Roslyn Layton

Recently, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released its Recommendations on Encouraging Data usage in Rural Areas through Provisioning of Free Data. In February 2016 TRAI imposed a two year ban on differential pricing for data services, but it now acknowledges that free data can benefit the poor. In its latest decision, TRAI rejected three proposed models for free data and presents a new model in which “third party aggregators” create the market for free data. The aggregators may also be eligible to take advantage of India’s Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) to participate. Let’s applaud TRAI for recognizing the value of free data. Aggregation is a novel approach, but it is neither costless nor neutral. Moreover, the ruling creates a new problem of regulatory discrimination restricting how telecom service providers can participate in the market.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s recent report, Empowering the 21st Century Consumer, outlines “recent actions that the FCC has taken to protect consumers while promoting the competition and ingenuity that keep our markets thriving.” The report, which grandstands on questionable and litigated FCC rulemaking and enforcement actions, appears to be timed with the FCC’s next open meeting, when the agency will vote on controversial online privacy rules. On page 3 of their report, the FCC claims that “protecting consumers is part of its DNA.” Similarly Chairman Wheeler announced in an op-ed timed with the release of the report that “We’re here to reinforce consumer rights.”

However, a review of the FCC’s rules and the 1934 Communications Act that founded the agency shows that consumer protection was not a base concept of the agency at all. At best, one could argue that this concept has evolved as a (quite liberal) interpretation of the FCC’s mission. At worst, it’s a statement the FCC makes up to justify rulemaking which is otherwise not part of their mission — perhaps even unlawful. While the notion of consumer protection is sovereign, the FCC does not conform to any such consumer bill of rights. Rather, the agency seems to define “consumer rights” to suit its preferred policy outcomes.

[Layton 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 open Internet rules address free data and zero rating on a case-by-case basis. The Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications’ (BEREC) non-binding guidelines for implementing network neutrality in the European Union also support this approach. While case-by-case assessment may be a workable solution for zero rating, it is not unproblematic. Allocating scarce regulatory resources and selecting the forum in which the analysis takes place is not straightforward. Given the dearth of academic literature on the topic, here are four questions to help regulators assess the economic merits of specific zero rated offers and to prioritize whether a given zero-rated offer warrants scrutiny.

1. What perfect or very close substitutes would the zero rating offer foreclose?
2. Is the zero-rated offer intended to increase the number of individuals using the Internet?
3. Which party makes the zero rating complaint?
4. Is free data being used to lower consumers’ search costs, thereby boosting competition?

[Roslyn Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark. Bronwyn Howell is a faculty member at the School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.]

[Commentary] Recently, all five Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission yet again found themselves facing tough questions in a Senate oversight hearing which highlighted the partisan nature of policymaking at the FCC.

The hearing highlighted the continuing soap opera regarding whether or not FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will step down (as is customary when a new president takes office), and whether Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel will be re-confirmed (a quid pro quo promised to get Republican Commissioner Mike O’Rielly on board). The political reality of the commissioner appointment process is at odds with the very premise of an expert, independent agency. It demonstrates that the so-called independent expert agency is subject to the same jockeying and gerrymandering as politics itself. Given the political nature of the FCC’s leadership, it may come as little surprise that the agency has difficulty accomplishing even the most basic function of telecom regulation: collecting information.

The FCC’s disregard for information requests also extends to the public. Two years ago, the Washington Post reported that in the run-up to the September 15th deadline for comments in the open internet rulemaking process, “grass-roots activists and staffers inside the FCC worked together, hour-by-hour” in an “unusual collaboration” to keep the FCC’s information technology systems running.

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

[Commentary] On Aug 30, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC) released their network neutrality guidelines. To recap, the European Union's net neutrality rules came into effect April 30; BEREC’s task has been to create the guidelines for implementing these rules. While BEREC’s chairman promised that their work would stay faithful to the law, the end result indicates something different. What’s in the new updated guidelines? Here are three key takeaways:

1. Content application providers have the same rights as as human users.
2. Traffic management remains murky and complex.
3. National regulatory authorities have many new obligations.

What happens next? Most likely, litigation.

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

[Commentary] On July 21, yet another interest group weighed in on the network neutrality debate: academics. In a letter organized by Stanford’s Barbara van Schewick, the 126 signatories, described by van Schewick as “leading” academics, claimed that the European Union net neutrality law, unless amended through guidelines from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC), will frustrate academics’ “ability to research, collaborate, and educate.” Given the seriousness of this assertion, TechPolicyDaily.com investigated the substance behind the claims.

Of all the inconsistencies this letter represents, the most important is these academics’ failure to support policy with research and academic evidence. It appears that in a clicktivist world, it is enough for academics to lend their name and university affiliation to an effort without having to deliver any substance. Moreover, policymakers appear to believe that an academic stamp of approval — any name, as long as it is attached to an academic title — is sufficient representation for the entire community. Such practices are a disservice to universities, bona fide academics, and anyone who expects telecom regulators to make decisions based on substantive evidence.

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

How true are fears that the United States is falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to broadband? Are Americans paying more for lower-quality broadband than Europeans and South Koreans, and are US companies falling behind their global counterparts?

A survey of broadband in America and broadband costs around the world finds that the United States is a global leader in broadband, as measured by the level of broadband-enabled economic activity, the number of Internet-based companies, the level of digital exports, and the level of Internet-enabled employment.

[Layton is a PhD Fellow for the Center for Communication, Media and Information Studies at Aalborg University; Horney is an alumnus of the Mercatus Center MA Fellowship at George Mason University]

[Commentary] The House Commerce Committee concludes another round of public commenting on its effort to update the Communications Act of 1934. The focus of this round was what role Congress and the Federal Communications Commission should play in the market for interconnection of networks.

Daniel Lyons and Gus Hurwitz joined scholars from the Free State Foundation in their comments, highlighting the importance of flexibility and responsiveness in interconnection markets. They argue that interconnection among IP networks is very different and more technical than the interconnection between ILECs that are governed by the 1996 Act.

In my submission, I provide two stories of deregulation from Denmark.

[Layton is a researcher at the University of Aalborg, Denmark]

[Commentary] A minor media brouhaha erupted when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler sent a letter to Verizon about the company’s disclosure of its intent to manage traffic for the heaviest users of its unlimited mobile plan for certain cell sites at times of peak congestion.

Before resorting to rules that can impose unintended negative consequences, it makes sense to investigate some technical solutions. This problem can be minimized with improved video encoding and can address what is two-thirds of fixed internet traffic and 40% of mobile traffic: real time entertainment.

[Layton is researcher at the University of Aalborg, Denmark]

[Commentary] As soon as Netflix reached a transit agreement with Comcast, Netflix piggybacked on the network neutrality debate and announced that transit should be free for content providers.

It argued that all traffic should be treated the same, regardless of the costs it imposes on networks. Netflix wants to ensure that someone else pays for the high-definition video infrastructure it needs to realize its business, even though its traffic is the leading source of the congestion.

Not wanting its own customers to be adversely impacted, Netflix calls for the socialization of upgrade costs to all the users in the network, even if they don’t subscribe to Netflix.

[Layton is a PhD fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Studies at Aalborg University in Denmark]