1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2017

May 2017

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn’s Remarks at Public Forum on Access and Affordability

Why is it that some of the largest communications providers in this country consistently rank among the lowest in consumer satisfaction? Could it possibly have anything to do with a lack of robust competition? Did you know that when it comes to broadband access at home, just 20 percent of Americans have a choice of two providers or more? Without real competition, are companies really incentivized to improve customer service, service quality, or pricing? And did you know that fewer than 40 percent of families regularly stay in touch with their incarcerated loved ones and one-third of families go bankrupt because of unjust and unreasonable phone rates? And while we are making progress when it comes to providing faster broadband service, including gigabit speeds in some communities, if it costs $80 or more a month for service, is broadband truly within reach?

Much of our focus has been on what is lacking in rural communities, but there are problems right here in LA and over in the Cleveland, Ohio area. I mention Cleveland because a recent study concluded that a major broadband provider had “systematically discriminated against lower-income neighborhoods, in its deployment of home Internet and video technologies, over the past decade.” So what that finding makes increasingly clear, is that the broadband availability and affordability gaps are not just in our rural towns and non-urban communities. Those gaps are wide, wherever there is an absence of rich people.

How One Little Cable Company Exposed Telecom’s Achilles’ Heel

[Commentary] The details of the network neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in February 2015 were not important to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum, or CenturyLink. What was important was the idea that any part of the government might have enforceable oversight over their data transmission services or charges. That’s what they can’t stand; that’s what they would do anything to avoid. And that’s what they are working to undo: the FCC’s classification of them as “common carriers” under “Title II” of the Telecommunications Act. That classification gave the FCC the legal authority to say something to the carriers about treating internet traffic fairly. No classification, no “net neutrality” rule. The trouble for the carriers is that the classification carries with it the risk that their businesses will be treated, someday, as the utility services they are. Net neutrality: not risky. Classification: risky. If people begin noticing that there’s no competition, that Americans are paying too much for too little, and that the entire country is suffering as a result, that’s a big problem for Big Cable.

The future of net neutrality might rest on this obscure court case

There's a huge court case you need to hear about. It might not be on your radar yet because, frankly, some of it gets pretty technical. But the outcome is likely to have enormous repercussions for online privacy, net neutrality and the economy. For months, policymakers have been struggling with the implications of this case, FTC v. AT&T, in part because it overturned about a century's worth of established legal practice and also, analysts say, because it appeared to open a wide loophole that businesses might use to evade most federal oversight. On May 9, the federal appeals court responsible for the ruling announced that it has agreed to rehear the case, potentially opening the door to a different result. Here's everything you need to know.

Can ISPs simply opt out of net neutrality?

[Commentary] The DC Circuit denied a petition to rehear en banc its 2016 decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Supreme Court is not likely to hear the case, but while the Justices may not be listening, the telecom policy community should be. The concurrence and dissents engaged in a lengthy and scholarly discussion about broader constitutional and administrative law doctrines raised by the order.

In the process, the concurrence signaled that the DC Circuit may understand the order to apply far more narrowly than anyone expected. The DC Circuit appears to view the Open Internet Order primarily as a hyper-transparency rule: If the company claims to offer an unedited internet experience, then it is required to deliver on that promise. The DC Circuit suggests that a walled garden is fine as long as the provider “mak[es it] sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered services involving the ISP’s exercise of ‘editorial intervention.’”

© 1994-2026 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.