Op-Ed

[Commentary] As we slog away once again on Federal Communication Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s summer blockbuster reboot “Net Neutrality: The Mummy Returns!,” it’s worth noting in passing the anniversary a previous Pai celebration of industry self-regulation, #DitchTheBox. I bring this up not merely as a fairly bitter bit of Cassandrafreude, but to remind everyone why only those who most desperately want to believe ever put any faith in “industry self-regulation” — especially when that industry is the cable industry.

[A]s an industry, the major broadband providers have recognized that they need some kind of fig leaf concession (preferably cemented into law by a compliant Congress). And so we have seen the cable companies falling all over themselves to swear their undying support for net neutrality and promises to do nothing to harm the open Internet. So a brief review of the history of cable industry self-regulatory promises, and Chairman Pai’s willingness to believe them, seems in order for the day.

[Harold Feld is senior vice president at Public Knowledge]

[Commentary] Broadband providers need to know that they can innovate, invest and operate their networks without constantly worrying about federal bureaucrats second-guessing their decisions or micromanaging their businesses. Continuing down the Title II path isn’t necessary for achieving effective and strong net neutrality. We can have net neutrality protections – no blocking, throttling or unfair traffic prioritization – without regulations that stifle future network investments.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal is an important first step. But ultimately Congress should step in to ensure that we have permanent, enforceable net neutrality rules that provide certainty for everyone – consumers, innovators and ISPs.

[Jonathan Spalter is president of chief executive officer of USTelecom]

[Commentary] The current Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, understands the dangerous nature of this government overreach [Title II] and is working to reverse these regulations, but I fear that those trying to invest in South Dakota’s broadband will have to slog through new regulations imposed by each new administration unless Congress protects the Internet with enforceable net neutrality legislation.

I ask Sen John Thune (R-SD) to help secure net neutrality protections by supporting legislation that protects consumer rights to an open internet, stabilizes oscillating Internet policy and encourages Internet companies to reinvest in the future of their networks and next-generation products and services. Legislation on net neutrality is needed to end the constant regulatory upheaval and help put this issue beyond the political bickering and agency turnover. Securing an open Internet will help broadband providers to deliver new breakthroughs and services to consumers – a goal shared by both parties. It is my hope that Sen Thune and all members of Congress will act by working with their colleagues to pass legislation that will lift these misapplied utility regulations and bring much needed security and stability to the Internet.

[Dave Roetman currently serves as the Minnehaha County GOP chairman and the South Dakota Republican Party finance director.]

[Commentary] House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has tried to argue that ending network neutrality is good for Nashville’s musicians, but she’s flat wrong. She says that musicians would have the opportunity to negotiate “paid prioritization deals,” but this is just payola with a new name and the same ugly consequences for music.

Working musicians want to spend their time making and distributing music to their fans, not cutting special deals with big media conglomerates; allowing paid prioritization and other forms of discrimination is only good for big media companies that can afford to cut big checks. That’s why organizations like the Future of Music Coalition oppose what the Federal Communications Commission is trying to do. It’s critical that musicians stand up for net neutrality and oppose the FCC’s plan.

[E. Michael Harrington is a composer, musician, consultant, Music Business Program Faculty Chair at SAE Institute Nashville, course author and faculty at Berklee College of Music]

[Commentary] Like some contrived, rigged Russian voting block, the new proposed Republican Commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, has been selected to make sure that the current direction set by Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O’Reilly will always end up in a vote that almost always benefits the phone and cable companies over the public interest.

[W]e need a Republican that is going to stand up for Republican values of ‘less government’, states’ rights and competition because it was a Republican-based Congress in 1996, under President Bill Clinton, that voted to bring the Telecom Act into existence, to open the monopoly “ILEC” phone networks so that customers could choose their own ISP, cable, phone broadband providers. In short, Brendan Carr should not be appointed and some Republican who will work for the public and wants a free market and competition, and doesn’t believe in government corporate financial assistance, should be made commissioner instead.

[Bruce Kushnick is the executive director of New Networks Institute]

[Commentary] Fake news has been dominating real news since 2016’s US presidential election. Its effect has been debated and politicized, and in the process, the term itself has lost its original meaning and become something of a partisan insult. But an underlying question still needs answering: Can people distinguish legitimate sources of information from fake ones?

A majority of Americans are confident that they can, according to surveys. But it might be more difficult than it seems in an increasingly fragmented media landscape, with countless information sources tailored to every ideological taste. To find out how well-informed people can tell true from false, I conducted a study on a sample of about 700 undergraduates at the University of British Columbia. These were primarily political science students interested in current events, who said they frequently read and watch news, on and offline. I thought that they would easily spot fake news websites. I was wrong.

