Speaker 1: Republican regulators have begun dismantling Obama era nette neutrality rules,
Speaker 1: opening the way for fewer restrictions on broadband providers and
Speaker 1: raising web companies fears they'll face barriers to reaching customers.
Speaker 1: The net neutrality rules make it illegal for Internet service
Speaker 1: providers such as A T and T, Comcast, and Verizon
Speaker 1: to block website, slow connection speeds, or charge extra for
Speaker 1: faster delivery of certain content. The Federal Communications Commission, in
Speaker 1: a two to one Republican led vote, gave preliminary approval
Speaker 1: to Chairman Agit Pye's plan to replace rules passed in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen by Democrats. That begins months of public feedback
Speaker 1: and consideration, leading to a second conclusive vote. Our guests
Speaker 1: are Jonathan Spalter, president and CEO of US Telecom, a
Speaker 1: trade group for broadband providers including A, T and T
Speaker 1: and Verizon, and Daniel Lyons, professor at Boston College Law School. Jonathan,
Speaker 1: why do broadband providers object to these rules which prevent
Speaker 1: them from blocking and slowing down websites? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's great to be here, but I think we all
Speaker 1: have to begin this discussion, but by taking a deeper
Speaker 1: act in fact, the broadband industry is four square UH
Speaker 1: supportive of making sure that our Internet will remain UH open,
Speaker 1: that we believe in that neutrality. What we want to
Speaker 1: do is to develop a more modern and enforceable set
Speaker 1: of rules that will enable not only more innovation in
Speaker 1: our networks, but also ensure that we can protect consumers
Speaker 1: we all deeply care about, to ensure that the kind
Speaker 1: of Internet protections that we've all enjoyed over the past
Speaker 1: two decades of our experience with the Internet, that has
Speaker 1: created so much opportunity, so much innovation, can continue to
Speaker 1: proceed proceeded in the future. There's nobody who agrees with
Speaker 1: the idea that our consumers shouldn't be protected and we
Speaker 1: shouldn't preserve an open and free internet. That is the
Speaker 1: bedrock principle for UH the entire industry. What we're seeking
Speaker 1: is a more thoughtful and more modern, more flexible approach
Speaker 1: that will be as equipped to deal with the kind
Speaker 1: of innovation cycles that week yet to experience without inhibiting
Speaker 1: and without slowing down investment, without slowing down innovation, but
Speaker 1: at the same time making sure that we have enforceable
Speaker 1: approaches to make our open Internet their main that way
Speaker 1: that a g PIE has put forward for for getting
Speaker 1: rid of these Obama era rules, and you heard some
Speaker 1: of it from Jonathan. There has been that they discourage
Speaker 1: investment and innovation. Is there evidence to to support that assertion? Well,
Speaker 1: we have done deep is Daniel in the I was
Speaker 1: asking Daniels He on the line, Oh yeah, I am um.
Speaker 1: So the evidence, I think it's fair to say, is mixed.
Speaker 1: There have been a number of studies that have been
Speaker 1: released that have suggested that, uh, since the two thousand
Speaker 1: fifteen rules have come into effect, that in fact, broadband
Speaker 1: investment has gone down by the major providers. There's been
Speaker 1: some on the other side who have challenged those figures
Speaker 1: and released studies of their own. I think the broader
Speaker 1: since here is is uh that Um. The goal of
Speaker 1: the SEC in this case is to encourage broadband investment.
Speaker 1: But I think the broader goal is to try to
Speaker 1: figure out what the right vehicle is by which to
Speaker 1: regulate the Internet going forward. And Jonathan, our consumers supposed
Speaker 1: to trust that their broad broadband providers will always put
Speaker 1: the public interest before their companies or stockholders interests. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's past as product and the answers renoundingly
Speaker 1: that there's really good reason for them to do so.
