Monday, October 7, 2019
Headlines Daily Digest
The Future of the COPPA Rule: An FTC Workshop
Don't Miss:
Net neutrality is alive and well after this week’s crushing court defeat
Agenda
Broadband/Internet
Wireless/Spectrum
Platforms
Privacy/Security
Advertising
Company News
Lobbying
Stories from Abroad
FCC Agenda
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the items below are tentatively on the agenda for the October Open Commission Meeting scheduled for Friday, October 25, 2019.
- Enforcing Rural Broadband Quality Standards – The Commission will consider an Order on Reconsideration that would ensure that carriers receiving high-cost universal service support to deploy rural broadband are accountable to consumers, taxpayers, and the Commission, while providing flexibility for smaller carriers, by making targeted modifications to the testing procedures that carriers must use to show that their networks perform at the Commission’s speed and latency standards . (WC Docket No. 10-90)
- 911 Fee Parity – The Commission will consider a Declaratory Ruling that would clarify section 6(f)(1) of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 and ensure regulatory parity in 911 fees between VoIP services and traditional telecommunications services. (WC Docket No. 19-44)
- Broadcast Antenna Siting – The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would seek comment on whether the common antenna siting rules for FM and TV broadcaster applicants and licensees dating back to 1945 should be revised or eliminated given the current broadcasting marketplace. (MB Docket Nos. 19-282, 17-105)
- Petition for Determination of Effective Competition – The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order that would find that Charter faces effective competition from AT&T’s online video streaming service in franchise areas in Massachusetts and Hawaii. (MB Docket No. 18-283)
- Tariff Rules Modernization – The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would amend its tariffing rules to better align them with the reality of easy electronic access to tariff filings. (WC Docket Nos. 18-276, 17-308)
- Expediting the Conclusion of the 800 MHz Band Reconfiguration – The Commission will consider an Order and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would streamline rules and procedures to expedite the successful completion of the 800 MHz band reconfiguration initiative, lower program costs and administrative burdens, and continue to alleviate interference to public safety licensees. (WT Docket No. 02-55).
The net neutrality victory for the telecommunications industry may have just actually delivered them into a hell they’ve tried to avoid for decades: a balkanized regulatory landscape even more restrictive than the one they just escaped. In its repeal, the Federal Communications Commission preempted states from imposing their own net neutrality laws. “No dice,” the majority opinion responded. If the US government chooses to abdicate regulatory authority, the judges argued, it can’t simultaneously take that authority from states.
“As a practical matter, the ISPs are going to have to abide by net neutrality,” argued telecommunications lawyer Gary Resnick at the law firm GrayRobinson, as states begin enforcing their own net-neutrality laws. “If [telcoms] can’t do it in half the country, they can’t do that anywhere,” he added. Abiding by net neutrality rules in California, but not for information sent to Ohio, will prove, to say the least, challenging. ”The FCC,” Resnick argued, “lost.”
What really and truly stands out about the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit’s decision in the net neutrality case: net neutrality at the federal level has turned into a legal quagmire with almost no relationship to the real issues regular people face in the market for internet access. The heart of the net neutrality policy debate is incredibly simple and easy for almost anyone to understand: do you think internet providers should have the power to block, throttle, or otherwise interfere with internet traffic outside of normal network management? Most people don’t think so — the polls say net neutrality is a popular idea with Americans across party lines. But because the fight has been going on for so long, and the rules have been imposed and taken away so many times under different legal theories, the actual court case and legal issues are a million miles away from the very simple policy question. Instead, the legal side of net neutrality has become an exercise in lawyers making fine-grained arguments about whether washing machines can make phone calls, whether consumers with a single broadband provider still experience the benefits of competition, and whether or not federal regulations can override state law if the federal regulations don’t actually exist. “Is it good if AT&T can throttle Fox News while streaming CNN for free” never actually comes up, even though that is the fundamental policy question.
It is clear that the online comment system at the Federal Communications Commission, and very likely other public agencies, is easily exploitable and likely broken to the point that it’s causing more harm than good. Though it may seem like an arcane issue, it’s a big problem. When it comes to crafting new federal policies, the notice and comment process might be the only direct way a member of the public can have a voice in federal decision-making. Regulators are legally required to consider opinions shared by Americans. Though policymakers can’t read every comment if millions are posted, comments can be tallied to help reshape policy proposals.
The answer to this mess isn’t ending the comment process. We need ways to weigh in on policies that affect our lives beyond Election Day, especially when it comes to decisions made by unelected officials at regulatory agencies. The answer is to fix the broken system—fast. That requires understanding how fake comments are filed and working with technologists, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders to ferret out ways the system can be abused and build a better one. Maybe a new system could require posters to use two-factor authentication. Or perhaps the agencies should build a detection system to weed out duplicates. When the public is asked to participate online, there will always be actors who try to muck it up. But democracy is messy. And that requires constant work to protect it.
Apparently, T-Mobile's bid to acquire Spring has received a third “yes” vote at the Federal Communications Commission. All three Republicans on the five-member agency have voted for the deal, setting in motion procedures that would require agency action by Oct. 9, or Oct. 16 if an extension is requested by a commissioner. Neither agency Democrat has cast a vote, and both have called for delay. The third “yes” came from Commissioner Brendan Carr who in May issued a formal statement supporting the deal.
Platform giants need to meet the public interest standard, just like broadcast media. Even if antitrust enforcement moves forward, as Harvard’s Gene Kimmelman has argued, “social welfare regulations are also required.” This is why there have also been calls for the creation of a new regulatory agency focused on digital platforms. Such an agency would need to be able to address not only concerns about competition but also these broader social welfare concerns. Essentially, then, we need a robust public interest framework for platform regulation.
There is already a well-established template. The Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory mandate includes not only assuring adequate competition in the electronic media sector but also assuring that the broader public interest is being served. Within the context of this public interest standard, the FCC has pursued a variety of social welfare objectives, from reducing the digital divide to protecting children from adult content to ensuring that the public has access to a diversity of sources and viewpoints. It even has regulations in place that prohibit the broadcasting of disinformation. The FCC also has the authority to review proposed media mergers according to two criteria: 1) the implications for competition; and 2) the implications for the broader public interest. However (and this is a hugely important however), the FCC’s ability to regulate on behalf of the public interest is in many ways confined to the narrow context of broadcasting. The solution involves borrowing from broadcast regulation. Like broadcasters, many digital platforms have built their business on a public resource. In this case, the public resource is not spectrum but, rather, our user data. If we understand aggregate user data as a public resource, then just as broadcast licensees must abide by public interest obligations in exchange for the privilege of monetizing the broadcast spectrum, so too should large digital platforms abide by public interest obligations in exchange for the privilege of monetizing our data.
[Philip M. Napoli is the James R. Shepley Professor of Public Policy in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.]
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) — we welcome your comments.
© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2019. Redistribution of this email publication — both internally and externally — is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org
Share this edition:
The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society All Rights Reserved © 2019