Net Neutrality Under Threat In India

from the just-the-start dept

We recently reported on extraordinarily wide-ranging censorship imposed on Internet users in India. That's rather obscured another story that's been playing out there: an attempt to undermine net neutrality in the country. Here's how it began (via Slashdot):

Bharti Airtel Ltd, India's largest telecommunications carrier by subscribers, will soon start charging users extra money for using services such as Skype as Indian operators look to boost their data network and revenues.

According to the company website, internet or data plans that give customers discounted rates will only be valid for internet browsing and will exclude Voice over IP services (VoIP).

VoIP services include those such as Skype, Line and Viber that typically let users make free calls through the internet.

That's a clear attack on the principle that all IP packets should be treated equally, and prompted the creation of the site Net Neutrality India to raise awareness of what's at stake, as well as vague promises from the Indian government to "look into it." Shortly afterwards, Airtel took the hint that its move was not going down well, reported here by Medianama:

Bharti Airtel has issued a statement that it is withdrawing the launch of its VoIP packs, given that the TRAI [Telecom Regulatory Authority of India] has issued a statement that it will issue a consultation paper on issues relating to “services offered by OTT [Over-The-Top] players including VOIP."

Here's part of Airtel's statement:

We have no doubt that as a result of the consultation process a balanced outcome would emerge that would not only protect the interests of all stakeholders and viability of this important sector but would also encourage much needed investments in spectrum and roll out of data networks to fulfil the objective of digital India.

That's a standard position for telecom operators around the world, which claim that killing net neutrality is necessary to "encourage much needed investments" -- as if companies wouldn't invest in their networks anyway. Unfortunately, Airtel's optimism that TRAI will bless its anti-net neutrality moves is echoed by the Net Neutrality India site, which warns:

Though Airtel backed off, we should not forget that TRAI looks pro-operator. Regarding Airtel, they simply said that it violates net neutrality but is not illegal.

We need solid regulations for this. TRAI will start the consultation soon about the issue.

Clearly, the battle for net neutrality in India is about to begin in earnest.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: india, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: bharti airtel, skype

White House Finally Takes Aim At A Decade Of Ridiculous Protectionist State Community Broadband Laws

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept

For many, many more years than I'd like, I've argued that if we want to even begin to fix U.S. broadband, we need to start by taking a look at the awful, protectionist laws passed in nearly two-dozen states that hinder or outright ban communities from improving their own broadband infrastructure, even in cases where private industry has refused to. These laws, in nearly every instance written by ISP lawyers, also frequently hinder towns and cities from cooperating in public/private partnerships in areas particularly harmed by broadband market failure. They're often passed under the pretense that companies like Comcast, AT&T, CenturyLink or Time Warner Cable are just extra super worried about the American taxpayer.

For the second time in as many months, Obama has again poured a little gasoline on the FCC and a hot-button broadband conversation topic after belatedly calling for Title II reclassification back in November. This week The White House released a report (pdf) throwing the President's full support behind a push to kill off these awful laws, while pressuring the FCC to do the same. The report highlights how community broadband is the perfect tonic for market failure, and a great place to start in terms of improving lagging, uncompetitive U.S. networks:

"In markets where private competition is anemic, whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer competitive access to the private sector, as Scott County, MN has done. Or municipalities can provide service directly to consumers, like in Chattanooga, TN. In either case, municipalities are creating more choices for consumers, fostering competition and creating opportunities for economic growth. Municipal broadband is often a logical choice for towns and cities that are already served by a municipal electric utility, since infrastructure costs can be shared across those two services, just as private cable companies leveraged their networks to provide Internet service."

Back in July, FCC boss Tom Wheeler responded to petitions from several community-run ISPs (pdf) by stating the agency would be taking a long, hard look at these state laws as part of their mandate to ensure broadband is deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis." That's why, as we've been noting, the FCC has been amping up efforts to show this simply hasn't been happening. Wheeler, bucking expectations of fealty to his lobbyist past, has been highlighting frequently how roughly two-thirds of the country is unable to get more than one ISP that can provide speeds of 25 Mbps or higher.

Ignoring their own failures, ISPs and hired friends are quick to point out the municipal broadband projects that haven't worked (because like any business plan, some don't work), while ignoring areas (like Chattanooga, TN, Wilson, NC or Lafayette, LA) where these efforts are not only paying great dividends, they're motivating incumbent ISPs to improve their services. Opponents of these projects like to ignore the most salient point of all: communities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if the existing market was working. If at any point in the last fifteen years these folks really wanted to stop these efforts, they could have improved services. Instead, they've taken the cheaper route: lobbying, lawsuits and disinformation.

