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