Op-Ed

[Commentary] The greatest concern today for our communications industry might simply be this: Are we prepared to learn from history? Do we want to break the pattern of the past and disrupt the political bargains of yesterday that have lessened free speech (for example, the fairness doctrine) and shielded incumbents from competitive entry (for example, the long-standing power of television broadcasters)? If so, the answer is to stop the intrusive government control that favors some companies over others. It is time to stop “mother may I” regulations.
[Babette Boliek is an associate professor of law and the associate dean of Faculty Research and Development at Pepperdine University School of Law]

[Commentary] In 1994 Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)decried what he felt was an ongoing redefinition of acceptable behavior designed to normalize what had previously been unacceptable. He described this phenomenon as “Defining Deviancy Down.” The Trump Federal Communications Commission is following a similar “defining down” policy when it comes to what is acceptable in the all-important networks that connect us.

By quietly altering the measuring sticks, the Trump FCC is “Defining Digital Down” to reset the definition of acceptable behavior by the companies that control America’s networks. Instead of working to build the best possible future for Americans, the agency’s new definitions lower expectations, declare victory where there is none, and set the stage for anti-consumer consolidation. Instead of challenging American companies to, for instance, raise average internet connectivity speeds to levels above those of Kenya, the Trump FCC is seeking to redefine downward what constitutes high-speed broadband. Changing the measuring stick changes the outcome. Imagine how the results of last weekend’s football games could have changed if a first down was only nine yards. Quietly, and with little notice, the agency that is supposed to be protecting consumers is changing its definitions in a manner that favors the corporations they are supposed to oversee at the expense of the consumers they are supposed to protect.

[Wheeler is a Brookings Visiting Fellow and former chairman of the FCC]

[Commentary] Those against the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rollback of network neutrality regulations fear that allowing Internet service providers to control internet speed based on ability-to-pay will lead to an internet tilted in favor of companies with deeper pockets, not necessarily better services. But according to the rollback’s supporters, the current net neutrality regulations put in place by the Obama administration are an egregious overstepping of power on the part of the federal government, and serve to stunt growth and innovation in the industry.

But both sides fail to realize there is a middle ground — one that benefits consumers, but still keeps control from being pushed too far in either direction. It does not have to be either the federal government in control or ISPs. It does not have to be one to the exclusion of the other. In fact, one could argue that a very workable compromise would be to move back to a regulatory regime — whether through FCC efforts, a narrowly focused legislative solution, or some combination of the two — in essence representing the original rules in the first Open Internet Order (no blocking, no throttling, etc.), but not including the current Title II classification.

[Doug Sicker is the Department head of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. He is also the previous chief technology officer at the Department of Commerce and the chief technology officer at the Federal Communications Commission.]

[Commentary] Without legislating specific net neutrality rules, Congress could take three important steps to clear away irrelevant legal impediments and make the debate more productive for regulators and the public alike.
1) Separate classification from regulation: Congress could enact legislation that removed the distinction between “telecommunication” and “information” services. The economic case for whether and how a firm should be regulated has nothing to do with what service it provides.
2) Restore a focus on the ‘public interest’: The Federal Communications Commission made a mistake by treating net neutrality as a competition problem rather than as a tool to protect speech.
3) Restore the role of antitrust in telecommunications: Focusing the FCC on the public interest would be easier if the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division or the Federal Trade Commission could guard against internet service providers engaging in monopolistic practices. At present, the antitrust agencies may not have that authority.

[Timothy Brennan is currently professor public policy and economics at the University of Maryland. He was chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission during 2014.]

[Commentary] Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act illustrates the value of sunsets. Its termination date is December 31, 2017, unless reauthorized by Congress. Experience since its enactment by in 2008 shows that section 702 has created a hole in the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy big enough to house the Pentagon.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), has an opportunity to become the James Otis of digital privacy by sponsoring legislation to cure section 702’s constitutional defects revealed by experience by requiring judicial warrants based on probable cause to justify invading the communications privacy of Americans.

[Bruce Fein is a constitutional scholar]

[Commentary] By launching 11,943 satellites SpaceX will do to telecoms what WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger did to SMS and in doing so capture a $1tn+ business — and there’s fringe benefits for Tesla.

