FCC Chairman Ajit Pai

[Commentary] Some have tried to whip Americans into a frenzy by making outlandish claims. Feeding the hysteria are silly accusations that my Restoring Interernet Freedom plan will “end the internet as we know it” or threaten American democracy itself. These claims obscure a pretty mundane truth: This plan would simply restore the successful, light-touch regulatory framework that governed the internet from 1996 to 2015.

Thank you to the International Institute of Communications (IIC) for the opportunity to be here for the last Telecommunications and Media Forum of the year.

For the past year, we have been very active as we modernize our rules and remove burdensome regulations that deter innovation and investment. Our goal is simple: to extend what I call “digital opportunity” to every American. In my view, every American who wants high-speed Internet access should be able to get it. 

The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau announced that the launch of the Lifeline National Verifier would be delayed until early 2018 due to ongoing work by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to ensure Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said, "“The Lifeline program is an important tool for closing the digital divide but for too long, it’s plagued by waste, fraud, and abuse.

Two-thirds of Americans over 65 use the Internet. Half have a home broadband connection. And two-fifths have a smartphone. These numbers reflect progress. But they also reflect a connectivity gap. Compared to the overall population, older adults’ Internet usage is 23 percentage points lower, home subscriptions are 22 points lower, and smartphone adoption is 35 points lower. Since I became Chairman, we’ve been focused on updating our rules to ensure that high-speed infrastructure is built and maintained everywhere.

Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against a Syracuse man for allegedly threatening to kill Congressman John Katko and his family if he did not support net neutrality. Specifically, federal prosecutors allege that the man left a voicemail at Congressman Katko’s office saying, among other things: ‘[I]f you don’t support net neutrality, I will find you and your family and I will kill . . . you . . . all. Do you understand? I will literally find all . . . of . . . you and your progeny and just wipe you from the face of the earth.’

Is social media a net benefit to American society? Given the increasingly important role that social media plays in our daily lives, this is a question that all of us, including groups like the Media Institute, need to grapple with. Now, I will tell you up front that I don’t have an answer. And I won’t touch on particular policy issues, like social media’s role in elections. What I have in mind is something broader. With that, let me suggest two trends that I believe have lowered our discourse—and how social media has enabled each. First: Everything nowadays is political.

[Commentary] I’m proposing today that my colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission repeal President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations. Instead the FCC simply would require internet service providers to be transparent so that consumers can buy the plan that’s best for them. And entrepreneurs and other small businesses would have the technical information they need to innovate. The Federal Trade Commission would police ISPs, protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015.

Across the board, we are reviewing our regulations to make sure that they reflect current market conditions; that they are applied evenly and fairly; and that they are consistent with the law and sound principles of economics. In some cases, that means streamlining rules to reflect current technological and marketplace realities.  In other cases, that means eliminating them altogether.  In all cases, it means getting government out of the way as much as possible in order to encourage private initiative. Beyond that, we have adopted a posture of regulatory humility.

So what does it mean for a government agency to be on the side of innovation? Having served on the FCC since 2012, I’ve certainly had time to think about that question. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the most effective strategy for seizing the opportunities of the digital age is promoting the power of free markets. Instead of viewing innovation as a problem to be regulated based on rules from the past, government should see innovation’s potential, guided by markets that embrace the future.

On Oct 5, several Members of Congress wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai regarding the FCC's Notice of Inquiry "Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion." The lawmakers wrote, "we strongly oppose any proposal to lower speeds from the current standard of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload to 10 Mbps download/I Mbps or to find mobile broadband as a universally appropriate replacement for fixed, home broadband." On Oct 24, Chairman Pai responded, writing, "With respect to claims that the Section 70