National

The House on Tuesday voted to block implementation of new online privacy rules rushed through the FCC in the final days of former chairman Tom Wheeler's tenure. In a vacuum of information, this sent pockets of the internet into a panic. But consumers wake up today to the same online world and digital protections they enjoyed one week ago.

Your most sensitive data—financial, Social Security, about your kids—remains fully protected. There are strict and enforceable protections under existing law safeguarding consumers' most sensitive information. These remain wholly in force. For example, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule has been in place since the days of dial-up.

No one is buying anyone's individual browser history and putting it online. Step away from the Kickstarter campaigns.  Such activity remains patently illegal.

Your browser history is already being aggregated and sold to advertising networks—by virtually every site you visit on the internet. Consumers' browsing history is bought and sold across massive online advertising networks every day. This is the reason so many popular online destinations and services are "free." And, it's why the ads you see on your favorite sites—large and small—always seem so relevant to what you've recently been shopping for online. Of note, internet service providers are relative bit players in the $83 billion digital ad market, which made singling them out for heavier regulations so suspect.

Consumers expect and deserve one standard for online privacy. According to a national survey conducted last May by Public Opinion Strategies, 94% of consumers believe all companies should be held to the same online privacy rules —whether it's Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Facebook, T-Mobile, Google or Twitter. Congress agreed.

This action makes way for a unified approach. The Federal Trade Commission has long been the cop on the beat protecting consumers' online privacy. This includes bringing more than 150 privacy and data security enforcement actions against not only ISPs but other major players in online search, content and e-commerce. Two years ago, the FCC stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers and began down this bifurcated path. Fortunately, in advance of Congress' vote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen rejected this approach and jointly expressed their support for "a comprehensive and consistent framework."

Congress did not vote down consumer privacy protections. It simply rejected an attempt to create a disjointed, separate and unequal regulatory regime. Lawmakers were right to take this stand for better public policy, and consumers are better off for it.

Jonathan Spalter is President and CEO of USTelecom.

5 things to know about Congress' rejection of FCC privacy rules

Technology

Opinion

The House on Tuesday voted to block implementation of new online privacy rules rushed through the FCC in the final days of former chairman Tom Wheeler&#x27;s tenure. In a vacuum of information, this sent pockets of the internet into a panic. But consumers wake up today to the same online world and digital protections they enjoyed one week ago.

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's announcement that he will seek to restore U.S. innovation policy to the modern, bipartisan approach that has guided the internet's growth and evolution in our country for more than two decades is a huge win for consumers, our connected economy and our digital democracy. It's also a win for the argument that our technology policy must be as smart and nimble as the internet it governs.

Here's why the Pai's plan is heading in the right direction:

Consumers concerned about net neutrality will have the security of clean, clear and enforceable rules to safeguard our online freedoms.

Consumers concerned about online privacy will get exactly what they consistently say they want: One high standard of protections that applies uniformly across the internet—broadband providers, yes, but everyone online, including search, social media and commerce companies.

The FCC will no longer do the bidding of special interests intent on seeing the agency "save" consumers from the obvious scourge of getting free and discounted stuff online.

And, because this progress can be achieved without the government turning the internet into a utility, future broadband investment does not have to be held back by carbon-dated regulations written in the same year American families first gathered around the radio to hear FDR's fireside chats.

Two years after Title II was enacted, FDR bravely told the nation, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Today, Chairman Pai helped wake our country from a bizarre, two-year fever dream of a policy detour governed entirely by fear and misinformation.

Nothing about the Internet was broken when the prior FCC leadership caved to intense political pressure to "save the Internet" by imposing regulations written during the Great Depression.

From the internet's earliest days, President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress saw the abundance that might come if we worked together to stoke an American-led century of innovation. Our digital economy has delivered. And, this progressive and modern approach has had truly transformative impacts for our families and communities.

Our common task is to craft policies that dare to envision once again a U.S. innovation future that focuses on abundance rather than austerity—a future where competition is thriving, jobs are growing and American consumers continue to have both the net neutrality we demand and the thriving, innovative broadband experience we deserve.

Chairman Pai started from the right place, asking "what policies will give the American people what they want?" He should be commended for standing with so many great U.S. policymakers, innovators and consumers for the modern, bipartisan principles that have made American broadband the envy of the world.

