February 2015

The [Federal Communication Commission’s] Wireless Telecommunications Bureau disclosed that two companies in which DISH has an 85 percent ownership stake claimed over $3 billion dollars in taxpayer-funded discounts when purchasing spectrum in the AWS-3 auction.

Those discounts came through the FCC’s designed entity (DE) program, which is intended to make it easier for small businesses to purchase spectrum and compete with large corporations. DISH, however, has annual revenues of almost $14 billion, a market capitalization of over $32 billion, and over 14 million customers. Its participation makes a mockery of the DE program. I call upon Chairman Wheeler to immediately launch an investigation into these multi-billion dollar subsidies. One analyst was quoted in a recent press story as saying, “[DISH] just created $3.3 billion worth of value [for itself]. Now we will see if they get away with it or not.” For the sake of the FCC’s integrity, American taxpayers, and genuinely struggling wireless entrepreneurs, I hope not. Moreover, the Commission must reform its rules to stop abuse of the DE program. The American people should be outraged about this. I certainly am. And I am determined to do everything in my power to stop it from happening again.

[Commentary] Title II is merely the tool that enables the Federal Communications Commission to craft strong network neutrality rules; the FCC must then choose to use that tool to enact meaningful, enforceable rules.

While it seems unlikely that the FCC would reclassify only to put forth weak rules, the devil is in the details. Consumers and small businesses that will suffer from net neutrality violations simply cannot afford to hire attorneys and lobbyists to engage in legal battles with some of the largest companies in America. The rules the FCC enacts should err on the side of the startups and consumers by allowing for streamlined and affordable processes to challenge discriminatory practices by ISPs, ensuring that the rules are not merely a dead letter.

[Evan Engstrom is the Policy Director at the nonprofit Engine]

[Commentary] Just as it took the invention of the printing press to trigger a deliberation on freedom of expression, technological changes today are so profound that they demand a reconsideration of what constitutes a fundamental right.

It is difficult, if not impossible in some places, to participate fully in today’s world without an open, available Internet. This will become even truer as access is increasingly required to win and perform jobs, gather news, participate in politics, receive education, connect with health-care systems, and engage in basic financial services. (Coin and paper money, one of those few technologies mentioned in the US Constitution, will fade in importance in coming decades, outmoded by mobile banking.) Rules that will empower and enable more and more people to tap into the full promise of human existence, while not simultaneously undercutting and diminishing that promise, are being made possible by technological advances, but they will not actually come to be if leaders do not act to create them -- if governments leave it to the happenstance of progress to sort out tensions among the modern ingredients of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The conversation about necessary action is already coming too late. The longer it takes to kick into high gear, the longer humans will continue hurtling toward a new economic and social reality. Simultaneously, there will be much slower progress toward ensuring that the gains this reality brings are not offset by the tragedy of too few people benefiting or by the planet’s gradual but irreversible degradation.

[Commentary] When gunmen murdered 17 people in Paris earlier in January, it seized the world’s attention. When Boko Haram militants killed hundreds in and around the Nigerian town of Baga the same week, the mass killing scarcely garnered a mention in the Western media. The discussion about why the killings in Nigeria were ignored underscored an old problem: News from sub-Saharan Africa is underreported. Covering the crisis in Nigeria’s north is crucial, but it ought to be one part of a more complete approach. “In absence of coverage of the ordinary Africa, we get coverage of Africa in crisis,” says Ethan Zuckerman, director of MIT’s Center for Civic Media. “In 2014, all we know of Africa is Ebola. Now, all we may know is Boko Haram. If we had ordinary narratives to counterbalance the extraordinary, we might see the attacks in Baga as shocking, instead of unsurprising.” The explanation for the dearth of coverage involves a range of factors. Reporting in remote areas with poor infrastructure is difficult. Many argue that race plays a role. Stories related to US government involvement, or with American or other Western characters get more attention than those without. Relate-ability is also a factor. MIT’s Zuckerman suggests the explanation has to do with “cultural distance.” He says, “It’s a broader sense that stories in Africa are often hard for readers to project themselves into because most readers have so little sense for what life in a West African city is like.”
[Jared Malsin is a freelance journalist based in Cairo]