Speaker 1: Up until at the last couple of years of the
Speaker 1: Abom administration, our Internet had been guided by a regulatory
Speaker 1: framework that was advanced by President Clinton, supported by a
Speaker 1: Republican Congress, that allowed for an enormous amount of innovation
Speaker 1: and openness to become the dominant teams in the evolution
Speaker 1: of our Internet and consumers experience with it. We have
Speaker 1: all enjoyed an opening Internet that has given rise to
Speaker 1: uninavaginable UM developments, incredible companies like Google and Yahoo, enormous
Speaker 1: amounts of brought down deployment, and you know, close to
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars actually more than a trillion dollars of
Speaker 1: investment in UH making sure that our networks can continue
Speaker 1: to evolve and become faster and more resilient. This is
Speaker 1: all based on a statutory framework that took a light
Speaker 1: touch to making sure that our Internet can remain rather
Speaker 1: than strait Jack didn't in UM the four h idea
Speaker 1: that our Internet, one of the most innovative inventions in
Speaker 1: human kind, should be subject to much more onerous um
Speaker 1: UH strictures as a public utility, as a common carrier Daniel.
Speaker 1: Let me let me ask Daniel to respond to that,
Speaker 1: what do you think about the argument that Jonathan's making there?
Speaker 1: So I actually tend to agree that, Um, regardless of
Speaker 1: the merits of net neutrality, the movement towards reclassification under
Speaker 1: Title two was not the vehicle in which to accomplish
Speaker 1: this goal, right. The Um, the SEC's unfortunately in a
Speaker 1: position where, uh, they're perpetually having to to try to
Speaker 1: fit square pigs into round holes. Right. The last time
Speaker 1: the Communications Act was updated was back in when Uh,
Speaker 1: those of us who are on the Internet, we're doing
Speaker 1: so via dial up. Uh, And the word broadband doesn't
Speaker 1: appear in the Act more than a handful of times.
Speaker 1: So I think, um, it's exactly right that the those
Speaker 1: who were making policy vision the light touch over the
Speaker 1: Internet because they really weren't sure how it was going
Speaker 1: to evolve. But since then, the decision to simply try
Speaker 1: to enact Internet regulation by treating broadband providers essentially as
Speaker 1: phone companies with somewhat misguided. Uh. Ultimately, I think the
Speaker 1: right answer here is going to be uh, some update
Speaker 1: to the Communications Act coming out of Congress. Daniel. Consumer
Speaker 1: advocates argue that these rules take advanced petition, innovation, small businesses,
Speaker 1: and entrepreneurs, and there's hardly an Internet based company that
Speaker 1: has come out in favor of changing the rules. So
Speaker 1: why is there the disconnect between consumer advocates and the
Speaker 1: broadband providers. I think the primary concern here isn't the
Speaker 1: creation of net neutrality rules. I think most people agree
Speaker 1: and not everybody at this point agrees that broadband providers
Speaker 1: shouldn't be in the business of blocking content or throttling content. Um.
Speaker 1: The challenge, I think, is the vehicle by which you
Speaker 1: get there, right. So, by imposing UM title to common
Speaker 1: carriage onto broadband providers, the FCC created a host of
Speaker 1: problems that it wasn't anticipating at the time, one of
Speaker 1: which was the whole that it ripped in data privacy rules.
Speaker 1: So the Federal Trade Commission regulates data privacy, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't have jurisdiction over common carriers. So the moment the
Speaker 1: FCC labeled broadband providers common carriers, suddenly there was no
Speaker 1: privacy law applying to broadband pro writers. I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to stop. I'm going to have to stop you there.
Speaker 1: We'll continue the discussion another time. Thank you. Daniel Lyons,
Speaker 1: Professor Boston College Law School, and Jonathan Spultor, President and
Speaker 1: CEO of US Telecom. That's it for this edition of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. We'll be back Monday at one pm Wall
Speaker 1: Street Time. Thanks to our technical director Chris tried Comby
Speaker 1: and our producer David Suckerman. You've been listening to Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law on Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg