Op-Ed

[Commentary] The week of Oct 2, the Senate has a chance to make a profound difference for the 2.7 million children whose parents are incarcerated. Headlines covered victory after victory as the Federal Communications Commission woke from a 10-year sleep and began adopting rules to protect consumers from paying $17 for a 15-minute phone call to jail and eye-popping fees imposed on families when they deposit money to pay for calls. One federal appointee has changed all that — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai — and his confirmation vote is expected Oct 2.

Senators who believe in leaders that follow the rules, act according to their conscience, put low-income people and children first, and who protect the First Amendment above all else should vote against Chairman Pai. Speak out now and call your senator to oppose Chairman Pai’s confirmation.

[Cheryl Leanza is the policy adviser for the United Church of Christ’s Office of Communication, Inc.]

[Commentary] Actual policy actions to protect our vote from outside interference have been next to nil. That needs to change now.

First, and most obviously, our cybersecurity must be strengthened. We need greater education on how to prevent cyberattacks; more coordination between layers for cybersecurity at the individual, group and government levels; and new government regulation mandating upgrades in cybersecurity for everyone and everything involved in the electoral process. Second, information about Russian state propaganda — not censorship of these content providers — must be provided to the American people. Third, foreign purchase of advertisements aimed at influencing elections must be prohibited. Fourth, Americans who colluded with Russian (or any foreign) actors to influence the outcome of our elections must be punished.

[Michael McFaul is director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Hoover fellow at Stanford University. He was previously special assistant to President Obama at the National Security Council from 2009-2012 and former U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014]

[Commentary] If you believe communications networks should be fast, fair, open, and affordable, you need ask your senator to vote against Ajit Pai’s reconfirmation. Now. The Senate vote on Pai is imminent. When it happens, it will be a stark referendum on the kind of communications networks and consumer protections we want to see in this country.

Senators can choose a toothless Federal Communications Commission that will protect huge companies, allow them to further consolidate, charge higher prices with worsening service, and a create bigger disconnect between broadband haves and have-nots. Or, they can vote for what the FCC is supposed to do: protect consumers, promote competition, and ensure access for all Americans, including the most vulnerable. It shouldn’t be a hard decision, and what we’ve seen over the past eight months makes the stakes clear.

[Gigi Sohn served as counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from November 2013 to December 2016. She is currently a fellow at the Open Society Foundations]

[Commentary] The new revelations of widespread use of personal e-mail for official business by Jared Kushner and five other White House advisers are no minor indiscretion. Rather, they represent the latest episode in a critical systems failure in the Trump presidency — one that strikes at the heart of our democracy.

At issue is the Presidential Records Act, a post-Watergate statute Congress enacted to establish public ownership of presidential (and vice-presidential) records. It obligates the White House and those who work there to preserve all records relating to their official duties. Despite these legal requirements, the first eight months of President Trump’s administration have been marked by stories of deleted presidential tweets, by the use within the White House of messaging applications that destroy the contents of messages as soon as they are read, and now by White House staff using personal e-mail accounts to conduct government business. It is now up to the courts to hold the president accountable to those he governs by affirming his and his staff’s obligations to maintain and preserve records. Our democracy itself is at stake.

[Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and served as chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2011. Anne Weismann is chief FOIA counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]

[Commentary] This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will officially confirm that the US wireless marketplace is characterized by effective competition. As this new generation of wireless service takes hold, it seems likely that most Americans will no longer have a reason to buy both types of service.

Peter Rysavy, an engineer whose firm has been examining wireless technology issues for more than two decades, says that “eventually consumers will pay for just one broadband connection, fixed and mobile.” He sees 5G as “a serious threat” to the wireline-only companies because it will enable consumers who generally prefer wireless to abandon wired broadband altogether.

