Webinar presentations

These assertions typically rest on the false premise that net neutrality will harm or slow down broadband access, in terms of both deployment and adoption, in rural areas and other underserved markets. There is no evidence that this premise is true. The largest ISPs sometimes vaguely threaten that they may not build or upgrade in certain communities or regions if net neutrality rules are adopted. They never make any definitive statements in this regard. In fact, several of these companies (including Comcast and Verizon Wireless) have gone on record recently to assure shareholders and financial analysts that the FCC’s proposed classification of broadband transmission as a telecommunications service will have no effect on their investment decisions. Beyond these sometimes contradictory and self-serving statements from large incumbent ISPs, evidence from the past decade shows that net neutrality regulations have minimal if any impact on deployment. These largest companies did indeed invest billions of dollars in broadband infrastructure when they were subject to net neutrality principles and specific merger conditions requiring compliance with those principles. On the other hand, they actually have decreased their investment rates, cut jobs, and pulled out of rural areas altogether recently, despite the deregulatory environment in which they operate today. On the adoption side, net neutrality opponents often suggest that allowing ISPs to discriminate will lead to lower prices for subscribers. Once again, the evidence for this unsupported claim is scant. If large ISPs are free to discriminate against certain content providers, charging more to some companies for passing their web traffic through to subscribers, there is little reason to believe that ISPs will pass any savings along to those subscribers in the form of lower rates rather than simply padding their already sizable profit margins. This sort of trickle-down economics claim has been disproven time and time again, and there is no reason to believe it in this context – especially when monopoly and duopoly broadband providers have no real economic incentive to compete on price. In the end, the question we have to answer is whether rural communities and other historically unserved and under-served populations need to settle for closed, second-best, and watered-down access to broadband services. The answer should be clear: private companies should not be free to discriminate against certain messages or to dictate when and how people access lawful information online. If these large gatekeeper ISPs are unwilling or unable to provide in rural areas service that is comparable to what they offer in more densely populated markets, that’s when we should look to universal service funding – not simply settle for second-best access.

1) What about the argument that net neutrality doesn't matter if
you have no access?

It matters because the prerequisites for ensuring net neutrality are
the same for solving the rural broadband problem.

First, both solutions require an FCC with robust authority exercised
in the public interest, instead of an FCC that is too easily bent to
the will of powerful incumbents.

Second, the essence of net neutrality is “non-discriminatory”
treatment of network traffic, regardless of where or with whom that
traffic originates.

If any area(s) of the United States should care about
“discriminatory” treatment at the hands of telecom providers, it
should be rural America, given our communities' risk factors: lack
of density, greater distances from corporate network hubs, less
affluent subscribers, fewer corporate clients, etc.

In short, the same “public interest” ethic and vision that would
prevent providers from becoming gatekeepers and favoring some
clients' content over others, is the same ethic and vision that
would prevent the continued broadband “redlining” of rural America.


2) How do you answer telecos who say net neutrality will interfere
with their ability to serve rural areas?

Recent experience – and common sense – make it self-evident that
their business plans do not include deployment in  rural areas,
whether net neutrality protocols exist or not.

Simply put, their business models were never intended to work in
rural areas. And it defies reason to believe that their business
models could be reconfigured -- short of enormous taxpayer subsidies
-- to work in rural America.

Tabling this argument opens the door to a “win-win” solution that
absolves incumbents of the responsibility for serving rural areas.

That win-win solution is simple:  empower rural communities to build
and operate their own local and regional networks – just as our
nation did with rural electric and telephone cooperatives.

Moreover, local and regional networks are natural net-neutrality
operators, as we have no business incentive for engaging in
discriminatory practices.

Nor do our business models require investments in costly “deep
packet inspection” technologies, the essential tool-kit for favoring
some clients' traffic over others. In this regard, local and
regional networks are far more cost-effective than extending the
incumbents' proprietary broadband infrastructure to underserved
areas.

In summary, the proliferation of local and regional networks across
rural America would help create “structural” net neutrality as a
solid foundation for “regulatory” net neutrality, since the latter
will always be subject to the next round of deregulation fervor.

However, as long as policymakers in Washington view rural
communities as “dependents” of incumbent carriers, our broadband
destiny will be in the hands of absentee-owners who would rather not
serve us anyway!

-- Wally Bowen

The presentation by Amalia Deloney from Media Action Grassroots Network seems to be missing.  I found Matt Wood's presentation attached to her name. Thanks.

Question 1: 1) What about the argument that net neutrality doesn’t matter if you have no access?

Often, I hear people say that "doesn't matter" when you don't have access.  In my experience the exact opposite is true. Most people that do not have internet access, know exactly what they are missing.  More importantly, they also know exactly what kind of internet experience they want--should they be able to get access.  

Community members who are disconnected understand in very real ways the multiple connections and enhancements that internet access can provide. Whether access to job searches, online classes, radio shows from across the country, online news and information, or email--when they get Internet access they want to be able to experience the FULL spectrum of what the internet has to offer. 

Additionally, a strong motivator for people to adopt Broadband is tied to what they can do with the Internet-- limiting peoples experiences by discriminating against content they are interested in, or applications they want to use, ultimately does little to encourage people to take the time, and make the extra effort to get online. 

Finally, and most importantly, an Open Internet is a principle we should all be behind whether we have access or not.  Strengthening our democracy, encouraging innovation, and creativity, supporting new online forms of organizing etc. are things that we all benefit from--and as such, are places were our voices must be heard!

--Amalia