October 2016

[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.]

In a political environment defined by widespread polarization and partisan animosity, even simple conversations can go awry when the subject turns to politics. In their in-person interactions, Americans can (and often do) attempt to steer clear of those with whom they strongly disagree. But online social media environments present new challenges. In these spaces, users can encounter statements they might consider highly contentious or extremely offensive – even when they make no effort to actively seek out this material. Similarly, political arguments can encroach into users’ lives when comment streams on otherwise unrelated topics devolve into flame wars or partisan bickering. Navigating these interactions can be particularly fraught in light of the complex mix of close friends, family members, distant acquaintances, professional connections and public figures that make up many users’ online networks. A new Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults finds that political debate and discussion is indeed a regular fact of digital life for many social media users, and some politically active users enjoy the heated discussions and opportunities for engagement that this mix of social media and politics facilitates. But a larger share expresses annoyance and aggravation at the tone and content of the political interactions they witness on these platforms. Among the key findings of this survey:

• More than one-third of social media users are worn out by the amount of political content they encounter, and more than half describe their online interactions with those they disagree with politically as stressful and frustrating
• Many users view the tone of political discussions on social media as uniquely angry and disrespectful – although a sizeable share feels that these discussions simply reflect the broader political climate
• Most users try to ignore political arguments on social media as best they can; when that fails, they take steps to curate their feeds and avoid the most offensive types of content
• Despite these annoyances, some users – especially those with high levels of political engagement – enjoy talking, debating and posting about political issues on social media
• Frustration over politically oriented social media discussions is a bipartisan phenomenon
• Political content is as prevalent on Facebook (where users mostly follow people they know personally) as it is on Twitter (where users tend to follow a wider mix of connections)

[Commentary] We should learn from our own history. Following the AT&T battles, the entry of competition and new technology was greatly beneficial to consumers and businesses at every level of our economy. Can you imagine having to rent a laptop from the telephone company to access the internet? Despite the echoes of the monopolists of the past, competition in cable boxes will be sound policy as well. New technology will follow, and consumers will see the benefits in their pocketbooks. Set-top boxes are a good place to continue our positive tradition of innovation and competition in telecommunications.

[Timothy E. Wirth (D-CO) represented Colorado in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to 1993 and in the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1987.]

AT&T executives say their purchase of Time Warner should yield a lot of “positives” for customers, including more content, better wireless access to programming and an attractive alternative to cable. But what the deal most likely won’t bring about is a cheaper price for television — and it just may increase the price for in-home internet, according to experts who track the media industry.

AT&T wants to marry its internet and wireless operations with Time Warner’s media businesses, which include HBO, CNN, Turner Broadcasting System and movie studio Warner Bros. AT&T said that the deal would provide “significant financial benefits,” including revenue and earnings growth, lower capital costs and savings of $1 billion within the first three years. Nowhere in the announcement did AT&T specifically mention how the proposed transaction could lower costs for consumers. The reason executives don’t argue that mergers will result in lower prices is because it doesn’t happen, said Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press. In fact, prices may very well go up.