Diane Smith

[Commentary] The question then before policymakers is actually this: Must we harness our broadband infrastructure to the yoke of 20th century Title II regulations designed for public utilities in order to maintain an open Internet? The only reasonable answer to that question is no.

Regulating broadband under utility-style Title II regulations crafted decades ago puts these consumer benefits and the robust investment that make them possible at risk. This in turn undermines the goal we all share—making more of broadband’s opportunities available to all Americans. Essential to making broadband work for everyone is ensuring everyone’s broadband is strong, open and growing swiftly for us all.

[Diane Smith is the interim chair of Mobile Future]

[Commentary] It is disappointing that a recent order from the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Bureau to reconsider the eligibility for participation of just nine of the more than 900 companies currently participating in the Lifeline program has sparked such a maelstrom of misinformation and motive-questioning.

Notably, the FCC did not cut funding for the Lifeline program, nor did it attempt to unwind the more than 30-year commitment to ensuring American consumers have access to baseline communications. The FCC simply announced it was putting on hold the eligibility of less than 1 percent of the companies currently participating in the program while it takes steps to ensure the program’s integrity. Ensuring digital opportunity for everyone includes affordable broadband options for low-income consumers. But companies that game the system threaten its effectiveness and, ultimately, its existence. Bottom line? Closing the digital divide and maintaining the integrity of the Lifeline program are hardly objectives that should be at odds. It is imperative that our government leaders take clear and firm action to protect low-income Americans who need financial help to get and stay connected — and weed out entities that are siphoning resources away from those who need broadband’s many opportunities most.

[Diane Smith is a board advisor to Mobile Future]

[Commentary] In recent weeks, the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has drawn concern from virtually all corners with its increasingly sharp critiques of innovative offerings that allow U.S. mobile consumers to enjoy more music, video and other bandwidth-intensive wireless content without seeing rising usage count against their data plans. Those new offerings are the latest field of engagement in a ferociously competitive U.S. wireless market, and consumers are wasting no time reaping the benefits — embracing T-Mobile’s Binge On and ONE, Verizon’s FreeBee Data service and AT&T’s DirecTV Now, among other plans. In today’s digital economy, wireless consumers are shunning a one-size-fits-all approach and embracing these new offerings that make it possible (and more affordable) to access the internet over mobile.

Yet over the course of the last year, the FCC’s wireless bureau has begun questioning if these free data services somehow threaten competition. While the current administration has appropriately focused on making available additional spectrum to meet consumers’ growing appetites for mobile data, the FCC in recent years has expanded its control over the wireless marketplace in contradiction of consumers’ clear preferences, including by reclassifying mobile broadband networks as garden variety utilities. Fresh leadership means a fresh perspective on these recent and regressive regulatory decisions and should include a fresh look at what consumers are clearly demonstrating they want from their wireless experience. Such a review and reset is overdue, and it is welcome by wireless innovators. We stand ready to make the most of what mobile innovation can contribute for our nation.

[Diane Smith is a board adviser to Mobile Future]