After Wheeler's latest comments, Incumbent ISPs threatened to sue if the government dares to dismantle their state-built empires of protectionist legislation. Because the justification for eroding local rights is fundamentally weak at its core and an ugly PR move, they've often waged this battle under the guise of states rights, using groups like The National Conference of State Legislatures to do the threatening for them. They've also had folks like Rep. Marsha Blackburn to similarly complain that the government is telling states what to do (you'll notice that letting giant companies write telecom law that hurts these same communities is just fine, however).

That's been a successful ISP tactic in this conversation for years: turn this into a bitter partisan issue. It's simply not. Nobody but Comcast and AT&T benefit from letting Comcast and AT&T write state law that tramples local rights. In fact, protecting these rights is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of Conservative values. Yet for fifteen years now I've watched as ISPs and their friends incoherently defend these protectionist bills as if they were defending some lofty patriotic ethos, resulting in this debate descending into the kind of bobble-headed partisan bickering this country has made its chief export. That's started to change in the last few years, thanks to projects like Google Fiber. Google Fiber has placed a spotlight squarely on the lack of broadband competition, and has inspired countless communities to realize we really can do better than the stumbling, bumbling duopoly we all know and love.

Unfortunately, beyond giving the FCC some political cover and providing some online guidance to communities, the President's plan isn't much of a plan, especially if we can't start dismantling these state laws. Nineteen are in place now and more are being passed every year; AT&T and friends are currently pushing yet another law in Missouri aimed at protecting their uncompetitive fiefdoms from, well, you. While the President's announcement is a welcome start, here's to hoping we don't have to sit through another decade of lobotomized partisan pattycake before finally putting these destructive and ridiculous state laws to bed.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, muni broadband, municipal broadband, net neutrality, obama administration, state laws, tom wheeler

FCC To Raise Minimum Broadband Definition To 25 Mbps, Further Highlighting Nation's Pathetic Lack Of Broadband Competition

from the let's-stop-playing-make-believe dept

Over the last few months FCC boss Tom Wheeler has been making the rounds highlighting the fact that while U.S. broadband competition is fairly pathetic by any standard, it's particularly pathetic when it comes to faster speeds. At speeds of 25 Mbps downstream, for example, nearly two-thirds of the country lack the choice of more than one broadband provider. That's obviously (to most of us) thanks to a lack of competition, and as I've noted recently that's only going to get worse as phone companies accelerate their abandonment of DSL networks they don't want to upgrade, leaving cable companies with a stronger monopoly than ever before.

While the FCC historically has paid empty lip service to broadband competition, they're at least taking a positive step lately in trying to push the minimum acceptable broadband definition to 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. Carriers have unsurprisingly been crying a lot about this, given it will only further highlight the fact they're a bunch of pampered, lumbering duopolists extracting their pound of flesh from a captive audience in a broken market.

To his credit FCC boss Tom Wheeler has been ignoring these tantrums, and this week began circulating a study highlighting how the carriers have failed to deploy faster next-generation speeds in a "timely fashion" -- a report Congress mandates the FCC to provide annually. While there's a total lack of competition at speeds above 25 Mbps, the report notes there's many, many locations that simply can't get 25 Mbps at all. Despite the tech press and industry's bubbly obsession with 1 Gbps speeds (much of which is just empty fiber to the press release designed to give the illusion of competition), we're really not making particularly impressive progress for a nation that likes to prattle on a lot about how it's "#1" at a lot of things.

The study found that around 17 percent of American households (or about 22 million) lack access to speeds of 25 Mbps, which jumps to 53% (or about 55 million) when focusing on rural markets. Rural areas in particular continue to be under-served at most speeds, with 20% lacking access to speeds of even 4 Mbps and 31% lacking access to speeds of 6 Mbps. Those marks improved just 1% and 4% respectively over the last three years, despite more than a little lip service (and more than a few subsidies) paid toward shoring up the country's coverage gaps. The FCC notes things get even worse on tribal lands, where 63 percent lack access to 25 Mbps.

