Op-Ed

[Commentary] The only sure fire strategy to regain control of this vital underpinning of modern economies is for us to own the broadband networks themselves. Only then will we able make the rules that serve the public interest. Decisions about caps and rates and access, about the digital divide and net neutrality and privacy can and should be debated and made at the local level, not in some distant boardroom or in even more distant federal agencies and federal courts.

[Commentary] So long as the Federal Communications Commission is run by majority rule, members of the first faction will never achieve lasting protections to their liking; the pendulum will continue to swing with changes in the White House. The solution is obvious: Congress needs to give the FCC (or the Net Tribunal) a clear mandate to define appropriate ISP and tech platform behavior and to police it. Until that day comes, we will have more heart-pounding installments of the net neutrality saga than Star Wars.

[Hal Singer is principal at Economists Incorporated]

[Commentary] Net neutrality advocates must shift their focus from the Federal Communications Commission to Congress, where they may well find the support and power they need to safeguard a fair and free internet. There is a strong historical argument for shifting attention to Congress: the Fairness Doctrine.  

[Commentary] The US publicly attributes the massive “WannaCry” cyberattack to North Korea. The attack spread indiscriminately across the world in May. It encrypted and rendered useless hundreds of thousands of computers in hospitals, schools, businesses and homes. While victims received ransom demands, paying did not unlock their computers. It was cowardly, costly and careless. The attack was widespread and cost billions, and North Korea is directly responsible. We do not make this allegation lightly. It is based on evidence. We are not alone with our findings, either.

[Commentary] Who really thinks that allowing the large telecom corporations more control over what Americans see and read is a good thing? Giving monopolies more power will make it harder for new companies to enter the marketplace and limit the pace of innovation. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and the end of network neutrality exemplify everything that is currently wrong with Washington.

[Commentary] Why are we talking about digital inclusion and equity now in a way that is different from, say, eight years ago? The obvious answer – very different presidential administrations – only touches the surface. Consumers are adopting digital tools like never before and, in some segments of the U.S., we’ve reached a “tech abundance” threshold that is driving a bottom-up interest in digital inclusion in many communities. Tech abundance doesn’t mean that everyone in society has adopted digital tools.

[Commentary] The internet, the mega-utility of the 21st century, officially has no regulator. In the meantime, fed up with federal apathy and sick of being held back by lousy internet access controlled by local cable monopolies, scrappy cities around the US are working hard to find ways to get cheap, world-class fiber-optic connectivity. But now there’s an additional obstacle: Powerful right-wing billionaires have joined the fight against municipal fiber efforts, using their deep pockets to fund efforts to block even the most commonsense of plans.

[Commentary] In essence, the Federal Communications Commission has given Internet service providers the legal power to blackmail any content provider that does not pay them with the threat of a slowdown in service delivery. The FCC clearly has put the ISPs profits above the benefits of consumers and of the overwhelming majority of businesses.

[Commentary] The vote by the Federal Communications Commission repealing its 2015 network neutrality rules will have an especially negative impact on online innovation.

[Comentary] The Federal Communications Commission GOP majority did what it was intended to do with net neutrality, which was ignore overwhelmingly positive public support across political affiliations and kill the policy anyway. Aside from hurting real sources of innovation, rather than the fake sources like finding new ways to charge more, it opens the door for people of more moderate means and the poor to be at a greater disadvantage than before.

Reducing effective Internet access has a profound impact on low- to moderate-income individuals: