Benton Foundation

[Commentary] So far 2016 has defied conventional wisdom and political history on many fronts. There are signs that even platform drafting might be affected. But so far we haven’t heard much on media policy. We ignore media policy at our own peril. An informed electorate is the essential foundation for successful self-government, and media are responsible for providing us with the news and information we need to make intelligent decisions for the country’s future. Media are a public good, as necessary to democracy’s life as oxygen is to an individual’s life. No candidate’s communications platform should be considered complete absent a discussion of the larger media issues I am discussing here. We should note that Senator Sanders has spoken often and eloquently about our country’s media shortfalls. Let’s hope the Democratic platform writers will yet heed his sage advice. Media policy matters. Regardless of which party wins, we need an administration and FCC that will hear the call of the people—and deliver. Protecting our wins—and extending them—requires policy-makers with the vision to grasp the media problem and the passion to fix it, the undue power and influence of Big Cable, Big Telecom, and Big Internet notwithstanding. Vision in communications policy is not giving each special interest group a tip of the hat here or a nod of the head there; it is about providing a program for the future of our all-important communications infrastructure. Quite simply there is no way we succeed as a nation without tackling the media challenge. As I have long maintained, no matter what issue motivates you most—job creation, economic inequality, equal rights for all, environmental protection, voting rights, or whatever—progress on these issues will remain unlikely until we have a communications ecosystem that truly informs the electorate. Communications reform really must be everyone’s priority. As for me, creating media that nourishes democracy remains my first priority. I hope it becomes yours, too. We all have responsibilities here: candidates for office, platform writers, the media, and—most importantly of all—ourselves.
[Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011; he’s now leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause]

Eleven public interest advocates (including the Benton Foundation) filed a letter on July 7, 2016, to express concern with a draft order that will streamline the framework for Federal Communications Commission evaluation of requests to discontinue legacy voice service. The groups urged the FCC to include affordability in the criteria to evaluate a discontinuance application and require consumer education in languages other than English and in a manner that can be used by people with disabilities. The FCC must ensure that discontinuance of service does not result in the loss of Lifeline discounts to low-income households, including both voice and the recently adopted Broadband Internet Access Service Lifeline program. The availability of Lifeline discounts should be included in the adequate replacement criteria. The FCC must ensure that discontinuance of service does not leave any consumers without access to the Internet at a reasonably comparable price. The ability to connect to the Internet at a reasonably comparable price should be included in the adequate replacement criteria.

Public Knowledge and the Communication Workers of America met with Commissioner O’Reilly’s Legal Advisor on July 5, 2016, to express support for FCC action to clarify the process and criteria the FCC will use to evaluate a streamlined discontinuance request from a legacy voice TDM provider. They said, however, the FCC should require carriers to certify there is a broadband provider in the service area prior to discontinuing service and ensure that there is an adequate public comment period for a 214(a) discontinuance. They also met with Legal Advisors to Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel to discuss the same issues.

[Commentary] Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton unveiled her Technology & Innovation Agenda this week. Published on her website June 28, Clinton’s 14-page tech plan provides a detailed and ambitious policy agenda that covers a wide swath of critical telecom policy issues. The plan is organized around five major categories: the Economy, Digital Infrastructure, Advancing US Global Leadership, Privacy, and Smart Government. Below we examine the plan through our lens: broadband access, adoption, and use. Clinton’s tech plan is filled with so many proposals and goals that the best thing to do is just read it for yourself. Seriously. If you’re reading this article, you probably care about Internet adoption or net neutrality, spectrum policy or municipal broadband, privacy or diversifying the tech workforce. Her plan covers all of that. But, if you’re still reading this because you want the Reader’s Digest version, here goes.

[Commentary] The National Broadband Plan has a lot of recommendations for improving the spectrum position of the mobile providers. While there have been some problems, the government has made significant progress in replenishing the empty spectrum cupboard we saw in 2009 and creating new supplies. But there are three problems with spectrum as our single strategy. First, it takes a very long time to identify spectrum bands and make them available for use. Second, the two largest wireless providers are also the two largest fixed line telcos, changing the incentives for what it would be if they were different companies. Third, the next generation of mobility, sometimes referred to as 5G, will rely on small cells, an architecture that will require greater fiber connectivity. These problems don’t mean we shouldn’t proceed, but only that we should be realistic about the timing and impact of the first leverage point of more spectrum.

[Commentary] Michelle Quinn of the San Jose Mercury News wrote on October 17 that the tech industry's interest in Washington may be about to perk up. The status quo in Washington has meant that movement on many key issues has stalled. We’re less than two weeks from Election Day 2014 and deciding which party will control Congress for the next two years. Nate Silver gives Republicans a 66% chance of winning a majority of seats in the Senate which would give the party control of both Houses. What would that mean for telecommunications and technology policy?

[Commentary] The President of the United States weighed in against a fast-lane/slow-lane Internet.

Two conclusions stand out: (1) no new arguments have been ginned up by the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T that lend a whit of credibility to their entrenched opposition to strong network neutrality rules; and (2) growing grassroots support for a truly open Internet is commanding attention at the highest levels of government.

In spite of all this, the smart talk around town is that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is still looking for “net neutrality lite” rules that would avoid a huge battle with Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and their friends in Congress.

There are two huge problems here. One is that net neutrality lite doesn’t get the job done. Two is that a huge fight will ensue no matter how the FCC rules.

[Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009]

August in Washington (DC) is hot and muggy. But when the future of the Internet is at stake, there’s no break in the news.

The Federal Communications Commission’s current Open Internet proceeding has generated over 1.1 million comments from the public. The great public interest in the issue moved the FCC to release the comments in a series of six XML files, totaling over 1.4 GB of data -- approximately two and half times the amount of plain-text data embodied in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

From President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid backing network neutrality; Title II and Internet throttling by Verizon and other carriers; to Netflix’s paid peering deals, the debate over what’s reasonable network management, how net neutrality rules will evolve, and regulatory reclassification will continue for some time to come.

Although the Federal Communications Commission adopted many changes to the E-rate program on July 11, 2014, the FCC also launched a new proceeding -- a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- seeking public comment on additional issues.

Specifically, the FCC seeks input on the future funding needs of the E-rate program; discrete issues that may further simplify the administration of the E-rate program; promoting cost-effective purchasing through multi-year contracts and consortium purchasing; and how best to calculate the amount of funding eligible libraries need in order to purchase Wi-Fi networks and other internal connections.

[Commentary] This week the New York Times reported on an explosion of spending on political advertising on television. The explosion is “accelerating the rise of moneyed interests and wresting control from the candidates’ own efforts to reach voters,” Ashley Parker reported.

On July 31, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation (represented by the Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown University Law Center) called on the Federal Communications Commission to extend to cable and satellite systems the requirement that their political files be posted on the FCC’s online database.

The third major goal adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in the latest E-rate reform proceeding is to make the E-rate application process (and other E-rate processes) fast, simple and efficient.

The FCC adopted a number of programmatic changes, including simplifying the application process by providing a process for expediting the filing and review of applications involving multi-year contracts; eliminating technology plans for internal connections; simplifying and clarifying applicants’ discount rate calculations; simplifying the invoicing and disbursement process; and requiring all Universal Service Fund (USF) requests for review to be filed initially with the E-rate administrator, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).

The FCC also aims to reduce the administrative burden on applicants by processing and managing applications more efficiently, modernizing its E-rate information technology (IT) systems, timely publishing all non-confidential E-rate data in an open and standardized format, and communicating more clearly with E-rate applicants and service providers.