[Dominik Stecula is a PhD candidate in political science and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia.]

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai plans to eliminate net neutrality protections. Without these protections, big internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will be free to block or slow down content as they see fit. We, as former FCC commissioners, believe that these rules are the only way of preserving real net neutrality that protects the internet as an economic engine and platform for democratic discourse.

If Chairman Pai has his way, we could see an Internet where big cable companies decide who should have a voice and which businesses succeed and fail. Only the current net neutrality rules give the FCC the authority to ensure that the Internet remains open for all, and can remain a watchdog to stop bad behavior before it harms consumers and innovation. Americans in both parties believe the government should prioritize preventing companies from harming consumers before it occurs. Eliminating or watering down the net neutrality rules would do just the opposite, giving companies free reign to control what Americans see and do on the Internet, changing the profound effect the open Internet has on the economy and our democracy.

Strong net neutrality rules are important to the future of continued innovation, free speech, and economic opportunity. Proponents of a free and open internet should ensure their support is heard by filing comments at the FCC. And, if we want an internet that truly lives up to our country’s ideals, the current FCC chairman better listen to the citizens he serves.

[Michael Copps is the Special Advisor at Common Cause and former FCC Commissioner and Gloria Tristani is a Special Policy Advisor at National Hispanic Media Coalition and former FCC Commissioner.]

[Commentary] Suppose you started a program to improve the reading abilities of the 80 percent of lower-income students who cannot read at grade level. This is a worthy cause, so let’s assume that you are spending more than $1 billion annually to fix this. Then someone studies the effectiveness of your program and finds: (1) The children who enroll already read at or above grade level, (2) the percentage of lower-income children reading below grade level has barely changed since you started, and (3) some of the people administering your program are stealing from it. Would you keep your program, or ditch it? If you were the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you would probably keep it. At least, that is how the agency is treating its Lifeline program, which received another failing grade from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2017.

The GAO had already given the program a failing grade seven years ago in 2010. As I have written before, a less complex, less costly, and less corruption-prone way to provide Lifeline’s income benefits would be to provide direct income subsidies to low-income households. This would save the FCC considerable time and effort that it currently devotes to patching Lifeline and would save the GAO the expense of giving the program another failing grade seven years from now.

[Mark Jamison is the Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida]

[Commentary] Newly-minted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly stated that one of his top priorities is to “increase infrastructure and innovation.” Taking the chairman at his word, developing an efficient, transparent and expedited process to allow existing license holders to convert their spectrum in underutilized bands to a higher-value use should be at the top of his “to do” list. In so doing, we short-circuit the laborious task of identifying, clearing and auctioning potential “greenfield” bands of government spectrum (although as spectrum is always in short supply, those efforts should certainly continue) and provide a powerful incentive for existing license holders to convert their spectrum through relatively quick regulatory changes for use in enterprise partnerships; consumer-focused commercial endeavors; or sold in the secondary market for other purposes. Under these scenarios, more high-value commercial spectrum would be available for advanced wireless services which, in turn, will lead to more investment, innovation and infrastructure deployment.

If Chairman Pai is truly serious about increasing infrastructure and innovation, then he needs to send a loud and clear signal that the FCC is “open for business” for repurposing spectrum from low to high value uses. The Commission has a unique opportunity to bring much-needed spectrum for commercial use on its own motion without having to deal with the bureaucracy of the rest of the federal government. It need only seize it.

[Lawrence J. Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

[Commentary] Common carriage, the time-honored civic ideal enshrined in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, remains an indispensable civic ideal. Yet it was never intended as a one-size-fits-all solution, and is by no means the only regulatory tool in US policymakers’ toolkit.

Network neutrality is predicated on a cartoonish caricature of the history of American communications that has long exaggerated the importance of garage-based startups, while discounting the innovative potential of the digital behemoths that dominate cyberspace today. Innovation is too important to be left to the lawyers or the economists. Now that it looks as if the Title II designation for ISPs is history, it is time to explore other options. What do to? To begin with, acknowledge that the current legal regime is anything but neutral and stop demonizing the ISPs. Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet, the parent of Google, have benefited hugely from the status quo without having channeled more than a trickle of their enormous profits into the maintenance and improvement of the existing information infrastructure. They are free-riding on a network that the ISPs built. Lawmakers should strike down existing laws that discourage innovation in municipal broadband, increase government spending on network expansion for thinly settled regions, and institute tax incentives to nudge existing content providers to fund high-quality local journalism and investigative reporting. The Title II designation for ISPs was a patchwork solution to an ongoing challenge. Differential pricing is not a panacea, but it worked for the late 19th-century telephone business, and it deserves a chance today.

[Richard John is a professor at the Columbia University School of Journalism]