Randolph May

Christopher Ali, the Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications at Penn State University, recently called for consideration of rate regulation for broadband providers. His main argument is that some households still have difficulty paying their Internet bill. That may be true for some in the short term. However, the best way to ensure lower prices and greater innovation for most consumers over the long term remains continued promotion of increased competition with market-determined prices.

The commissioners sitting on the Federal Communications Commission should issue a joint statement reminding the public that “the comment process is not a vote.” To my mind, inviting commenters to make some noise and raise a ruckus is not the proper way to encourage public participation most conducive to creating a rulemaking record consistent with the agency’s supposed expertise. To the extent that making noise and raising a ruckus is understood as gearing up the mass comment machines, the notion is devalued that the FCC will be applying its expertise in deciding complex issues—say, what co

Congress should extend the worthwhile Affordability Connectivity Program (ACP) promptly by appropriating additional funding. At the same time, it can consider revising the program to better target the ACP benefit to those lower-income households most truly in need and adopting measures to minimize, to the extent possible, any waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. The ACP represents one-half of the federal government's push to make it possible for every American to access a high-speed Internet connection.

Jonathan Sallet, now a Senior Fellow of the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society and FCC General Counsel during Tom Wheeler's chairmanship of the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission, has published a new paper titled, "Broadband for America's Future: A Vision for the 2020s." Because I disagreed with much (but not all) of the Obama FCC's broadband policy – especially including its imposition of public utility-like regulation on Internet service providers – I am not surprised that I disagree with much

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission released its 18th Video Competition Report on Jan 17. Data points in the report demonstrate persuasively that the video services market is characterized by competition among cable, satellite, and telecommunication providers of video subscription services as well as disruptive online video services. The market also is being transformed by the proliferation of media streaming devices and video apps.

Yet for all the technological advancements and proliferation of choices now available to consumers, much of the video market is still subject to regulatory restrictions that originated in the early 1990s, if not earlier. These regulatory burdens, and the uncertainty posed by the threat of new regulations based on leftover cable analog-era perceptions, impose costs and inhibit investment in advanced digital technologies and business models.

[Randolph J. May is president and Seth L. Cooper is a senior fellow of the Free State Foundation]