Lobbying

Earlier this month we examined how partisan division at the Federal Communications Commission impedes progress towards closing the digital divide. Now, we review another big telecom policy story from 2018: the democratic harms of “Big Tech”. In 2018, we got a better, but more disturbing, understanding of the size and influence of large technology companies (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), and particularly how social media platforms affect our democratic discourse and elections.

On Nov 14, the New York Times detailed Facebook’s multi-pronged campaign to “delay, deny and deflect” efforts to hold the company accountable. This is far from the first time we’ve read disturbing accounts of Facebook’s unethical behavior, but this week the Times peeled back the curtain on the company’s crisis management techniques, public relations tactics, efforts to influence lawmakers, and aggressive lobbying. The peak at these practices helps explain why the social media giant has been so successful at avoiding meaningful regulation.

Randall L. Stephenson, AT&T’s chief executive, said in a staffwide memo  that the company had made a “big mistake” by hiring President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

[Commentary] The big Internet service provider gate-keepers may have bought the silence of Congress, but they cannot buy the silence of the people. We know there is overwhelming popular support for an open internet with strong net neutrality rules.  But we have to demonstrate this support and the power behind it.  We must make our voices heard.  Contacting Congress now on the CRA is vital—your Senators, of course, but your House members, too.  Tell them your vote in the next election depends on their vote now to restore net neutrality. 

In April 2017, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, led the charge for his agency to approve rules allowing television broadcasters to greatly increase the number of stations they own.

The US has gained an additional 47 municipal broadband networks since January 2021, bringing the total to nearly 450.

Recently proposed legislation in the House of Representatives has sought to up-end the role of local governments in the siting decisions process of both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure. The legislation, The American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023 (H.R.

Here they go again. Using false and tired arguments, big cable is attacking three community broadband networks that residents and their elected officials chose to build and own. And like it did earlier in 2023 in Bountiful City, Utah, it is hiding behind a surrogate that doesn’t reveal its financial supporters. It is profoundly ironic that the country’s richest media companies are attacking “government-run” networks when they are at the same time bringing in billions of dollars of subsidies from the federal government and seeking billions more in grants from state governments.

Mass Priorities is the group calling on local governments to prioritize improvements in water quality, education, and bridge infrastructure over investments in government-owned broadband networks. It is making its message known with a half-million-dollar, three-month advertising barrage, which kicked off on October 31. What is not clear, though, is where the freshly launched group got its money. The Mass Priorities website says that it is a project of the Domestic Policy Caucus, which Policy Director Christopher Thrasher confirmed.

The Broadband Forum is striving to better inform broadband providers of the work it’s doing in technical standards, with the help of the Fiber Broadband Association (FBA). In July, the Broadband Forum and FBA partnered to focus on developing and educating the broadband industry on best practices.