Editorial

[Commentary] With elections looming in 2018 that look to generate lots of political advertising, broadcasters should be well versed in defending the current state of political fundraising and spending, particularly the newly won right of corporations and other associations to spend unlimited amounts in support of their causes and candidates.

[Commentary] Do you think it’s okay for your internet service provider—the company, such as Comcast or Verizon, that connects you to the internet—to decide which websites you can visit or to determine which streaming services will look best on your smart TV? If the answer is no, you’re probably in favor of network neutrality. Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, thinks that rolling back the rules could diminish competition, harming consumers.

[Commentary] The 2015 Open Internet Order received 3.7 million comments total, and the current rulemaking has received almost 5 million to date. Counting is easy. Knowing what that count means is not...

Despite the rhetoric, few in DC have much incentive to want the issue to go away. Millions of comments to the Federal Communications Commission also represent millions of fundraising opportunities. Groups arguing all sides of the issue financially benefit from the ongoing argument. Congress, meanwhile, probably will not weigh in before the 2018 election regardless of what the Federal Communications Commission does because that would mean giving up a campaign issue likely to be lucrative to members on both sides of the aisle. Thus, in the end, I suspect that millions of comments mostly mean that even after the current rulemaking is resolved, we will be stuck with this issue at least until sometime after the 2018 election and probably longer. Setting aside politics, it still remains the case that if the issue is to take into account broader public opinion then Congress is the only institution that can resolve it and, regardless of broad interest, only legislation has a chance of leading to a stable solution. Then, we can all finally move on to something else.

[Scott Wallsten is President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute]

[Commenary] On June 19, California Assemblymember Ed Chau introduced a bill to give people in that state the broadband privacy rights that they lost in Congress. This legislation has all of the key elements that are needed to protect broadband users’ privacy.

States have long recognized the importance of protecting privacy. There’s no federal law that requires commercial websites to post their privacy policies, but California and Delaware require it. There are state laws protecting the privacy of e-book users, and on biometrics, monitoring of employees’ e-mail, data security, and much more. The California Broadband Internet Privacy Act is another example of states leading the way. Consumer Federation of America strongly endorses it.

[Commentary] In proposing to buy WholeFoods for $14 billion, Amazon has surprisingly invited unwelcome serious antitrust investigation into, and public discussion about, Amazon’s core conflicted retail/MarketPlace business model and the many alleged predatory, discriminatory, and unfair standard Amazon business practices, that Amazon commits, not only in the grocery business segment, but in all other retail segments.

If antitrust authorities consider that the half of Amazon’s retail business that is not direct to American consumers, but it involves Amazon MarketPlace (where its competitors must come and become business-consumer-customers of Amazon to reach all their offline customers when they shop online), then this transaction will undergo a much rockier and problematic antitrust review.

[Commentary] Last month, a Harvard study reported that in Trump’s first 100 days, about 80 percent of mainstream press coverage reflected negatively on the new president. And the sheer amount of negative news was unprecedented. When we consider negative vs. positive coverage of an elected official, we’re asking the wrong question.

The president’s supporters often say his accomplishments get short shrift. But let’s face it: Politicians have no right to expect equally balanced positive and negative coverage, or anything close to it. If a president is doing a rotten job, it’s the duty of the press to report how and why he’s doing a rotten job.

[Commentary] Objectivity is an ethos built on the “shall nots” rather than the things that journalists might stand for. We shall not have insights independent of those we quote; we shall not take sides, even in things as fundamental as a better community; we shall not have feelings; we shall not be biased. Objectivity says, in essence, that journalists are not human. So how did we get to this place in journalism, and what do we do about it? I’ll describe this evolution in three stages. They are arbitrary. History, like life, rarely fits so neatly.

[Commentary] Ask the usual suspects when the first 3.5 GHz smartphones are expected to hit the market and things get eerily quiet. A projected timeline from the CBRS Alliance showed the organization expects at least one handset to be approved by December 2017. But an alliance spokesperson also noted that such timelines are subject to change. Apparently, Verizon asked Apple for 3.5 GHz CBRS support in the next iPhone. When questioned on the topic, Verizon declined to comment on that or when it expects any handset, iOS or Android, to support 3.5 GHz. Neither Apple nor Samsung chose to comment, although ZTE told FierceWirelessTech that it does not have plans to introduce a phone with the 3.5 GHz CBRS band this year. However, carriers have shown interest in this band in 2018, and ZTE will be working with them on their requirements, according to a company statement. Of course, Qualcomm has announced 3.5 GHz support in the U.S. in the Snapdragon X20 modem. However, it’s not commenting on carrier or OEM roadmaps. Why so much mystery about when handsets are going to support this band when everybody is so excited about the opportunities the 3.5 GHz CBRS band promises?

[Commentary] This post kicks of a series of blogs examining some of the more pernicious myths and misunderstandings in telecommunications policy. With a new fire lit under the network neutrality warriors, misinformation runs rampant and spreads quickly.

Let’s turn to the first myth: that financial data shows that Title II isn’t hurting Internet service providers’ investment in their networks.

Financial filings shows broadband investment went down roughly 2-3 percent after the Open Internet Order, consistent with industry’s own findings. It’s especially important that we see continued investment in the infrastructure that supports “best-efforts” open Internet. And there is good reason to think Title II would affect this. Not only did the Open Internet Order take potential business models off the table, and throw others into uncertainty under the Internet Conduct Standard, it represents the first step down the slippery slope to more onerous utility regulations, such as network unbundling requirements or price regulation.

[Commentary] The BROWSER Act would establish affirmative consent (“opt in”) requirements for the collection and use of certain data, such as location and web browsing histories. In addition, the bill would restrict companies from conditioning access to their services on whether users choose to share their data. If adopted, these policies would be a disaster for Internet users and companies. First, obtaining consent is expensive. Second, requiring companies to obtain affirmative consent would make digital services less user-friendly without increasing privacy. Third, the bill requires providers to allow users to remove their data whenever they wish. Finally, the bill prohibits service providers from refusing to provide service as a “direct or indirect consequence of the refusal of a user to waive any such privacy rights.” Congress should reject this legislation, or any similar proposal that attempts to impose opt-in requirements on the digital economy.