The passing of a federal Net Neutrality law under President Obama was a relief but it was short-lived because in June of 2018 The Federal Communications Commission repealed it. The FCC Chairman at that time was Ajit Pai who, prior to working for the FCC, was the Associate General Counsel for Verizon Communications, one of the largest ISPs in the United States. While that made him qualified to work at the FCC, it would be improbable that he could be unbiased towards ISPs like Verizon.

When the FCC under Pai was considering repealing Net Neutrality, they asked for public comments via their website. While many commenters were opposed to repealing it, there were a surprising number of comments from apparently ordinary citizens in support of a repeal. If you’re scratching your head trying to come up with a plausible explanation as to why an average American would support repealing something as directly beneficial to them as Net Neutrality, you’re not alone.

The State of New York Attorney General’s office just announced that after a multi-year investigation they discovered that a group called Broadband for America, whose membership consisted of many of the nation’s biggest ISPs, spent millions of dollars on lead-generation services that were generating millions of fake comments in support of the repeal and posting them on the FCC’s website. Even if then FCC Chairman Pai was trying to be objective, it would be have been easy to be swayed by millions of comments that appeared to be from ordinary citizens all mysteriously supporting the repeal.

Hopefully this will result in a sea change in support for reinstatement of Net Neutrality. This truly is the most consequential fight of our lifetimes because the level playing field provided by the Internet is what allows not only innovation but also our voices, be they from the wealthy or those of limited means, be they from the majority or a minority, to reach the ears of like-minded individuals. This freedom, not just to speak but the chance to be heard, was so important to our Founding Fathers that they made it the very first amendment to the United States Constitution. If they could have somehow foreseen the creation of the Internet, I’m certain our Founding Fathers who have built even stronger protections into that most important of amendments.

You can still make a difference. You can make your voice heard on this issue by calling your representatives in Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to urge them to support Net Neutrality. They are not contacted as often as you might think which means your voice can have an oversized impact upon the issue. Contact them today and be a part of ensuring that the Internet remains a place of freedom and equality for all.

California recently passed its own Net Neutrality law. This is a big deal because Internet providers cannot realistically apply one set of standards to traffic in California and a different set everywhere else. California is big enough that it can effectively influence legislation on a national level. It did this in 1966 when the state established the first tailpipe emissions standards, which resulted in all cars sold throughout the US having catalytic convertors. When California passes a law affecting companies that do business across the United States, it can change how those companies operate in all states.

The FCC knows this and promptly filed a law suit against the state of California. The argument from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is that because the Internet doesn’t recognize boundaries between states, it’s an interstate system and clearly falls under the authority of the FCC. That’s not an unreasonable argument. The Internet is not just interstate, it’s global. However, we do have a precedence when it comes to the Internet and how the law views it when it comes to individual states. Traditionally when you made a purchase from a company in a state other than the one in which you live, no state sales tax was collected. (The exception being when the company from whom you purchased happened to have a presence in your state as well.) But the ubiquity of Internet shopping has reduced sales tax revenue, resulting in several states passing legislation requiring Internet retailers to collect sales tax. While I have sympathy for the state’s loss of revenue, I whole-heartedly disagree that changing the interstate sales tax rules at this point makes no sense at all.

The fact is that some individual states have begun requiring some of the big Internet retailers to collect sales tax from customers in their states which means that, from a legislative point of view, the Internet very much does recognize state borders. The federal government didn’t raise a stink when states passed laws requiring the collection of sales tax by Internet retailers. Why would they? The Federal Government doesn’t collect sales tax. However, it would be contradictory to find it acceptable for states to require sales tax collection from Internet retailers but then tell those same states that they can’t regulate access to the Internet itself. The FCC cannot have its cake and eat it too. The FCC needs to determine if it will treat the Internet as interstate or not.

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly specifies that the only powers the Federal Government has are those outlined and specifically granted by the Constitution itself. The Founding Fathers believed that states should have the majority of the power. The Constitution was not so much designed to grant powers to the Federal Government as to in fact limit the powers of the Federal Government. This is an important distinction. It may be inconvenient for the FCC that the State of California has the right to pass its own Net Neutrality law but there is clear precedence for it.

I have said it before but it’s worth repeating: supply and demand in the free market is great at finding the right price except when there’s little or no choice and the product or service is one in which we all absolutely depend. I applaud the state of California for passing their Net Neutrality law. I hope they will not just be victorious in the FCC law suit but will also be the spark the lights a fire of Net Neutrality across the entire United States of America.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation said, you’re not going to see your Internet service suddenly slow to a crawl or block specific sites. It will be more of a steady decline. It’s like having terminal cancer. It won’t kill you tomorrow but it will eventually.

Fortunately, there are a lot of people that are not taking this lying down. There are 35 states enacting some kind of Net Neutrality-like legislation. It’s important to remember that this is exactly how the authors of the US Constitution meant things to work. Any powers not explicitly given to the federal government, belong to the states. The individual states are supposed to have the greater power. Having said that, the Internet is an incredibly important resource, a basic utility, and the Net Neutrality law was a necessary extra layer of protection at the national level that was and still is needed to keep the internet playing field level.

As I have mentioned before, in addition to Net Neutrality, we should be demanding that ISPs be required to sell access to their networks to others. This is what we did with AT&T after the Bell System was broken up in 1984. It resulted in more competition, innovation and lower prices. If ISPs were required to sell access, there would likely be far more ISPs and thus far more competition and innovation. If there’s enough competition, you might not even need as much regulation.

Your representatives do listen to those who reach out to them. When you call them, your voice is heard disproportionately to those of your fellow citizens because you took the time to reach out. This is important if you live in a state that has not enacted some kind of Net Neutrality legislation but also important in those that have. Let your representatives know they are doing the right thing. Contact them and spread the word to all those people around you about how important it is that we keep the Internet free from the abuses that are already beginning to appear.

