Upcoming policy issue

At the start of this decade, the Arab Spring blossomed with the help of social media. That is the sort of story the tech industry loves to tell about itself: It is bringing freedom, enlightenment and a better future for all mankind. Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, proclaimed that this was exactly why his social network existed. In a 2012 manifesto for investors, he said Facebook was a tool to create “a more honest and transparent dialogue around government.” The result, he said, would be “better solutions to some of the biggest problems of our time.”

Now tech companies are under fire for creating problems instead of solving them. At the top of the list is Russian interference in last year’s presidential election. Social media might have originally promised liberation, but it proved an even more useful tool for stoking anger. The manipulation was so efficient and so lacking in transparency that the companies themselves barely noticed it was happening. The election is far from the only area of concern. Tech companies have accrued a tremendous amount of power and influence. Amazon determines how people shop, Google how they acquire knowledge, Facebook how they communicate. All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web. Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings, and is sparking a backlash that is still gathering force.

After years of largely avoiding regulation, businesses like Facebook, Google and Amazon are a focus of lawmakers, some of whom are criticizing the expanding power of big tech companies and their role in the 2016 election.

The attacks cover a smattering of issues as diverse as antitrust, privacy and public disclosure. They also come from both sides, from people like Stephen Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, as well as Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Many of the issues, like revising antitrust laws, have a slim chance of producing new laws soon. But they have become popular talking points nonetheless, amplified by a series of missteps and disclosures by the companies. The companies, recognizing the new environment in Washington, have started to fortify their lobbying forces and recalibrate their positions.

A group of House and Senate Democrats are calling on the US government to issue new “guidance” to stop foreign advertisers from spending money on Facebook, Google and other web platforms in a bid to influence American elections.

Federal law already bars that sort of political spending, but lawmakers — including Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — stress in a letter to the Federal Elections Commission that countries like Russia “have routinely deployed sophisticated tactics in making political expenditures to evade detection.” To that end, the Democrats are asking the FEC — which oversees campaign finance —to offer suggestions for how to crack down on “loopholes” that allow foreign entities to use “corporate or nonprofit designations to evade disclosure.” And they want to help tech companies harden their own platforms to prevent that spending in the first place.

For now, though, the Democrats are asking the watchdog agency to issue a timeline for action and respond to their questions no later than Oct. 4.

House Republicans emerged from a month of network neutrality negotiations with no new draft bill text, said Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR). Before August, he set his sights on a hearing scheduled for Sept 7 on net neutrality legislation featuring testimony from top tech and telecom CEOs — but there’s no such hearing and, as a GOP committee aide confirms, no new draft bill. “Obviously there are some difficult issues yet to resolve with language,” Chairman Walden said. On the hearing, he cited “scheduling issues with the principals” and said a new draft “would be the topic of that hearing when it does happen, or if it does happen.” Republicans are still in discussions to “see if we can legislate,” said Chairman Walden, who has sought to codify open internet rules since 2015 without any real negotiation with Democrats. “Everybody’s operating in good faith, and we have other matters we can address in the meantime,” he said.

Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said of the cancelled hearing: "We're still working through that issue, and I think we're in pretty good shape." But she said she didn't know if the hearing would be re-scheduled, despite "great conversations" taking place. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he's heard of a draft net neutrality bill floating around, but said if that's the case, he and other Democrats hadn't seen it. "I'm sure at some point in time, in the distant future, there may come a time when it makes sense to put this into legislation, but I don't think we're at that time yet.” Democrats favor keeping the FCC's net neutrality rules.

Senate Republicans are trying to lock down a time for a roll call vote for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s reconfirmation.

“I want to get it done as soon as we can,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD). “I don’t want to push this to the end of the year. I think the [Senate Majority] leader shares that view.” He didn’t rule out a September vote, saying it depends on “how quickly we’re able to dispose of some of the things we have to deal with that are immediate to see if there’s a window there to do it.” Without a vote, Chairman Pai would have to leave the commission at the end of 2017. Chairman Pai likely has all the GOP votes he needs, but Democrats “are going to make it difficult,” Chairman Thune predicted. “They wanted to drag this out or they would have let him go [by voice vote] before the August break when we approved the other package of [nominees]. They intend, I think at least, to use some time to talk about it.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a frequent Pai critic, said he welcomes the chance: “It’s definitely an opportunity to talk about those issues, and I intend to pursue them.”

One priority for Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) is reauthorizing the Federal Communications Commission, which hasn’t happened since 1990.

