Op-Ed

[Commentary] Few think about the implications of network neutrality outside of affecting the speed at which one can browse the internet; however, it also influences what you can watch and the online content you can view. Net neutrality is what allows us the freedom to peruse the internet and disseminate content without interference.

Besides affecting personal use, the fate of net neutrality also has a bearing on businesses -- particularly small- to mid-sized businesses (SMBs). Without net neutrality, companies like Netflix would probably be charged an exorbitant amount due to the amount of data needed to stream video at their current speed. These upcharges would then be passed down to the customer. Without net neutrality, you can even expect currently free platforms like YouTube to enact charges or impose more ads. Net neutrality is crucial for the survival of SMBs: without it, the recent bloom of entrepreneurship and startup culture would shrivel up and die. They rely on open internet to, among other things, launch their businesses, advertise, build a community and build a customer base.

[Commentary] Media consolidation is a threat to our republic. The Federal Communications Commission and members of Congress who oversee the FCC are supposed to protect localism. The FCC gives away free licenses to use the public airways. In return, those licensees promise to address the local needs of the community. But do they?

In 2018, we will have a chance to elect members of Congress who understand this, are ready and willing to make sure that whatever favors FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gives to the Sinclairs of our country are stopped cold and that the FCC begins to serve the public, not the big donors.

[Mark Lloyd is a clinical professor of communication at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation.]

[Commentary] What America needs is clear, consistent, and sustainable internet policy. That can only come through legislation. We need a diligent rewriting of the 21-year-old act that guides telecommunication and internet policy. At the time of the law’s passage, there were just 13 million internet users in the United States. Today, there are 287 million.

The new telecom and internet law doesn’t have to be long and complicated, but it does have to be comprehensive. It has to enshrine the Clinton-era principles into law. It’s time to remove any ambiguity about whether the internet’s infrastructure is a public utility. It should not be. Competition and light-touch regulation built the internet, and they should keep on building it.

[Glassman was a former president of The Atlantic, publisher of The New Republic, executive vice president of US News & World Report, and editor-in-chief and co-owner of Roll Call.]

[Commentary] On its face, the BROWSER Act seems like pro-consumer privacy legislation. But it’s actually an awful deal for Americans who’ve come to depend on free online content and services.

The BROWSER Act would disallow interest-based ads by default. In doing so, the act would erase $340 billion in advertising revenue from American websites over the next five years. That’s because the Act requires users to opt-in to interest-based advertising and studies have shown that such an opt-in regime reduces online ads’ effectiveness by 65 percent. Some might initially celebrate this change. But celebration will change to mourning when they realize the price we’ll be paying when websites lose all this ad revenue.

[Carl Szabo is senior policy counsel for NetChoice, a trade association of eCommerce businesses including AOL, Facebook, and 21st Century Fox.]

[Commentary] After 20 years, it's time to reconsider the Federal Communications Commission guideline effectively requiring TV stations to air three hours of educational and informational children programming each week. If it cannot be demonstrated that such programming is effective, the intrusion on broadcasters' First Amendment rights cannot be justified.

[Jack Goodman practices communications law in Washington. He was previously general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters]

[Commentary] Today, I’m launching TrumpiLeaks, a site that will enable courageous whistleblowers to privately communicate with me and my team. Patriotic Americans in government, law enforcement or the private sector with knowledge of crimes, breaches of public trust and misconduct committed by Donald J. Trump and his associates are needed to blow the whistle in the name of protecting the United States of America from tyranny. I know this is risky. I knew we may get in trouble. But too much is at stake to play it safe. And along with the Founding Fathers, I’ve got your back.

[Michael Moore is an Oscar and Emmy award-winning director]

[Commentary] Like the network neutrality debate, the privacy debate has been hijacked by noise rather than analysis, filling the zeitgeist with several misconceptions about the state of American privacy law. No doubt this misinformation campaign contributed to House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn’s (R-TN) decision to introduce this bill. But the act ultimately sacrifices the internet’s primary revenue engine in an attempt to solve a problem that the relevant agencies are well on their way to resolving on their own.

If Congress wanted to make a real contribution, it could repeal the Federal Trade Commission Act’s outdated common carrier exemption, which helped trigger this debate. While well-intentioned, the BROWSER Act accomplishes little good while threatening significant harm to the internet ecosystem.

[Daniel Lyons is an associate professor at Boston College Law School]

Too often, reports on the feasibility of municipal broadband networks in smaller markets are sponsored by large telecom companies with a financial stake in the game. Many communities with muni networks wonder if these researchers are measuring success the wrong way.

[Commentary] Amid the raucous political debate, there is a critical issue many are overlooking: the threat to network neutrality. Net neutrality is a critical component of the future of the Internet, but the real issue is the lack of fast, affordable Internet in America — directly caused by a lack of adequate competition. If consumers had more providers to choose from, the market would solve the issues of privacy protections, network neutrality and much more. People would not stand for poor privacy practices and content restrictions, usurious prices and poor quality. They would seek other options, forcing providers to change their practices.

So how can you get involved to keep the FCC from dismantling net neutrality? Spread the word — talk to your friends, family and neighbors. Educate them on the subject and encourage them to take a stand and engage the appropriate government representatives at the federal, state and local level. We must band together for the long journey ahead to effect change.

[Dane Jasper is the CEO and founder of Sonic, an Internet and telecommunications company in Santa Rosa (CA)]

[Commentary] Privacy activists appear to have some new friends among congressional Republicans. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and cosponsors have introduced comprehensive privacy legislation that would apply a strict new privacy regime across the entire internet ecosystem. The legislation, known as the Browser bill, results from legitimate concerns about an “unlevel” playing field across the internet ecosystem and a mistaken belief that recent congressional action repealing the Federal Communications Commission’s privacy rule, promulgated under former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, left consumers unprotected. In fact, Congress’s action was the first step in re-leveling the playing field and returning privacy enforcement responsibilities over internet service providers to the Federal Trade Commission, which had that job before the FCC classified broadband internet service providers as “Title II” common carriers in 2015. Common carriers are exempt from FTC jurisdiction. The FCC then filled the gap by promulgating its now-repealed privacy rule. The Browser bill would return privacy jurisdiction over ISPs to the FTC, but would do so under a new and restrictive regime.

The better route to reinstating FTC jurisdiction is to follow repeal of the FCC privacy rule with repeal of the Title II classification. The FCC now has a rulemaking underway intended to accomplish that objective, a much better course than new privacy legislation.

[Thomas M. Lenard is senior fellow and president emeritus at the Technology Policy Institute. ]