The Federal Communications Commission clearly defined an open Internet in 2005, when it adopted four basic principles. Consumers are entitled to (1) access the lawful internet content of their choice, (2) run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, (3) connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network and, (4) have competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Sadly, even otherwise stalwart conservatives like Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., have fallen into the net neutrality trap that purports to be “the answer to an open Internet.” On July 14, Coffman introduced H.R. 6393, the 21st Century Internet Act, which uses many of the ill-informed pro-net neutrality principles purporting to establish an open Internet. To make matters worse, Coffman also decided to sign onto the discharge petition seeking to rescind the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order through a Congressional Review Act resolution.
[Also read: Congressional conservatives should settle net neutrality for good]
In his press statement introducing the legislation, Coffman says, “The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission.” Ironically, by signing the discharge petition, Coffman is agreeing to restore the authority that the Obama administration’s FCC improperly co-opted from Congress in the first place.
House passage of the CRA would partially roll back the law to the 2015 Open Internet Order rules, which were an aberration in the history of government involvement in the Internet and stripped out the light-touch regulatory regime that allowed for tremendous economic growth and innovation.
The 2015 rules imposed a stringent, heavy-handed regime using Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This scheme created strong disincentives for broadband providers to invest in broadband network infrastructure and created confusion over which federal agency would enforce consumer protection, including online privacy, over the Internet. Indeed, these restrictive rules did little to assure an open Internet despite proponents’ strident voices claiming otherwise.
Throughout the net neutrality debate, it has been hard to keep a level head while explaining the concept in plain terms, including the difference between Title II rules (as imposed by the so-called Open Internet Order) and an open Internet, and why maintaining a light-touch regulatory regime over the Internet (as originally intended when the government’s role was first established in 1996) is crucial to the global economy and society. It is a shame that Coffman has fallen victim to the radical dialogue that has been pushed for many years.
The 2015 rules created a disincentive to investment and slowed innovation in telecommunications, yet Coffman seeks to bring those onerous rules back. The timing could not be worse. Just as the U.S. is striving to become the first country to deploy a robust 5G network, legislation like H.R. 6393 and the CRA would result in less investment and slower 5G migration. Failure to act quickly on 5G will enable global competitors like China, Japan, and South Korea to lead the way on this invaluable and essential technology.
If Coffman really wants to promote an open Internet, he should withdraw his name from the discharge petition and work with the Energy and Commerce Committee to come up with a light-touch legislative solution that will encourage future investment and emulate the open Internet precepts that the FCC adopted in 2005.
Deborah Collier (@dcolliercagw) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is director of Technology & Telecommunications Policy at Citizens Against Government Waste.