[Shane Tews is president of Logan Circle Strategies]

[Commentary] As progressive luminaries like Tim Wu and Susan Crawford continue fighting for utility-style regulations for broadband providers, prominent conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon have begun demanding similar utility-style regulations for other internet “gatekeepers,” including major websites and online platforms like Google and Facebook. Even if you accept the premise of that argument — and reasonable minds disagree over just how much control is too much for one corporation to have — it’s far from clear that utility-style regulation is the proper response.

Indeed, in the dynamic markets for internet services, imposing true utility-style regulations would be a huge mistake. By giving up on market forces and ceding dominance to a single firm, utility-style regulation makes future competition impossible. Fortunately, strong antitrust and consumer protection laws can save us from this downward spiral of utility-style regulation.

[Commentary] For years politicians (both Republicans and Democrats), regulators, telecom providers, and just about anyone who uses a cellular phone or Wi-Fi have been saying that the US needs more radio spectrum for commercial two-way communications. Steps are being taken — for example, the Federal Communications Commission conducted an incentive auction to move radio spectrum from broadcasting to two-way communications. Another strategy would be to loosen regulatory controls on radio spectrum markets.

Current practice is a “rights to use” model. Since licensing is really about managing interference, licenses could deal with this directly with something like a “rights to interfere and rights to not be interfered with” approach. Company A’s license could read something like: “Don’t cause more than X interference in radio spectrum bands Y and Z without the agreement of Companies B and C.” So as long as A, B, and C are happy, the FCC would be happy, too.

[Mark Jamison is the director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business.]

[Commentary] At first glance, tomorrow’s Open Meeting at the Federal Communications Commission seems rather mundane — particularly after last summer’s high-profile internet freedom proceeding. But hidden among the seven items on the agenda is an intriguing proposal to reform the way the Commission allocates toll-free numbers. While the issue is not as sexy as internet freedom, the proposal is intriguing because it embraces a market-based solution to a problem that has long vexed the agency — a solution that (in another context) Nobel laureate Ronald Coase suggested almost a half-century ago.

The Commission’s decision to adopt a market solution to the similar problem of allocating toll-free numbers shows how far it has moved in Coase’s direction. While more work remains to be done, market-oriented reforms have helped make the communications marketplace industry more efficient and more innovative, which ultimately benefits the American public. The toll-free number modernization proposal is another, momentous reform in the right direction.

[Daniel Lyons is an associate professor at Boston College Law School]

[Commentary] In April 2016, Verizon told Boston it was going to be spending $300 million to deploy FiOS, their wireline Fiber-To-The-Premises (FTTP) service, to the entire city over the next six years. Unfortunately, what Verizon’s CEO told investors on September 13th, 2017, shows it has deceived the citizens of Boston and harmed Massachusetts.

[Bruce Kushnick is executive director of New Networks Institute]

[Commentary] It is more important than ever that we have accurate data on how broadband is deployed across the country. Yet many consider the Federal Communications Commission’s existing data to be inaccurate and unreliable.

With the FCC now having launched its 13th annual inquiry into the status of broadband deployment in America, it’s time to recognize we won’t get better deployment data from the commission until we take the politics out of broadband progress reports. While the vast majority of FCC staff are low-level, nonpartisan bureaucrats, bureau chiefs and the commissioners themselves are political appointees. Even without the threat of at-will removal, these appointees remain under strong pressure to toe the party line and adopt policies favored by the politicians who appointed them. Whether or not appointees are consciously aware of such political influence, recent FCC actions reflect an increasingly partisan agenda. If we want our telecom regulator to deliver accurate reports about the state of broadband deployment, we need to take the politics out of broadband progress reports. This means removing the “finding” from Section 706 that triggers further commission action and authority.

As Congress considers further telecom legislation — in the context of FCC reauthorization, net neutrality or a full-scale update to the Communications Act — it should re-examine Section 706 and consider implementing this fix. Maybe then we could finally trust the numbers the technocrats deliver.

[Tom Struble is a technology policy manager with the R Street Institute, a free market think tank]