Rethinking internet policy will boost connected economy

Out-dated regulations stifled broadband investment 

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai&#x27;s announcement that he will seek to restore U.S. innovation policy to the modern, bipartisan approach that has guided the internet&#x27;s growth and evolution in our country for more than two decades is a huge win for consumers, our connected economy and our digital democracy. It&#x27;s also a win for the argument that our technology policy must be as smart and nimble as the internet it governs.Here&#x27;s why the Pai&#x27;s plan is heading in the right direction:<ul><li>Consumers concerned about net neutrality will have the security of clean, clear and enforceable rules to safeguard our online freedoms.</li><li>Consumers concerned about online privacy will get exactly what they consistently say they want: One high standard of protections that applies uniformly across the internet—broadband providers, yes, but everyone online, including search, social media and commerce companies.</li><li>The FCC will no longer do the bidding of special interests intent on seeing the agency &quot;save&quot; consumers from the obvious scourge of getting free and discounted stuff online.</li><li>And, because this progress can be achieved without the government turning the internet into a utility, future broadband investment does not have to be held back by carbon-dated regulations written in the same year American families first gathered around the radio to hear FDR&#x27;s fireside chats.</li></ul>

Everyone in this country passionately supports an open internet. Free speech — online and off — is at the center of our democratic way of life. For this reason, Americans have always enjoyed an open internet — long before regulators decided they had to "save the internet" by turning it into a utility.

In many respects, the so-called Title II debate reflects everything voters most resent about Washington: Fear-mongering, Armageddon-style arguments with a dubious connection to the facts.

The central fact of this debate is its true subject: This policy battle is not about whether we safeguard an open internet. It's about how we go about doing so.

Title II regulations were written in the rotary phone era. They were put on the books when FDR was president and Frank Capra's black-and-white classic "It Happened One Night" clearly and without any confusion won Best Picture at the 1934 Academy Awards.

The application of these retro rules to our modern internet is the policy equivalent of using a sledgehammer to deal with a mosquito on your arm. Technically, it may get the job done. But everything breaks in the process.

Among the collateral damage: Investment in ever stronger, faster and more capable broadband networks. As FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has noted, last year saw the first dip in private-sector broadband investment outside of a recession. Unlike other essential national infrastructure, U.S. broadband networks are built on private investment—more than $1.1 trillion and counting over the past 15 years. Abruptly shifting gears to a nearly century-old regulatory regime caused these essential investments to slow at a time when U.S. competitiveness demands they speed ahead.

While consumer groups aggressively fundraise to "Save the Internet," they are actively working against some of the most wildly popular consumer innovations. It doesn't take a poll to know that consumers love free and discounted services, and it doesn't take an economist to understand that the more low- and no-cost services are available the closer we get to our nation's other collective goal — seeing all Americans connect to more broadband opportunities. Yet Title II, at least according to its champions, would block broadband providers from offering free and discounted customer services, such as streaming of video or music content without wireless data charges.

I hear all the time about how consumers feel about their internet service. It's not all good. It's not all bad. But not once has someone said: I wish my internet company behaved more like the gas company.

There is a better, cleaner and more straightforward path to the outcome we all want to achieve.

If we don't want to continue what our nation has long enjoyed — an open, innovating, strong, dynamic, pro-consumer internet, then by all means let's keep Title II. But if we do want to advance the opportunities the internet brings to our economy, nation and consumers — and keep the progress and investment coming—then it's high time we embrace a more constructive path forward.

Save the internet, skip Title II

Spalter: Outdated rules work against some of the most wildly popular consumer innovations

Net neutrality

Expert Voices

Everyone in this country passionately supports an open internet. Free speech — online and off — is at the center of our democratic way of life. For this reason, Americans have always enjoyed an open internet — long before regulators decided they had to &quot;save the internet&quot; by turning it into a utility.In many respects, the so-called Title II debate reflects everything voters most resent about Washington: Fear-mongering, Armageddon-style arguments with a dubious connection to the facts.The central fact of this debate is its true subject: This policy battle is not about whether we safeguard an open internet. It&#x27;s about how we go about doing so.

Jonathan Spalter, CEO of US Telecom

Stories

Rethinking internet policy will boost connected economy

5 things to know about Congress' rejection of FCC privacy rules

Save the internet, skip Title II