Upcoming policy issue

Small internet service providers (ISPs) expect a helping hand from the Federal Communications Commission August 2, a move that could spur competition and perhaps lower prices. But the FCC is also considering a more sweeping proposal that would hurt upstarts to the benefit of industry giants like AT&T. Both issues revolve around how much access upstarts should have to facilities and equipment owned by their bigger rivals. The vote is about arcane rules for moving wires on utility poles.

The Trump administration likely will seek public comment on a new online privacy proposal it is hammering out with tech companies before sending it to Congress. The White House is working with technology giants on a legislative proposal through the National Economic Council and the Commerce Department.

Sen. Mark Warner's office has laid out 20 different paths to address problems posed by Big Tech platforms — ranging from putting a price on individual users' data to funding media literacy programs. The proposal is a window t0 the options available to US policymakers concerned about disinformation and privacy. Enacting any of these plans is a long shot in the near-term, but a shift in party control of Congress come November could give them more momentum.

Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-SD) is eying ways to combine his STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S.

It is heartening to see the Federal Communications Commission’s unanimous decision to designate the $3.9 billion Sinclair Broadcasting acquisition of Tribune Media for administrative review. Although unaccustomed to praising the Trump FCC, I believe this is an excellent decision. What happens next is worrisome, however, especially since President Donald Trump decided to tweet about the FCC’s decision. The tweet would seem to signal to Sinclair not to withdraw the transaction (a typical reaction to a designation for a hearing).

In my previous post, I highlighted four reasons why the U.S needs a unified policy framework for an open Internet ecosystem: 1) lack of competition/incentive and the ability to discriminate; 2) collection of and control over personal data; 3) lack of transparency; and 4) inadequacy of current laws and enforcement. Many of these problems can be addressed with targeted legislative and regulatory interventions.

[Analysis] In a new article for the Georgetown Law Technology Review, I seek to jumpstart a conversation about how to shape an Internet ecosystem that will serve the public interest. First, let me lay out the rationale for a new, unified policy framework for an open Internet: 1) Lack of Competition/Incentive and Ability to Discriminate, 2) Collection of and Control over Personal Data, 3) Lack of Transparency, and 4) Inadequacy of Current Laws and Enforcement.

[Analysis] On July 17, 2018, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) changed the network neutrality debate. Through two bold steps, Rep. Coffman disrupted the ongoing Republican vs Democrat divide on the issue and became, perhaps, the most prominent Republican to not just provide lip service to the “open internet,” but to make a positive proposal to enshrine net neutrality consumer protections for broadband users. First, Rep. Coffman introduced legislation that would amend U.S. communications law to provide for internet openness requirements for broadband internet access service providers.

[Op-ed] The court decision allowing AT&T to acquire Time Warner is an example of the inability of our current system of courts and enforcement to prevent the decline in competition in the modern US economy. In the case of that merger, the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice gets credit for making an attempt to block what it viewed as an anti-competitive transaction. What’s more, that view proved prescient after the now-merged firm almost immediately raised prices after executives testified that the synergies from the deal would immediately cause lower prices.

[Analysis] Digital platforms that (a) provide a two-sided or multi-sided market; (b) are accessed via the internet; and (c) have at least one side that is marketed as a “mass market” service, share a set of characteristics and raise a similar set of concerns so that we should consider them as a distinct set of businesses. This does not make laws of general applicability such as antitrust inapposite. Nor are these distinct capabilities and incentives intrinsically bad or good.