And while you might be saying to yourself that a lack of broadband in rural markets isn't all that surprising ("well move" is a common refrain on some fronts), the FCC's findings come on the heels of a similar Commerce Department report highlighting that competition is virtually nonexistent at anything beyond 10 Mbps, no matter where you live. Of course while the FCC's data highlights the pathetic lack of competition, the report doesn't specifically discuss how to fix it, nor does the higher-standard actually have to be met. Raising the bar above ankle height does, however, have an impact on the policy conversation:

"The proposed 25/3 definition of broadband doesn’t actually require ISPs to adopt that speed. But using the 25/3 definition for broadband will affect how the FCC reports on whether ISPs are offering Americans service that’s fast enough. Despite the 25/3 standard not being a requirement for government-funded projects, about four dozen rural broadband experiments funded by the FCC will offer at least 25/3, a senior FCC official told Ars."

In other words, by having a more reasonable definition of broadband we can at least foster a more honest conversation about the telecom sector's problems, elevating us above the inane arguments by ISP lobbyists, some blanket anti-regulatory groups, astroturfers and hired think tankers who'll all have you believe we're living in a competitive broadband wonderland -- but just hadn't noticed it yet. The fact that ISPs are failing to make reasonable progress at offering a better product also gives the FCC additional ammo as it heads into what will be a protracted legal battle over new network neutrality rules. The first step to recovery is, of course, admitting you have a problem.

Filed Under: 25 mbps, broadband, competition, fcc, tom wheeler

Schrodinger's Carrier: AT&T Is/Is Not A Common Carrier Depending On Who's Looking For What Reason

from the nice-dance-moves dept

While any respectable company can be good at PR and legal bullshitting, cable and phone companies, having navigated and built their pampered duopoly empire over a generation of regulatory capture, are exceptionally good at it. And among broadband and cable operators, nobody is better at bullshit (or worse at it, depending on where your interests lie) than AT&T. Whether it's AT&T's claim that gutting all state consumer protections will result in magic networks of tomorrow, or claiming that acquiring T-Mobile would create jobs and magically improve competition, AT&T's a master at trying to convince the government (and press and public) that up is down and that snow is piping hot.

The latest gem from AT&T comes as the company is under fire by the FTC for throttling the company's "unlimited" data after customers reach 5 GB of usage (regardless of whether the network is even congested). AT&T has been waging a quiet war on these unlimited customers for years in the hopes of getting them on capped plans, at one point going so far as to block Apple FaceTime from working unless users give up unlimited data. In a motion to dismiss (pdf) an FTC lawsuit over the practice, AT&T tries to argue that because only wireless voice has common carrier status under Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (aka Title II), the FTC can't technically tell AT&T what to do when it comes to throttling data:

"AT&T plainly qualifies as a ‘common carrier’ for purposes of Section 5 because it provides mobile voice services subject to common-carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. The fact that AT&T’s mobile data services are not regulated as common-carrier services under the Communications Act is irrelevant. The text, structure, history, and purpose of Section 5 leave no doubt that its common-carrier exemption turns on an entity’s ‘status as a common carrier subject to [an Act to regulate commerce],’ not its ‘activities subject to regulation under that Act.’"..."The FTC cannot rewrite the statute to expand its own jurisdiction."

In short, AT&T is arguing that because it's classified as a common carrier under the Communications Act, the company is exempt from FTC jurisdiction according to Section 5 of the FTC Act. Or even more to the point, AT&T is using the same Title II classification it breathlessly claims to loathe as a way to dodge a lawsuit for being misleading. Except, as we've highlighted recently, the FTC just got done imposing the biggest fine the government has ever given out for AT&T's aiding and protecting of crammers and scammers, using authority granted under Title II. AT&T didn't make a single peep about the FTC's authority in that instance.

AT&T doesn't seem too interested in expanding on its logic here. Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica asked AT&T about its position, and the telco absolutely refused to clarify on the record:

"We’ve asked AT&T why it accepted the FTC’s jurisdiction in the text messaging case but not the data one, and the company said it would provide a response today. (The FCC was also involved in that case and invoked its authority over common carriers despite never classifying text messaging as a common carrier service—AT&T did not object to that, either, TechDirt wrote at the time.)...AT&T did not directly answer our question but pointed to a statement the company made on the day of its cramming settlement."

The statement AT&T points to offers no further illumination of the company's logic. What's AT&T thinking? With legal pressure mounting, the jig was up in the case of cramming, and after a decade in which AT&T likely made billions off of the scams, even a record $105 million fine was small potatoes. Throttling and manipulating data to make an extra buck though? There's still potentially billions to be made being sneaky and obnoxious there, which is why AT&T's changing its tune and putting on its very best tap dancing shoes to flit between, over and under common carrier law and FCC/FTC jurisdictional distinctions.

