June 2017

Apparently, an item Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has circulated for a vote on "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services" essentially clarifies that the telecommunication customer proprietary network information (CPNI) privacy rules that were in effect before the Tom Wheeler FCC adopted a new broadband privacy regime are still in effect after that regime was nullified by Congress. It is a way to remind carriers that they are still responsible for submitting an annual certification of compliance with those CPNI privacy rules.

The item was described as administrative in nature and focused on voice privacy, rather than providing any new guidance on broadband privacy, apparently. In addition, the item dismisses petitions to reconsider the Wheeler-era rules, since they were mooted by the Congressional Review Act resolution. Chairman Pai has proposed reclassifying ISPs as information service providers, rather than telecoms, after which the Federal Trade Commission would reclaim its authority over broadband privacy, which it lost when ISPs were classified as common carriers in the 2015 Order. The FTC is prevented from enforcing regulations on common carriers.

Twenty years ago, on June 26, 1996, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, which found the communications decency provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to be unconstitutional. Applying strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court concluded that unlike broadcasting – where the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency regulation has been upheld due to the unique characteristics of that medium – no content regulation with a justification of online child protection would be allowed. This means that there continues to be no content restrictions on what American internet users can send or receive.

Viewed in contemporary context, two lessons from Reno v. ACLU endure. First, as a constitutional law matter, there is a firewall for US government restrictions on any non-obscene online content. In turn, this virtually unfettered freedom has fueled the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives. Remember, Facebook and the world of online apps – which now exceed websites as the go-to sources online – did not even exist then. Mark Zuckerberg was only 13 years old when the court decision was released, and other app content pioneers such as Snapchat’s Evan Spiegel were still in elementary school.

This leads to the case’s second legacy, which is more implicit but also of great importance. Given the continuing inability to predict the speed and scale of internet development or changing consumer preferences, there seems to be a subtext in that government may find it difficult to develop broad prescriptive long-lasting approaches to internet regulation. The FCC favored this ex ante approach when crafting the Open Internet order under the Obama Administration. Under new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the agency seems to favor a revision that limits government oversight to the Federal Trade Commission’s traditional enforcement authority. As the FCC compiles its rulemaking record to justify this significant change in approach, it would not be surprising to see the Reno v. ACLU decision used to support a return of this light-touch regulatory framework.

[Commentary] Sharing economy companies have had no shortage of regulatory battles, but companies such as Uber, Airbnb, and TaskRabbit are innovating and improving regulation by incorporating the very trust created through their platforms. Arun Sundararajan, author of “The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism” (MIT Press, 2016), observes that regulation need not originate with the government. He writes that it can take a myriad of forms while still being rational, ethical, and participatory. He describes three models of regulation used by sharing platforms: peer-to-peer, self-regulatory, and data-driven delegation.

The way that sharing economy platforms are innovating regulation with digital trust systems exposes the effort by digital elites to impose Title II utility regulation from 1934 on the internet as backward and out of date. While sharing economy entrepreneurs are creating a decentralized, innovative, and distributed world and are finding and transforming passive assets into productive ones, Title II advocates want to centralize and aggregate power beneath a single government agency that we the people have never authorized to regulate broadband. We should resist this like we would any faction that wants to usurp power. Meanwhile, we should encourage the Federal Communications Commission and Internet service providers to experiment with these innovative forms of regulation.

[Roslyn Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark. She is also a member of the Trump FCC Transition Team.]