Roslyn Layton

State attorneys general (AGs), for better or worse, are increasingly important actors in tech policy. The internet is a greenfield regulatory opportunity, and in the tech policy realm, AGs are flexing their muscle on online privacy, net neutrality, and data security.

[Commentary] Even as wireless carriers are already rolling out 5G trials across the US, to keep pace with activity happening internationally and bring this transformative network to fruition in a timely fashion, policymakers must make a few more key moves. First, states and municipalities must streamline policies to infrastructure deployment. Next, and equally important, is that the federal government – namely, the Federal Communications Commission – must do its part as well.

[Commentary] This blog reviews some specious claims made in Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Mignon Clyburn's statement on network neutrality.

[Commentary] The European Union’s law “laying down measures concerning open internet access” came into force in 2016. After a year with the law on the books, telecom regulators across Europe have submitted compliance reports to the supervisory Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the European Commission. While no bad internet service providers (ISPs) or violations have emerged, a regulatory bureaucracy is growing because of the law. 

[Commentary] Shortly after being designated as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai announced his moon shot: closing the digital divide. In a refreshing and pragmatic break from central planning of the broadband economy, the FCC launched the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), a diverse group of experts tasked with making recommendations on how to accelerate the deployment of high-speed internet access by reducing and removing regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment.

To be sure, the US is the global leader in broadband infrastructure investment, accounting for one-quarter of the world’s total, but the process to deploy infrastructure could be improved. The BDAC demonstrates the open innovation model to broadband deployment policy, recognizing that the solutions to closing the digital divide reside not necessarily in the FCC, but in the knowledge of a multitude of actors on the ground.

[Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark. She also served on President Trump's FCC Landing Team.]

[Commentary] Kudos to the House Commerce Committee’s for its recent hearing on Broadband: Deploying America’s 21st Century Infrastructure. The session demonstrated different views on how and to what degree the government should be involved in broadband deployment, but it also exposed policymakers’ assumptions on broadband and showed what information is missing from the discussion:
Flawed Assumption 1: Government subsidies for broadband will create economic growth.
Flawed Assumption 2: Private providers are failing in their investments.
Flawed Assumption 3: Government should adopt a broadband speed target.
False Assumption 4: The quality of mobile coverage is a function of the network.
False Assumption 5: There is no business case for investment.

[Roslyn Layton is on the FCC transition team and is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark.]

[Commentary] Congressional oversight and a necessary Federal Communications Commission reauthorization can assist to right the balance and ensure that the FCC focuses on the public interest. Interestingly, the groups that demonize Chairman Pai are also the same ones calling for regulatory solutions over market-oriented ones, specifically the regulation of broadband under common carriage rules from the 1930s. The groups are invested in realizing a nationalized broadband network instead of private provision, and Title II is essential because it could allow taxes to be levied on all Americans’ broadband subscriptions to support subsidies to municipal networks in specific areas.

Consumers who believe that a competitive market is a better protection for their desires should favor the solution which best leads to competition rather than the regulator picking winners.

[Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark.]

There are literally millions of consumer complaints about robocalls, a doubling over the last 5 years, but just a few thousand about network neutrality. That the Federal Communications Commission has focused on net neutrality and allowed robocalls to grow worse seems patently anti-consumer. Fortunately the new Republican-led FCC is poised to address what consumers actually care about rather than a crony capitalist agenda of pseudo consumer protection.

[Roslyn Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark. She is also a member of the Trump Administration’s FCC Transition team.]

[Commentary] Feb 8 is the 21st anniversary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It’s an opportunity to to review the Act for its relevance to the converged world of communications, content, and computing. Indeed, updating the Act enjoyed wide support three years ago, when a broad array of stakeholders participated in the House Commerce Committee’s “#CommActUpdate” process through a series of thought papers on regulatory modernization, spectrum policy, competition, interconnection, universal service, and video content and distribution.

This rational, inclusive, and orderly process collected hundreds of substantive responses until it was hijacked by advocacy groups which aimed to nationalize networks by reclassifying broadband network providers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. This was a beginning step by the FCC to tax and regulate the internet like the telephone network and to limit free speech, which fortunately has been halted by a backlash of 60 million voters against over-regulation.

[Rosyln Layton is currently aiding with the FCC transition, and is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s outmoded structure contributes to employee dissatisfaction. The issues before the FCC contemplate a converged world, but its siloed organizational structure limits the ability of staff not only to work across bureaus, but to think intelligently and conceptually.

In any event, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai observes that the FCC’s employees are “rare combination of dedication, expertise, and collegiality.” Imagine what they could do if they actually enjoyed their jobs. To achieve his goals to “bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans”, Chairman Pai must overcome deeply entrenched corporate interests and pro-regulatory pessimism which resists change. But if his courageous actions and dissents are any indication, Chairman Pai is a fearless and magnanimous leader who will make the FCC a great place to work again.

[Layton was part of President Trump’s FCC transition team; she is a visiting fellow at American Enterprise Institute]