AT&T lawyers likely want FCC jurisdiction here so the company can fight the throttling charges under the larger umbrella of the net neutrality fight alongside Comcast and Verizon. Back in October 2014, the FCC sent AT&T a Letter of Inquiry investigating AT&T's throttling of "unlimited" users, and the agency is contemplating a Notice of Apparent Liability (read: fine) for violating FCC transparency rules. But at the same time AT&T is telling the FTC only the FCC has authority over the company, AT&T lawyers are telling the FCC mobile data can't be treated as a common carrier service. Sweet dance moves, dude.

In short, that's an awful lot of legal tap dancing just so AT&T can pretend limited user connections are "unlimited," but again, with billions in potential revenues at stake, AT&T's going to do whatever's necessary to thwart Title II classification, where solid neutrality rules could hamstring the company's "creativity." As we've noted previously, Title II rules are only going to be a problem for ISPs that are doing something wrong, and AT&T's a master at concocting an endless stream of awful, anti-consumer ideas, then out-maneuvering regulators when they finally wake up from their naps to realize broadband consumers are getting the shaft.

Filed Under: fcc, ftc, regulation, title ii, unlimited data
Companies: at&t

FCC Boss Now Making The Case For Reclassification, Rather Than Against It

from the well,-duh dept

It's been all but confirmed for the past couple of months that Tom Wheeler was going to put forth new FCC net neutrality rules that include reclassifying broadband under Title II. While he had been moving forward with his split the baby hybrid approach, President Obama's surprising clear support for Title II shifted the debate. At this point, nearly everyone expects the plans, to be released soon and voted on at the end of February, to include reclassification with forbearance. Yesterday at CES, Wheeler was interviewed by CEA boss Gary Shapiro, and while he didn't come out and directly say it, it was quite clear that he's going for Title II reclassification. You can see the 48-minute video if you want to catch the whole thing.

In it, Wheeler makes two key points that he (and others) have avoided making over the past year. First, a "commercially reasonable" approach doesn't actually do much for the public. As we discussed all the way back in April, the "commercially reasonable" standard is a recipe for disaster, allowing for broadband companies to put in place nasty anti-consumer practices, focusing on adding tollbooths and limiting online services. For the first time, Wheeler was pretty explicit about the problems of this standard, that he had supported earlier:

It became obvious that commercially reasonable could be interpreted as what is reasonable for the ISPs, not what is reasonable for consumers or innovators. And that's the wrong question and the wrong answer because the issue here is how do we make sure that consumers and innovators have open access to networks. That led us to a more robust investigation of the well established concept of just and reasonable, which is a Title II concept. And as I said, Title II has always been something that was on the table. So last summer we began investigating various approaches using title II as a way to get to just and reasonable because it has the best protections.

The second key point that Wheeler made, which he hadn't been making in the past (and had actually argued almost the opposite), was that there's no real evidence that Title II kills innovation. During meetings with tech companies in the past, Wheeler had said that he was worried about Title II hurting broadband investment, but it appears that he's finally realized this isn't true.

The key here (again, as we've pointed out in the past) is that Wheeler realized that mobile phone service has always been regulated under Title II and there continues to be tremendous investment in that space. In fact, Wheeler notes that the recent spectrum auction activity pretty clearly proved the point that Title II doesn't scare off investment:

After the president said what he said about Title II, we still had a record bidding for spectrum from ISPs...

Oh, and also, he pointed out that the mobile phone space has appropriate forbearance, ripping to shreds the argument that forbearance is impossible and that Title II will lead to tariffs and other burdensome regulations. As he noted, he was actually the lobbyist on the mobile side that negotiated such a deal, so he knows it works:

“It just so happens that 20 years ago I was the guy that negotiated on behalf of the wireless industry to establish Section 332," Wheeler said.

“Section 332 says that wireless should be regulated under Title II as a common carrier, except that the FCC is instructed to forbear from onerous provisions and inappropriate provisions of Title II, except for section 201 and 202, which is just and reasonable, and Section 208, which is consumer protection," he added.

[....] ”So I say to myself, 'ok there is a way to do Title II right, and sure there are many ways to do Title II that would thwart investment, but there are other ways to do Title II,'” Wheeler told Shapiro on stage. “We ought to take a look at how that fits together with consumer protection.”