What SpaceX are actually seeking is to replace every broadband and communications provider on the planet, by cutting out the middle man of land-based networks that stand between you and the internet. In doing so they will be essentially competing with every communications provider in the world — a business valued at over a trillion dollars. Forget about poor communities in Africa for a second: this is a pitch to replace physical fibre/cable connections in modern industrialised economies But a few questions arise from this including the big one: mobile phones. Will the plan be to have mobile phones work directly with satellites overhead? Is that even possible? Or will there be a hybrid approach — provide broadband to physically static locations and work from there?

[Gavin Sheridan is the Founder and CEO of Vizlegal.]

[Commentary] Today’s privacy rules are anything but clear. Internet content providers like Google, Facebook and Amazon are regulated for privacy by the Federal Trade Commission, the historic internet-privacy protection body. Internet-service providers that link consumers to the network, such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, were also regulated for privacy by the FTC until 2015, when the Federal Communications Commission classified internet access as a telecommunications service, stripping the FTC of that authority. Privacy is too important to be left to the whims of regulatory agencies.

Instead, Congress should consider taking an approach akin to the Browser Act (HR 2520), sponsored by Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), that would unify privacy rules across the internet under the FTC, from operating systems to browsers to ISPs to edge content providers.

[Rick Boucher was a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from Virginia for 28 years and chaired the House Communications Subcommittee. He is honorary chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) and head of the government strategies practice at law firm Sidley Austin]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s L Band is made up of frequencies prime for cellular services but largely walled off for satellite links.

In 2004 the FCC moved to relax L-Band rules, permitting deployment of a terrestrial mobile network. Satellite calls would continue, but few were being made, and sharing frequencies with cellular devices made eminent sense. By 2010, L-Band licensee LightSquared was ready to build a state-of-the-art 4G network, and the FCC announced that the 40 MHz bandwidth would become available. LightSquared quickly spent about $4 billion of its planned $14 billion infrastructure rollout. Americans would soon enjoy a fifth nationwide wireless choice. But in 2012 the FCC yanked LightSquared’s licenses. Various interests, from commercial airlines to the Pentagon, complained that freeing up the L Band could cause interference with Global Positioning System devices, since they are tuned to adjacent frequencies. Yet cheap remedies—such as a gradual roll-out of new services while existing networks improved reception with better radio chips—were available. In reality, the costliest spectrum conflicts emanate from overprotecting old services at the expense of the new. With its licenses snatched away, LightSquared instantly plunged into bankruptcy. Five years on, the company has recapitalized and re-emerged with a new name, Ligado. It has hired deft policy players and is making deals to mitigate conflicts. Yet regulatory impediments continue to block progress. Years after the L-Band spectrum was slated for productive use in 4G, it lies fallow—now delaying upgrades to 5G. This familiar impasse in the political spectrum begs for correction.

The FCC should let Ligado use satellite licenses for cellular services. It should also permit competitors, including Ligado, to bid for new L-Band spectrum rights. Remaining border disputes should be consigned to binding arbitration, not allowed to sandbag progress in open-ended skirmishing. This would move radio spectrum out of oblivion and into the mobile broadband networks craved by consumers, innovators and the US economy. Just like the National Broadband Plan called for in 2010.

[Hazlett is a professor of economics at Clemson and former chief economist of the FCC (1991-92)]

[Commentary] One of us is the inventor of the personal computer, and the other a former commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it.

If FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s majority permits fast lanes for the biggest internet service providers (ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T), companies could speed up or slow down the sites and services they prefer. That’ll be great for their business affiliates and corporate friends, but woe to the startup that wants to build the next great web service — it could find itself in the slow lane, unable to compete with established firms. And pity the local blogger who criticizes her ISP’s crummy service — the broadband gatekeeper would be free to slow or silence her.

The path forward is clear. The FCC must abandon its ill-conceived plan to end net neutrality. Instead of creating fast lanes for the few, it should be moving all of us to the fast lane by encouraging competition in local broadband connectivity and pushing companies to deliver higher speeds at more affordable prices. It’s the right thing for us as consumers and as citizens.

[Steve Wozniak is a computer engineer who co-founded Apple Computer, Inc. with Steve Jobs. Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2011, is a special adviser for Common Cause.]

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission takes up the issue of whether to reverse the Obama-era Open Internet Order, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?

My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations – called "throttling," the practice of limiting download speeds – for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our findings reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy's effect. The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn't – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes.

[David Choffnes is a researcher at Northeastern University]