Memo to progressives: Update net neutrality
Today’s progressive movement puts a premium on data-driven analysis and commitment to science and facts.
It stems from the early days of the Bush administration when Democrats mocked Karl Rove’s promise to “create our own reality” and instead demanded “realitybased” policies to solve problems, not wish them away. And it’s powerful politics — aligning progressives with the 97 percent of scientists who believe human activity causes global warming or the RAND Institute experts who found transgendered military service has “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.”
But there’s a catch. To be credible, progressives must also listen when the facts challenge their partisan pre-conceptions. When political opponents propose realitybased policies of their own, progressives must give the data its due.
Right now, for example, the Federal Communications Commission is reviewing the Obama-era net neutrality rules that put in place a 1930s-era utility regulation framework for the internet.
When these Title II rules were passed under former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, most experts warned they would discourage investment in broadband, eliminating construction and engineering jobs and making it harder to deploy new networks and close the digital divide.
And now two years later, the data are in — and it makes clear that the skeptics were right. Title II is an investment killer that undermines key progressive values and priorities.
Overall, multiple economic studies have found the utility approach to regulation is a threat to network investment. One recent study found that capital investment at the 12 largest broadband companies has declined by $3.6 billion since 2014, a 5.6 percent shortfall. Another concluded the looming threat of heightened internet regulation has driven total network investment down by at least $150 billion since 2011. Overall, a comprehensive survey of these reports concluded that as many as 700,000 jobs may have been lost so far — a lost generation of network jobs we will never fully be able to restore.
These data are backed up by expert reports from industries covered directly or indirectly by the Wheeler regulations. Small equipment and hardware manufacturers warn the Title II approach “will have a negative impact on the economic well-being of the numerous small- and medium-size companies that make hardware and software used to provide Internet services.”
Rural wireless companies have explained it “inhibits our ability to build and operate networks in rural America.” And nonprofit government broadband services have complained they must “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service” because of risks and uncertainty created by Title II.
In response, supporters of Title II have released studies and fact sheets purporting to show the opposite — that investment has been steady even after the rules were put in place. But being “reality based” means subjecting all arguments to reasonable scrutiny, and this one just does not hold up.
In part, the data are simply skewed. For example, the Title II advocates use data that includes billions in dollars invested in foreign countries and markets like video that aren’t even covered by Title II. And that depends heavily on predicted or “forecast” filler data that even the study author calls “flawed.”
Even more troubling, this approach is looking at the wrong question from an economist’s point of view — asking only if total investment in broadband has gone up or down since the rules, not whether investment would be even higher or lower if Title II were not in place. The data show much more would have occurred under smarter rules.
For progressives, it is vital to continue to build support for datadriven policymaking and fairminded analysis of issues and evidence.
In this case, that means acknowledging that the Wheeler Title II rules are the wrong way to protect net neutrality because the cost in investment, jobs and deployment of the internet to connect all Americans is just too great.
Net neutrality remains critical, of course. Progressives will always stand for a free and open internet, where no website can be blocked for ideological reasons, and no one is discriminated against or abused online. Free expression everywhere — including on the internet — is fundamental and must be protected.
But the right way to do this is by pushing Congress to pass a law protecting net neutrality and making it permanent without the risks and harms of Title II. Such a law would ensure that net neutrality cannot be changed when administrations come and go. And that no one — not even a president — can override it, no matter what.
There is broad and bipartisan support for net neutrality in Congress. Leaders of both parties have already proposed moving forward with such a bill. Progressives should support them — and push for a tough, smart and, above all, reality-based net neutrality to be passed.