This isn’t the first time a service or utility has evolved in this manner in the United States. The railroads, the telegraph and later telephone service were all networks that were developed in much the same way.

In 1963 a man named John Goeken was running a small company called Microwave Communications Incorporated when he applied for a license to set up radio repeaters between Chicago and St. Louis with the hopes of selling more radios to truckers. When his application was declined, he discovered that AT&T had a monopoly on such communications. He filed a lawsuit which eventually led to the breakup of the Bell System and the requirement that AT&T sell access to its network to other long distance providers such as Goeken’s company which became better know by its acronym, MCI. Since then long distance prices have dropped dramatically (effectively to zero for most people) and innovation increased substantially as well. In our history lies the solution.

The FCC should require cable and telecom companies to sell access to their networks to other companies that wish to provide internet access. That would potentially create significant competition (the FCC’s stated primary concern) which would drive down prices and drive up innovation just as we saw when that requirement was mandated to AT&T. Some states are beginning to pass their own Net Neutrality laws. That’s not a bad idea but what I’m suggesting is a better one, one that applies to the country as a whole and has a clear and successful historical precedent. Treat them like utilities and break up the monopolies. It’s what should have been done in the first place in addition to Net Neutrality. AT&T recently suggested that Congress should pass what they called an “Internet Bill of Rights”. While I applaud AT&T’s position, I’m also suspicious of it. Having the problem solved by Congress makes it easy for AT&T to concentrate its lobbying efforts in one place and thus having influence over the ultimate solution.

As we say here in Texas, this is not our first rodeo. We know the right solution because we’ve applied it before with great success. We now just need our legislators to have the political fortitude to do the right thing.

The FCC Chairman Ajit Pai believes that the regulation is unnecessary claiming that the Internet worked fine prior to the Net Neutrality rules. Ajit is not a stupid person. Having worked on regulatory issues and broadband initiatives at Verizon Communications, he knows full well that society is far more dependent upon the Internet than it ever was before. His claim is that the regulation is holding back competition and innovation. No evidence is presented to support this claim but it’s being made nonetheless. The central point of the claim is a specific definition of how the Internet works which TechCrunch has pointed out is flat out wrong. Many tech companies have come out publicly against repealing Net Neutrality. These are companies that can afford to pay for a fast lane but know how bad it would be for everyone except the ISPs themselves.

Competition is actually an area no one seems to be talking enough about. I’m lucky to have at least two options for Internet service (Spectrum and AT&T). In some parts of Austin there are four ISP options. So there’s some competition here in Austin depending on where you live. For many in other less tech-centric cities, however, there’s only a single provider. In other words there’s no competition at all. Is this because of Net Neutrality? No. It’s because of the very high cost of the last mile, the infrastructure needed to get Internet service to every home and office. All those cell towers and all that cabling down highways, streets and right up to your front door cost a lot of money to put into the ground. Many years ago, I wanted fiber brought just from the street in front of our office into our building. The cost for that was $15,000. In most cities early ISPs were willing to bare this financial burden knowing that they were effectively being granted a monopoly by the city in exchange for the investment.

Should the FCC overturn Net Neutrality, your ISP could choose to slow or speed up traffic however it wants. For example, AT&T could choose to slow traffic to Netflix which competes with AT&T’s Direct TV. If you’re a Netflix subscriber, this would be a bad thing and if AT&T is your only option for Internet Service, it’s not like you can vote with your dollars. You’re just stuck. Suddenly the Internet could go from a relatively level playing field to a pay-to-play model. The more you pay, the better the experience your customers will have at your website. Worse, if you don’t pay enough, your traffic could be slower. That’s a really nice website you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. That sure sounds like racketeering to me.

No evidence has been presented showing that Net Neutrality regulation is expensive to enforce. No evidence is presented showing competition or innovation being stifled as a result of Net Neutrality regulations. Arguments have been made that existing antitrust legislation and media pressure will keep the ISPs from becoming bad actors. There’s no evidence to support such a claim. However, after promising for years that it would not violate Net Neutrality and specifically paid prioritization (paid fast lanes), this past July Comcast backpedalled and is no longer making that promise.

Comcast is actually a great example of what happens when there’s no competition. Comcast has a terrible reputation for customer service. I know many people who have Comcast as their ISP because they have no other choice. For me, that’s a deal breaker. I depend too much on the Internet to be at the mercy of such a company. Given the choice, I’d prefer not to live in a place where Comcast was the only option. But looking at the map below, not very many Americans have any choice. The map, provided by the FCC, shows the areas where there are 2 or more carriers (blue), 1 carrier (green), the white is none.

It’s pretty clear that overturning Net Neutrality is not at all about competition and innovation. It’s about the fact that the large ISPs donate millions to various politicians reelection campaigns and now they expect to get what they paid for. If that doesn’t make clear the need for campaign finance reform, I don’t know what would. The FCC is going to vote on December 14th. You can make your voice heard on this subject by stating your opinion to the FCC via their website. Enter 17-108 into the Proceeding(s) field. Enter your full name into the Name(s) of Filer(s) field. You’ll need to provide your address as well. In the Brief Comments field I suggest you enter “I support Title 2 oversight of ISPs.”  This takes only a few minutes so it’s well worth your time. The more people they hear from, the harder it will be to vote in favor of the repeal.

Then President Obama appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC at the suggestion of Senator Mitch McConnell. That should have been a big red flag and I’m sure President Obama now deeply regrets that decision. Help make a difference and make your voice heard today.

For more see: We’ve Done This Before: A Net Neutrality Solution