His bipartisan bill to do so stalled on the Senate floor last Congress, and while he’s said he wants to revive the effort, don’t expect action for months. “That probably doesn’t happen this year,” said Chairman Thune citing plenty of other priorities to tackle first. What could go into the eventual package? Chairman Thune mentioned that “transparency and accountability” provisions and some pieces of his FCC Process Reform Act might make it in, although he said some parts are “too controversial and wouldn’t be included” this time around. He’s also in no rush to craft legislation overhauling the FCC’s Lifeline program, but “if there’s an FCC reauthorization, that might be the window to do that.”

The House Commerce Committee had mentioned FCC reauthorization as a priority for September. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he hadn't heard anything on that front. "We've got a lot to do and not much time," he said.

Federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense (DoD), don’t face normal marketplace pressures to economize their use of spectrum. While the potential societal gains of reallocating federal spectrum for commercial use are likely in the hundreds of billions of dollars, attempts at addressing this problem have met many roadblocks. Today, I’m offering another idea for consideration: the option of allowing agencies to free up some of their spectrum holdings in exchange for budgetary relief. While I still believe the imposition of Agency Spectrum Fees is the best course of action, this new proposal represents a compromise between differing carrot and stick approaches. And it is particularly timely today, as many of these federal agencies face increasing budgetary pressure. I suggest that federal agencies be permitted to use their spectrum holdings to offset the annual budgetary caps and sub caps. This would mean that, in achieving its respective budget limits, a federal agency could substitute the market value – as determined by an average of Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimates – of their surrendered spectrum to offset other cuts or even expand its spending options. It amounts to a spectrum-for-cash swap.

The reason why network neutrality is so important—and why this issue remains so fiercely contested—is that it amounts to the free speech principle for the internet. This open access concept is absolutely essential, net neutrality advocates argue, because the entire US economy—and indeed society—is now deeply rooted in internet connectivity. More than that, net neutrality ensures that US democracy will continue to thrive by allowing all voices—even unpopular ones—to be heard. "Net neutrality is what democracy looks like," said Winnie Wong, a veteran political activist involved in Occupy Wall Street, People For Bernie, and the Women's March on Washington. "Without it we can't tell the story of the struggle for social justice. If the government empowers corporate monopolies to dictate how and what we can share online, we'll never be able to advance our vision of racial justice, climate action, and economic equality." With so much at stake, US faith leaders are also getting involved. "An open internet is vital for our organizing efforts here in North Carolina, and around the country," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, a leading national justice organizer and President of Repairers of the Breach.

Facing such strong public opposition to his net neutrality rollback, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai may punt the issue to Congress, which is actually what the nation's largest ISPs want. The broadband industry's real goal, according to many tech policy experts, is to move this battle to the Republican-led US Congress, where deep-pocketed ISPs can lobby to craft internet policy rules that favor themselves. If the ISPs are successful, look for a spirited net neutrality debate this fall featuring Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). This fight is far from over.

How fast is a broadband internet connection?

That question is at the heart of a controversy at the Federal Communications Commission. After a study about connection speeds in the US, the FCC decided that too few people had access to high speed internet. But that conclusion never sat right with the commission's Republicans, who argued that the agency set too high a bar in deciding what counts as broadband. Now that the GOP is in the majority at the agency, the FCC is considering new guidelines for gauging the availability and competitiveness of high speed internet. There's no specific proposal yet, but based on their past statements there's a good chance those same commissioners will vote to lower it. That could affect how much funding is available to expand broadband networks into rural or low income areas.

The issue hasn't received as much attention as the debate over net neutrality, but Roberto Gallardo , a researcher at Purdue University's Center for Regional Development, worries that lower standards would reduce the motivation of broadband providers to expand service into rural communities, which already lag behind urban areas in both speed and availability of high speed internet.

If the FCC decides that rural areas and poor neighborhoods have adequate coverage, future funding for internet infrastructure upgrades could receive short shrift, says Harold Feld, a senior vice president of the digital-rights advocacy group Public Knowledge.

The technology sector has been on edge, waiting to see if the new administration will make the reforms needed to spur innovation and startup activity, or whether it will make policy changes that end up stifling it. There are a few key areas of tech policy that are top of mind for tech CEOs and other industry participants, including four key issues: Expanding tech talent, intellectual property protection, artificial intelligence and automation, and network neutrality. Current Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is arguing to end internet service providers’ status as common carriers (on par with utilities), and instead “reestablish” market forces in regulating the internet. His view is that this would increase infrastructure investment and innovation among the aging broadband networks. This is not surprising, given President Trump’s view on this as a “top-down power grab,” drawing analogies to the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine.