trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/CSdhHDGqBcSI8GETDmn_-w2 content esgSubNav
In This List

Cable industry heads try to calm net neutrality concerns before FCC vote

Blog

Volume of Investment Research Reports on Inflation Increased in Q4 2021

Blog

Price wars in India: Disney+ Hotstar vs. Amazon Prime Video vs. Netflix

Blog

Using ESG Analysis to Support a Sustainable Future

Podcast

Next in Tech | Episode 48: The everything that is Industrial IoT


Cable industry heads try to calm net neutrality concerns before FCC vote

A day before the Federal Communications Commission's expected vote aimed at overhauling net neutrality regulations, leaders from the cable industry came out to defend the regulatory maneuver against claims it will destroy internet freedom.

Speaking during a Dec. 13 conference call with reporters, Michael Powell, president and CEO of NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, said consumers, businesses, nonprofits and educational institutions would not see any meaningful change in their internet service following the FCC's Dec. 14 vote.

Powell stressed the order will not result in operators suppressing content or created walled gardens where only their own affiliated content is featured. "ISPs … make a lot of money on an open internet. They have discovered over decades of providing these services that an open internet model is much more profitable than a closed internet model," Powell said.

Powell's comments come as the FCC prepares to overturn the Open Internet Order of 2015, which classified broadband as a Title II service under the Communications Act, giving the FCC the necessary regulatory authority to enforce its net neutrality rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order, which the commission is expected to narrowly approve Dec. 14, would move broadband to a Title I service, giving the FCC less authority to regulate internet service providers, and would also eliminate the bright-line net neutrality rules. Instead, operators will be subject to a transparency rule requiring them to disclose if and when they block, throttle or prioritize internet traffic.

Comcast Corp. also reiterated its commitment to a free and open internet. In a Dec. 13 blog post, Comcast Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer David Cohen said the FCC's vote "is not the end of net neutrality," adding that the company "will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. These fundamental tenets of net neutrality are also key components of our core network and business practices — they govern how we run our Internet business."

Powell's and Cohen's comments come in response to concerns that various internet organizations and consumer interest groups have raised. On Dec. 8, for instance, more than 30 press freedom, civil liberties and open government groups submitted a letter to Pai arguing that his proposal "would give entrenched media, cable and telecom companies like AT&T [Inc.], Comcast, and Verizon [Communications Inc.] life-and-death control over the voices and businesses of independent news gatherers. It would give them unfettered power over our viewers and readers, potentially blocking not just what people can see on any single website or powerful online platform, but what they can find anywhere online."

One point the two sides may be able to agree upon is that after the FCC's Dec. 14 vote, Congress may feel some pressure to take up the question of net neutrality. Powell said the cable industry would support legislation that bans blocking and throttling and includes "reasonable" restrictions on paid prioritization.

Powell and Cohen stressed that Pai's proposed order is not about restricting anyone's access to internet content. Rather, they said the move away from a Title II regime is it gives the FCC too much regulatory authority. Technically, the FCC has the authority to unbundle last-mile facilities, impose tariffs or set rate regulations on Title II services. As part of the 2015 Open Internet Order, the FCC said it would forbear from exercising that authority for a "light-touch" approach for the use of Title II.

But Powell said Title II allows the FCC to regulate "virtually every single facet of internet service delivery." This regulatory model, he said, "throws off the enormously powerful innovation engine that has been in internet for 20 years."

Cohen, too, claimed the Title II classification has created a "regulatory overhang" that has "slowed the pace of advancement" in the broadband marketplace.

In their Dec. 8 letter, however, the various open internet groups disputed this rationale, arguing: "The current rules pose no threat to innovation and investment. ... These companies are still investing in better and faster networks, undeterred by either the rules or the legal framework you intend to discard."