Daily Digest 3/6/2018 (The Silence of the Bought)

Washington became the first state in the country to pass its own network neutrality law in the wake of the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of the popular Obama-era rules. Gov Jay Inslee (D-WA) signed a bill forbidding internet service providers from blocking or throttling web content, or from charging websites for higher delivery speeds. During a ceremony for the bill signing, he called the legislation a "free speech bill." “All Washingtonians should enjoy equal and unfettered access to the educational, social and economic power of the internet,” Gov Inslee said. “I’m proud that Washington state is helping lead the way to preserve these net neutrality rules, which ensure a level playing field for consumers and innovators.” The move is sure to prompt a court battle.

Is AT&T carving out lanes on the internet and offering the speediest service to the highest bidder, while leaving all other internet traffic relegated to "slow lanes"? Not exactly. AT&T hasn't introduced a new service that explicitly prioritizes one type of traffic over another. But that doesn't mean that it isn't offering other services that might run afoul of the strict network neutrality restrictions that are set to expire soon.  Do sponsored content services violate the 2015 net neutrality rules? No. In fact, the Federal Communications Commission specifically said sponsored content, in a practice known as "zero rating," is not prohibited under the rules. It recognized that there could be benefits to consumers, such as lower cost of service. But the agency also realized that depending on how the plans were structured, it could also put competitors at a disadvantage.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai can usually count on support from broadband industry lobbyists and conservative think tanks each time he announces a new policy. But Chairman Pai's proposal to limit broadband choices for poor people who rely on a telecommunication subsidy program is coming under fire from all directions. Chairman Pai wants a major overhaul of Lifeline, a federal program that lets poor people use a $9.25 monthly household subsidy to buy Internet and/or phone service. Today, more than 70 percent of wireless phone users who rely on Lifeline subsidies buy their plans from resellers, i.e. companies that purchase capacity from network operators and then resell it directly to consumers. Pai's Lifeline plan would force all of those customers to find new carriers, because he proposes to limit Lifeline subsidies to "facilities-based broadband" providers, those that operate their own networks. Excluding resellers from the program would limit competition in the market for subsidized plans and push consumers toward network operators like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint. But the reseller ban isn't even getting support from the large broadband companies that the ban seems designed to benefit. Sprint told the FCC that "Resellers have played an important and legitimate role in providing competitive broadband and voice service to low-income consumers, and their elimination could have a significant impact on participation in the Lifeline program." Verizon similarly urged the commission to let resellers stay in the Lifeline program.

[Commentary] In February of 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders issued the Kerner Report—which detailed an extensive and daunting list of inequalities and inequities that led to civil unrest in Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Newark. Among its findings, the commission highlighted how the lack of adequate representation among the people assigning, reporting, and editing media coverage might drive “the underlying problems of race relations.” As a nation, we must recommit ourselves to the lessons of the Kerner Report, and to building a media that reflects the whole of America—not one that divides and only reinforces one side or another. We must advocate for the hiring and promotion of journalists who represent the full American experience, and also for the creation of and support for local journalism that holds the powerful to account. We cannot allow another 50 years to pass before addressing the inequalities that eat away at our media, and America as a whole. Together, we must ensure that the people who understand the problems facing all communities have a voice in solving them, and news platforms that reflect their views. In the meantime, we, collectively, will keep speaking truth to power—until the powerful in media and Washington start telling more of our truth.

[Darren Walker is the president of the Ford Foundation.]

Conservatives are zeroing in on a new enemy in the political culture wars: Big Tech. Arguing that Silicon Valley is stifling their speech and suppressing right-wing content, publishers and provocateurs on the right are eyeing a public-relations battle against online giants like Google and Facebook, the same platforms they once relied on to build a national movement. In a sign of escalation, Peter Schweizer, a right-wing journalist known for his investigations into Hillary Clinton, plans to release a new film focusing on technology companies and their role in filtering the news. Tentatively titled “The Creepy Line,” Schweizer’s documentary is expected to have its first screening in May in Cannes, France — during the Cannes Film Festival, but not as part of the official competition. He used the same rollout two years ago for his previous film, an adaptation of his book “Clinton Cash” that he produced with Stephen Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News. ”The Creepy Line” alludes to an infamous 2010 speech by Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google at the time, who dismissed concerns about privacy by declaring that his company’s policy was “to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.” The documentary, which has not been previously reported, dovetails with concerns raised in recent weeks by right-wing groups about censorship on digital media — a new front in a rapidly evolving culture war.

He’s derided them as “bot-infested badlands,” “dysfunctional and sometimes dystopian,” and platforms for “the fake, the faux and the fallacious.” On a recent earnings call, he called them “mephitic,” prompting his spokesman to tweet the definition: “foul smelling.” No media executive has more tirelessly criticized Google and Facebook -- and done so with such a colorful vocabulary -- than News Corp Chief Executive Officer Robert Thomson. A top lieutenant of the billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Thomson uses alliterative attacks as part of a decade-long crusade to pressure Silicon Valley for a greater share of its advertising revenue. Now, Thomson, 56, is taking his campaign against Facebook a step further: He wants the social media giant to pay publishers for their content, the same way a cable TV company pays Walt Disney to carry ESPN. Once a lonely gadfly poking at tech giants like a modern Don Quixote, Thomson is now finding that other media executives publicly back his quest.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn of the Federal Communications Commission says every route should be pursued to restore network neutrality rules, from the courts to Congress. But she didn't say which she thought would be most likely to succeed because she thinks "it's important for all of the sectors and these points and these avenues to be addressed," she said. Commissioner Clyburn has to leave the agency by the end of 2018 because her term ended last summer. Clyburn is coming to the end of a nine-year tenure at the FCC, but she's going out rallying the troops.She hasn't said exactly what she'll do next — but said that it will tap into her longtime interest in issues that affect marginalized communities. She said that "you’re going to see or hear about me doing some things that will be a part of attempting to equalize opportunities to allow those who don’t have a voice to be heard and included. That part of me is not going to turn off when I walk out of the FCC.” "All of us have chapters in our lives," she said, "and it’s what you do in between taking an oath and walking out the door that’s made the difference."