Pub. 14 2017 Issue 3

O V E R A C E N T U R Y : B U I L D I N G B E T T E R B A N K S - H E L P I N G N E W M E X I C O R E A L I Z E D R E A M S Issue 3 • 2017 15 Another consequence of Pai’s agenda is the possible effect it would have on broadband speeds in rural American counties. Under prior FCC leadership, it was determined that “broadband isn’t reaching Americans fast enough, pointing in particular to lagging deployment in rural areas. These analyses did not consider mobile broadband to be a full replacement for a home (or “fixed”) Internet connection via cable, fiber, or some other technology.” Pai, a former Verizon employee, is essentially doing the bid- ding of giant broadband companies, while completely ignoring the consumer. He’s cleverly been on a campaign where his main talking point is “less regulation”. Most Americans hear the term “less regulation” and respond positively. However, in the particular instance, less regulation wouldmean less benefits for the vast majority of the American people. According to a recent opinion poll carried out by Mozilla and Ipsos, 76% of Americans support net neutrality rules. This is bipartisan sentiment, as 81% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans support the rules. This is not an issue that is divided among partisan lines, yet Pai is determined to determine to advocate a cause that is overwhelm- ingly unpopular among American citizens. During negotiations with Netflix in 2014, Comcast and Veri - zon slowed down streaming speeds up to 30%on average. Netflix ended up having to pay in the formof a “paid prioritization” deal in order to speed up streaming time, but those deals were elim- inated under the 2015 legislation. Given how many people use Netflix as their primary source of home entertainment, it’s safe to say that many consumers could become very disenchanted if the throttling of streaming speeds becomes permanent. According to the Guardian, “large companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have joined forces with smaller companies such as Reddit, Netflix, Vimeo and Etsy and activists including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLUandDemand Prog- ress to protest the proposed rollback.” Despite the overwhelming majority of Americans vehemently disagreeingwith Pai’s anti-net neutrality agenda andmany companies fighting Pai’s agenda, the Senate recently voted in favor of giving Pai another term as FCC chairman. This means Pai will hold the position at least until the end of President Trump’s four- year term. Another consequence of Pai’s agenda is the possible effect it would have on broadband speeds in rural American counties. Under prior FCC leadership, it was determined that “broadband isn't reaching Americans fast enough, pointing in particular to lagging deployment in rural areas. These analyses did not consider mobile broadband to be a full replacement for a home (or "fixed") Internet connection via cable, fiber, or some other technology.” Under Pai’s leadership, the FCC is suggesting that mobile broadbandmay be sufficient after all. The problem is that mobile broadband is notoriously more functional in urban areas as opposed to more rural areas. Home broadband is a far more equitable solution, but Pai is suggesting lowering standards for sufficient speeds for home broadband. Another narrative that Pai is pushing is that “investment in wireless networks was down significantly in 2016.” This is true, but Pai neglects to mention that between 2013 and 2015, invest- ment also decreased markedly before current net neutrality protections were put in place. In a recent letter, the consumer advocacy group Free Press wrote, "The easily verifiable truth is that wireless-industry investments peaked in 2013, as carriers completed the bulk of 4G LTE deployments. Both that peak, and the ongoing decline from it, predate the entire proceeding that led to the 2015 reclassification of broadband as a lightly regulated Title II service. What's more, this is by no means the only years-long downturn for the wireless sector: Such periods of slower spending are natural—and, in the recent past, have likewise occurred outside of recessions." Pai is searching for narratives and reasons to sell a deeply unpopular policy change to American consumers. He is counting on people not being aware or informed of the issue and believing his talking points. It’s a clear attempt to exploit a perceived lack of knowledge or interest in the subject in order to push what he and several broadband companies want. Many Americans don’t have the time or energy to think about what is going on behind the scenes in regard to their internet service. They simply use the internet for both work and personal affairs and know that they need it in today’s society. Pai is pushing his proposed policy change as a boon for consumers, when in fact the opposite is true. A free and open internet is crucial to modern society in that it allows people to find out the truth, upholds the rights of consum - ers, and doesn’t allow corporate or special interests completely dictate information. To give that up is not a road this country should go down. It’s an issue that is devoid of partisanship among the vast majority of American citizens. In an era where nearly every issue becomes divided along partisan lines, this is one that mostly is not. It’s important that more Americans understand this issue and realize how critical it is. Politicians need to be held accountable for attempting to place the interests of a handful of massive corporations over the interests of consumers across the nation. This is a sentiment the vast majority of Americans should be able to agree upon. n