July 2016

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission in 2015 redefined broadband as connections with 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and 4 Mbps upload speeds. This is more than six times the previous standard of 4 Mbps download, allowing for multiple simultaneous video streams. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband by this definition. This number, however, fails to illustrate the stark contrast between rural and urban access to broadband. Rural areas have significantly slower Internet access, with 39 percent lacking access to broadband of 25/4 Mbps, compared to only 4 percent for urban areas. This rural/urban “digital divide” in access severely limits rural populations from taking advantage of a critical component of modern life.

The FCC has been responsible for universal service of telecommunications since its inception in 1934, creating equal access to communications like phone service. In 2007, the Joint Board of the FCC redefined the concept of universal service to include broadband. Coupled with the recent network neutrality decision, the FCC wields a powerful precedent to create equal access to broadband. To fulfill its role, the FCC must do more as a regulatory body to ensure equal access to this public utility. It has made efforts in recent years to expand the Connect America Fund, providing funding to create broadband access for over 7 million consumers over the next 6 years. However, the FCC must expand access alongside advances in technology rather than after the fact, satisfying increased demands for faster internet with infrastructure growth. Otherwise, rural communities will continue to play catch up with their urban counterparts and the US will remain digitally divided.

[Commentary] We expect regulators, at least those within a single administration, to speak with a common voice. So when the Federal Trade Commission staff took the unprecedented action of criticizing proposed Internet privacy rules being considered by the Federal Communications Commission, it became clear we must hit the pause button.

The FCC proposes to replace that system with much broader “opt-in” requirements that ignore the sensitivity of the data. But unmooring the level of data protection from consumer expectations is counterproductive and wrong — 83% of consumers believe online privacy should be based on the sensitivity of data, not the kind of company or organization gathering it. As one FTC commissioner put it, the FTC filing “politely recognizes that the FCC’s current proposal would impose more restrictions than are necessary to protect consumer privacy in many cases, and yet would fail to protect consumer privacy in others.” When I was in the leadership of the FTC, we often filed comments guiding states or other regulators to recognize the need for regulatory humility. Regulations and legislation can become permanent impediments to competition. When the nation’s leading consumer-protection enforcer says you’ve gotten it wrong, it’s time to rethink and return to the drawing board.

[David Balto is a former policy director at the Federal Trade Commission and a former attorney in the Justice Department’s antitrust division]