April 2017

Remarks of FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 2017 NAB Show Panel "FCC: You're Fired?"

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai brings with him a love of broadcasting, a love of small businesses, a love of Kansas, and so much more. His selection may prove the catalyst for the regulatory golden age of our nation’s broadcasters.

In the grand scheme, whether to jettison the FCC is not for any of us to ultimately decide. Hearty discussions are important and should continue to be had as they can inform policymakers, in this case Congress. But the hopes for any real fundamental restructuring of the agency’s duties – or even if it should exist – will require legislation, which has proven difficult to enact for many reasons. In the meantime, the agency can address many of its flaws on its own. Better protecting the airwaves would demonstrate our commitment to a key original obligation. Additionally, reorganizing the internal structure and removing unnecessary burdens on broadcasters would line up nicely with the policy goals of many of us at the Commission. In closing, let me suggest that the new Executive Branch and Legislative Branch provide you with a wonderful opportunity – use it wisely!

FCC's Clyburn: Voluntary net neutrality rules won't cut it

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the lone Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission, is skeptical of the idea floated by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to replace the agency's sweeping 2015 network neutrality rules with voluntary commitments from internet service providers not to block, throttle or prioritize web traffic. Commissioner Clyburn said she's worried in theory that a voluntary regime would give major Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon, Charter and Comcast too much power. "You've heard me say this dozens of times, about the internet and broadband being one of the greatest equalizers of our time, and what it enables. And something that important, for a handful of entities saying this is how it's going to be done, I'm a little bit uncomfortable [with] that. I haven't seen anything, but just the promise of that makes me feel a little uncomfortable."

An inoculation for fevered fact-free internet activism

[Commentary] The network neutrality activists won a bigger victory than they ever expected when the Federal Communications Commission dropped the hammer of Title II telephone regulation onto the internet. It may therefore be useful to recount a little history as an inoculation against the coming fever. Here are some of the empty stories that led to Title II, which will likely be repeated in various forms in the coming months.

To change the nation’s bipartisan internet policy, the activists had to manufacture a story of US broadband failure. In service of the failed-broadband argument, the FCC in 2009 commissioned a report from Harvard’s Berkman Center on the state of US broadband. After withering critiques by eminent economists, Berkman excised some of the most egregious mistakes and issued an updated version, but the report was so compromised that the FCC quit citing the research. The false Netflix narrative: Perhaps no event over the past 15 years advanced the effort to regulate the internet as much as the supposed throttling of Netflix in the winter of 2013–14.

Net neutrality was never about anything so technical as “treating all bits equally” or anything so economic as protecting “innovation at the edge.” It was about gaining bureaucratic and political control of the digital economy – and thus, increasingly, because of the centrality of information networks, the physical economy, too. A rollback of this short-lived, unnecessary policy will thus ensure the internet’s continued upward trajectory.

[Swanson is president of Entropy Economics LLC]

Net Neutrality, Reclassification and Investment: A Counterfactual Analysis

Applying the difference-in-differences method to a broad measure of investment (thus accounting for the Federal Communications Commission's "virtuous circle" effects), the author estimates the investment effects in telecommunications following the introduction of Title II reclassification to the Net Neutrality debate. Using standard econometric methods, George finds sizable investment effects from reclassification.

Between 2011 and 2015 (the last year data are available), telecommunications investment differed from expectations by between 20% and 30%, or about $30 to $40 billion annually. Actual investment averaged $126 billion annually, a sizable expenditure, but the counterfactual analysis indicates the average investment over the five-year window would have been about $160 billion (or more) annually. That is, over the interval 2011 to 2015, another $150-$200 billion in additional investment would have been made "but for" Title II reclassification. Notably, Dr. Ford finds no decline in investment following the release of the FCC's "Four Principles" to promote an Open Internet in 2005, suggesting it is reclassification -- and not Net Neutrality principles -- that is reducing investment.