Op-Ed

[Commentary] Thanks to the open internet, a new generation of activists fighting for civil rights and equality has been able to make their voices heard in ways previously unimaginable. Now the Trump Administration is trying to turn back the clock and silence them by undoing the Network Neutrality rules. That is simply unacceptable. We have fought and won this fight before, and now it’s time to get organized again. Send your comment to the Federal Communications Commission today.

With the Trump administration waging a war on so many communities — from attempting to gut health-care coverage for millions of people to repeatedly trying to implement an unconstitutional Muslim ban — now, more than ever, we need the open internet to organize and fight back. I’ll work hard to protect Net Neutrality from inside the halls of Congress, but we need your voice too.

[Commentary] The week of June 12, the European Union Directorate-General for Competition released a report on the effects of zero-rating practices on competition in broadband markets, commissioned from consultants DotEcon, Aetha, and Oswald & Vahida. The report reviewed both the theoretical arguments regarding zero-rating and competition (including work by myself and Roslyn Layton) and actual experiences with the practice from European Union countries.

The report’s findings are extremely informative, given the extent to which the purported harms from zero-rating alarmed a large number of United States advocates in the past. Notably, this resulted in the February 2015 Open Internet Order requiring case-by-case analysis of alleged breaches of a zero-rating general conduct standard in agreements between broadband internet access service operators and end consumers.

[Bronwyn Howell is a faculty member at the School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.]

[Commentary] In order for us to expand prosperity and extend economic opportunity to more Americans, we must remain on the cutting edge. This means that government at all levels must focus on removing barriers to innovation and ensuring that technological advances aren’t strangled by bureaucratic red tape.

For starters, we’re taking aggressive action to speed the roll-out of next-generation wireless networks. But to get to the 5G future that will make the Internet of Things fully possible, we’ll need much more infrastructure than what today’s networks demand. If America is to lead the world in 5G, we need to modernize our regulations so that infrastructure can be deployed promptly and at scale. Another Federal Communications Commission priority has been making the agency more agile and responsive.

[Commentary] Because infrastructure supply-siders wield considerable influence in this debate, connectivity efforts have taken center stage, pushing inclusion efforts and research to the side. Yet, effective policy will require customized approaches that focus on specific places and communities, matching both demand and supply concerns. Researchers agree. Broadband policy needs to move towards a more nuanced view. Hopefully policy makers will adopt it.

[Will Rinehart is a tech policy analyst in DC]

[Commentary] President Trump’s administration blocked journalists from recording audio or video of the June 19 briefing. Such pathetic, undemocratic cowardice is part of a disturbing trend.

Increasingly, politicians are weaponizing public anger at the media to justify operating in the shadows. Democracy is dying in that darkness. We cannot and must not accept it becoming the new normal. In democracies, elected officials are employees of the citizenry. They are accountable to us. We cannot accept government in the shadows as the new normal of American politics. Transparency in government is worth fighting for; it separates us from the despots who close their palace’s gilded curtains while the press tries, in vain, to peer within. President Donald Trump hasn’t gone that far yet, but he’s starting to draw the curtains. If we don’t speak out now, this could be just the beginning. In the meantime, we need innovative journalists who can shame the White House for its undemocratic practices while exploring fresh methods of shining light into Trump’s shadowy swamp.

[Brian Klaas is a fellow in comparative politics at the London School of Economics]

[Commentary] Presently, we are on the cusp of another internet reinvention called Web 3.0, and its opening act, the internet of things. Whether the promise of Web 3.0 is fully realized, however, will depend on the policy decisions we make today. The promise of Web 3.0 is finished without open networks to connect it. Precisely, the kind of openness the Trump Federal Communications Commission is trying to remove by undoing the existing Open Internet Rules. Thus far, the debate surrounding the Trump FCC’s undoing of the Open Internet Rules has been an echo of the arguments of 2014 and 2015 prior to the adoption of those rules. In fact, the entire open internet debate is rooted in arguments that have been frozen in time. There has never been a better description of the issue at the heart of the open internet debate: whether the companies that sell internet access to consumers should also be able to exploit their often-uncompetitive position to impose terms, conditions and fees on the activities that connect to the internet. An open internet means access to any content can’t be constrained. But the future and Web 3.0 are way beyond media. The call and response mechanism for Netflix to deliver a movie over broadband internet is a far cry from channeling the flood of intelligence created by billions of connected microprocessors. Hopefully, the nation’s tech leaders will help President Donald Trump see that future and the importance of keeping the internet fast, fair, and open.

