire some trolls to try and drown out support; it’s absolutely shameful that a company is so arrogant to try to drown out the voices of their customers rather than listen to them and address their concerns.