Wheeler urged listeners to look at the wireless industry under Title II to see how the FCC might enforce it. “There is no need to file tariffs, there is no need to file all these informational activities,” Wheeler said. “The problem we had at that time [in the 90’s] was the wireless industry was having to go before state commissions to change rates.” Having the FCC approve all rate changes, Wheeler seemed to imply, is not what he wants.

These are all points that people have raised before... but which have been mostly ignored in statements by Wheeler until now. In fact, for those who immediately condemned Wheeler's past as an industry lobbyist, he seems to have effectively flipped the script. He's now using that past and his experiences to show that he knows damn well that the FCC can do Title II with appropriate forbearance in a way that works fine for the industry, because he was the one who negotiated it that way for the mobile industry years ago.

Again, there's nothing too surprising in the effective acknowledgement that Wheeler is finally aboard the Title II bandwagon, but what's good to see is not just his support for Title II, but the fact that he's demolishing the ridiculous and misleading complaints the big broadband players have been making against Title II and for the old Section 706 approach. That is, it doesn't look like Wheeler is cautiously stepping into Title II, but rather that he's fully onboard and is ready to defend the argument in a way that sticks.

Big broadband is going to howl and protest, but the reality is that their arguments never made much sense in the first place -- and now Tom Wheeler is making that clear as well.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, open internet, reclassification, spectrum, title ii, tom wheeler, wireless

Commerce Department Study Reveals There's Almost No Competition If You Want Real Broadband

from the what-broadband-problem? dept

Just recently, the U.S. Commerce Department's Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) released yet another study for defenders of the broadband industry status quo to ignore. The study specifically took a look at the competitive options available at higher speeds, and found that -- surprise surprise -- they simply don't exist for most users. FCC boss Tom Wheeler has recently been making the rounds trying to sell the idea that our minimum broadband definition needs to be higher than 4 Mbps, in the process pointing out that three quarters of the country doesn't have the choice of more than 1 ISP when it comes to speeds of 25 Mbps or higher.

The ESA study confirms this and then some. When it comes to speeds of just 3 Mbps, the study notes that 98% of the public has the choice of two providers. Of course 3 Mbps is barely enough for decent HD streaming, much less a household of hungry bandwidth users, and the choice of just two providers means both are going to be expensive. It's fairly similar at speeds of 10 Mbps, where most people at least have the choice of two ISPs -- an apathetic cable operator, engaging in "wink wink nod nod" competition with a phone company. Move past 10 Mbps, and competitive options get worse -- quickly:

"For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices. Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed."

So for all the hype surrounding 1 Gbps speeds this year, it's important to remember that only 3% of the population can get it. That's a lot of fiber to the press release. The ESA offers a handy graphical breakdown of the dearth of options in most markets:It's worth noting that while the ESA makes it clear from the outset that the lack of competition impacts pricing, the word "price" is mentioned just twice in the study. For years ISPs have worked very hard to ensure that specific pricing data never reaches the eyes of the public. The defense is always that ISPs don't want to give competitors access to pricing data, though any ISP worth its salt already knows exactly what its competitors charge -- and where. There's really one reason efforts like our $300 million broadband coverage map don't include pricing data: it makes it easier for the industry's proud defenders of the status quo to continue pretending there isn't a problem.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, tom wheeler

Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More

from the nickel-and-dime-you-to-death dept

There are certainly some similarities between the airline and broadband industries. Both are pampered, uncompetitive markets suffering from regulatory capture that allows them to literally write the laws that govern their respective business segments. Both insist that constantly skyrocketing prices are justified by an ever-improving "customer experience," while the actual customer experience continues to get worse as companies consolidate and competitors dwindle. Taking their cues from banking "innovations" in the 80s, both industries have also become obsessed with screwing over their customers via the use of increasingly sneaky fees.

This New Yorker article by neutrality godfather Tim Wu makes this rather clear, noting that the airline industry made $31 billion largely from fees in 2013, a number that's sure to have skyrocketed in 2014 as the airlines get increasingly "creative" in below-the-line charges for basic amenities that used to just be part of standard service. Some friends of mine recently rode Allegiant Air, and told me the company charged a $5 fee just to print your boarding pass on top of the usual assortment of annoying fees (it's worth noting their beverages, including water, also aren't complimentary).