[Tom Wheeler is a former chairman of the FCC]

[Commentary] Given the current climate at the Federal Communications Commission, it is not surprising that instead of writing a genuine apology, the FCC chose to dispute the fact that John Donnelly, a reporter for CQ Roll Call, was manhandled by FCC security as he attempted to ask Commissioner Michael O’Rielly a question. Following the “Save the Internet” rally that took place ahead of that day’s FCC vote to revoke net neutrality protections, open internet advocates — myself included — were treated with hostility in the FCC building when trying to access the meeting. Advocates were directed by guards to throw away signs tucked away in their bags before entering the building, and once inside, directed to the overflow room. Despite being a former FCC commissioner, guards and FCC officials made it difficult for me to enter the main meeting room even though I explained that a seat was being saved for me. I was also told that I could not stand in the back of the room. When finally seated in the press section, I was told that I could not move to any other vacant seats. It is not normal for public input to be unwelcome at the FCC, as it appears to be today. Chairman Pai must welcome comments from people of all stripes, return civility and respect to the debate and ensure that the FCC electronic filing system is prepared to handle the many more millions of comments that are expected. Americans, who have come to rely on the internet as an integral part of their lives, deserve and expect no less.

[Tristani is a special adviser to the National Hispanic Media Coalition and served as a FCC commissioner from 1997 to 2001. She is also a former executive director of the Benton Foundation.]

[Commentary] Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai rightfully gets a lot of crap for his hostility toward net neutrality, but as someone who lives and works out where the Milky Way still shines in its full glory at night, I can't help but admire his talk of bridging the "digital divide" between "those who can use cutting-edge communications services and those who do not." This is a necessary thing. I don't think people in major cities understand how bad it is out here.

[Commentary] June 20 is World Wi-Fi Day!

The Federal Communications Commission, where I have the pleasure of serving, generally has done a good job of providing an environment for Wi-Fi to flourish in the US. But more needs to be done to promote future opportunities. This includes making more spectrum bands available for unlicensed use to allow super-wide Wi-Fi channels and making a firm commitment to opening up the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed use, assuming sharing with automotive safety systems is proven possible. We also need to explore whether, and to what degree, Wi-Fi can play a factor in connecting those in the hardest to reach parts of the US without Internet service. Maybe Wi-Fi is a good technology to stretch existing networks beyond their edges to more rural portions of our nation.

[Commentary] In a year in which, as black people, we face devastating issues on every hand, at what cost should we fight [the changes to the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules]? One of the groups that strongly opposes the rules change is Color of Change. Normally, I would agree 100% with Color of Change as they’ve been a reliable source of information and a black press ally in the struggle for many years. But, on this issue—largely due to this season in which other racial issues appear more pressing—I’ve stepped back to take a closer look.
While the median income for an African American household is still $35,000—only 66% of the national average of $53,000—should we be focused on net neutrality as a priority?
As African Americans are rejected for mortgages at more than twice the rate of whites, is that issue worth sacrificing to debate net neutrality rules?
How about the homicide and police misconduct rates in black communities—yet another issue related to economic disparities. Does net neutrality rank over these?

Let me be clear. I am not saying it’s not an important issue to our community. It’s just the method of advocacy by Color of Change on this issue that gave me pause. It seems the organization should provide all the technical and legal information they can to back up their position. I simply disagree in the draping of the issue in racial justice and presuming to speak for all African Americans when some of our communities have literally burned to the ground because of more critical issues that have not been funded.

[Hazel Trice Edney is editor/publisher of the Trice Edney News Wire and CEO of Trice Edney Communications.]