While the airlines like to frame this as an increase in consumer choice (hey, you can choose to not enjoy a pillow!), Wu aptly notes how this approach to price discrimination in less competitive markets consistently results in making your customers more miserable:

"But the fee model comes with systematic costs that are not immediately obvious. Here’s the thing: in order for fees to work, there needs be something worth paying to avoid. That necessitates, at some level, a strategy that can be described as “calculated misery.” Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it. And that’s where the suffering begins. The necessity of degrading basic service provides a partial explanation for the fact that, in the past decade, the major airlines have done what they can to make flying basic economy, particularly on longer flights, an intolerable experience."

Earlier this year, Mike had already pointed out more than a few similarities between the broadband and airline industries, and how this behavior is closely tied to the net neutrality debate. Wu doesn't even mention broadband, though both industries feature oligopolies that abuse the lack of competition to keep the bar at ankle height to cut costs, then enjoy charging consumers more if they'd like to be less miserable. The overall transaction costs (physical, mental and monetary) of such a model become absurdly high, reducing the utility of the service and incentivizing an approach where consumers have to pay to elevate themselves beyond intentionally poor or constrained service, resulting in the flying experiences most of us know and love today.

The broadband industry isn't much different (something Stacey Higginbotham pointed out recently as well). That consumers are being given amazing new levels of choice and flexibility is AT&T's justification for the company's Sponsored Data effort, which erects entirely arbitrary consumer usage caps, then charges companies an extra fee if they'd like to bypass them. Likewise, T-Mobile argues that exempting only the biggest music services from the company's usage caps delivers great benefits to the consumer (despite tilting the playing field against smaller operators). While the net neutrality conversation (and the feeble rules we've seen so far) focuses on outright blocking of websites or throttling of connections or services (even though even the worst-behaved ISPs now avoid both), the real danger at the moment is the all-too-clever efforts that constrain the user while pretending to offer greater freedom.

Like the airline industry, in regulatory conversation there's a tendency to see these efforts as simple pricing creativity, when the only creative thing about them is in convincing consumers that less is more. Without meaningful network neutrality rules (in the stark absence of real competition), we're creating a slippery slope of intentionally hamstrung services where your only option is to pay a steep premium if you'd like to be treated even remotely like a human being.

Filed Under: airlines, broadband, competition, fees, incentives, innovation, oligopolies, tim wu, tolls

Google Quietly Argues Broadband Competition, Google Fiber Build Out Could Be Aided By Title II

from the the-sky-will-not-fall dept

While Google has been notably quiet on net neutrality as its lobbyists work to cultivate broader bi-partisan favor, the search giant broke that silence last week to file a comment with the FCC giving its thoughts on Title II. While the larger ISPs have (falsely) proclaimed repeatedly that the sky will fall, investment will drop and market innovation will collapse if strong Title-II based rules are passed, Google's filing with the FCC (pdf) takes a somewhat different tone.

While Google's filing never specifically throws its support behind Title II, it does specifically point out how Title II rules could come with some significant benefits. Specifically, Google's director of communications law Austin Schlick argues that as a freshly-regulated telecom service under Title II, Google would gain access to utility poles and other essential utility infrastructure to aid expansion of Google Fiber. While the FCC has the right to forbear from these provisions, Google argues they really shouldn't if they value improved broadband services:

"In determining whether forbearance is consistent with the public interest, the Commission must consider whether forbearance would "promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services." Forbearance from allowing BIAS providers access to available infrastructure under Section 224 would have the exact opposite effect, maintaining a substantial barrier to network deployment by new providers such as Google Fiber, that telecommunications classification otherwise would remove."

Bureaucratic pole attachment rights negotiations are already sometimes annoyingly cumbersome, but they're also one of many ways incumbent ISPs thwart competitive efforts. Municipal broadband efforts in Utah, for example, were hindered by a litany of Qwest (now CenturyLink) lawsuits aimed at blocking local community ISP Utopia from having access to the company's poles. In Austin, where AT&T owns around 20% of the city's utility poles, Google Fiber ran into some initial obstacles getting pole attachment rights because AT&T argued Google wasn't officially a telecom company.

This is a relatively big deal, in that while Google beats around the bush somewhat to avoid ruffling feathers, it's noting how Title II ISP classification could actually be used to help break open the stubborn broadband duopoly to improved broadband competition. Note that's in fairly stark contrast to all of the hand-wringing from ISPs and friends who claim Title II will only harm the sector. More than a few Title II opponents have also gone on ad nauseum about how we should really focus on reducing bureaucratic obstacles like pole attachment issues, when it's Title II that Google argues would accomplish this most effectively.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, google fiber, pole attachments, title ii
Companies: google