July 2017

Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions

Republicans and Democrats offer starkly different assessments of the impact of several of the nation’s leading institutions – including the news media, colleges and universities and churches and religious organizations – and in some cases, the gap in these views is significantly wider today than it was just a year ago.

The national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults, finds that partisan differences in views of the national news media, already wide, have grown even wider. Democrats’ views of the effect of the national news media have grown more positive over the past year, while Republicans remain overwhelmingly negative. About as many Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents think the news media has a positive (44%) as negative (46%) impact on the way things are going in the country. The share of Democrats holding a positive view of the news media’s impact has increased 11 percentage points since last August (33%). Republicans, by about eight-to-one (85% to 10%), say the news media has a negative effect. These views have changed little in the past few years. While a majority of the public (55%) continues to say that colleges and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country these days, Republicans express increasingly negative views. A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58%) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% last year. By contrast, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say colleges and universities have a positive effect, which is little changed from recent years.

As the Digital Divide Grows, An Untapped Solution Languishes

Too many students still scrounge for the vital internet access their classmates (and technology-enamored school reformers) take for granted. Dozens of interviews—along with reviews of tax disclosures, Federal Communications Commission filings, and court records related to the Educational Broadband Service (EBS)—show that this educational spectrum is, at least, woefully underutilized. It's a public resource born of good intentions but wasted by a broken system.

There are lots of ideas for fixing EBS. JH Snider of iSolon said the FCC could reclaim leased EBS licenses when they expire and reallocate them, although he can’t imagine them taking such a bold step. The FCC could also issue new spectrum licenses for the rural areas not yet covered by EBS, under the condition that license holders use the spectrum for public purposes rather than lease it. The national association of EBS license holders sent the FCC a proposal along these lines in 2014, but the agency has not formally responded. As for the current leases that dominate EBS, EveryoneOn founder Zach Leverenz said that the FCC could do a lot to “correct the shadiness in the system” just by clarifying the vagueness of legacy rules tying EBS to its original mission—such as defining what 20 hours per week of educational use means and ensuring that the 5 percent of spectrum “reserved” from the leases is actually used for educational purposes.

ISP Group Arms for July 12 Title II Protest

With the July 12 Title II Day of Action protest targeting Internet service providers getting a lot of attention, Broadband for America (BFA), which backs and includes those ISPs, was pushing back with a backgrounder on why Title II fans are off base. BFA said the protestors will claim that the FCC wants to end network neutrality, that Title II is the only way to preserve an open internet, and that ISPs oppose net neutrality. Wrong, wrong and wrong said BFA.

It said ISPs strongly support an open internet and have pledged to support enforceable principles and legislation to permanently protect against "blocking or unreasonable discrimination." BFA says that the current Title II regime has led to a $3.6 billion decrease in infrastructure investment and puts the entire internet ecosystem at risk. While Title II fans say that is the only foolproof legal framework for protecting the internet, BFA said legislation "can pass" that will protect it without the "burdens and problems" of utility regulations.

The FCC Should Continue Its Strong Role in Protecting Broadband Privacy

Through years of rulemakings and enforcement actions, the Federal Communications Commission has developed the expertise necessary to protect consumer privacy on communications networks. Consumers are concerned about their ability to protect their personal privacy for themselves and their families. According to survey results released by the National Telecommunications Information Administration, a significant number of consumers avoid online activities because of privacy concerns. To foster security, opportunity, and development of the internet, the FCC must continue to have a strong role in protecting broadband privacy. As members of Congress continue to develop online privacy legislation, they should understand the important role the FCC plays in protecting consumer privacy on communications networks.

How long will Lifeline be allowed to keep failing?

[Commentary] Suppose you started a program to improve the reading abilities of the 80 percent of lower-income students who cannot read at grade level. This is a worthy cause, so let’s assume that you are spending more than $1 billion annually to fix this. Then someone studies the effectiveness of your program and finds: (1) The children who enroll already read at or above grade level, (2) the percentage of lower-income children reading below grade level has barely changed since you started, and (3) some of the people administering your program are stealing from it. Would you keep your program, or ditch it? If you were the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you would probably keep it. At least, that is how the agency is treating its Lifeline program, which received another failing grade from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2017.

The GAO had already given the program a failing grade seven years ago in 2010. As I have written before, a less complex, less costly, and less corruption-prone way to provide Lifeline’s income benefits would be to provide direct income subsidies to low-income households. This would save the FCC considerable time and effort that it currently devotes to patching Lifeline and would save the GAO the expense of giving the program another failing grade seven years from now.

[Mark Jamison is the Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida]

Building Broadband Access Tough, Necessary

[Commentary] Chattanooga (TN) had the right idea when it requested and received Federal Communications Commission approval to expand broadband service – offered through its municipal utility provider, EPB – into neighboring Bradley County, an area overlooked by commercial providers. Unfortunately, that plan was sidelined in 2016 when Tennessee turned it into a state’s rights issue and successfully contested the approval in federal court.

After the ruling, state attorney general Herbert Slatery reiterated the case “was not about access to broadband,” but rather about preventing the federal government from exercising power it didn’t have. Meanwhile, many rural communities continue to lose out, either unserved or underserved by broadband providers. During a stop in Memphis a year ago, Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke outlined what the real goal here should be. “Broadband now is an essential part of people’s lives,” he said. “The highways and the roads that we drive on are what allow goods and services to transport at quick speed and grow the economy of our country. It’s the same thing with the internet. And everybody needs access to it.”

The FCC needs to implement a 'rocket docket' for wireless spectrum, and fast

[Commentary] Newly-minted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly stated that one of his top priorities is to “increase infrastructure and innovation.” Taking the chairman at his word, developing an efficient, transparent and expedited process to allow existing license holders to convert their spectrum in underutilized bands to a higher-value use should be at the top of his “to do” list. In so doing, we short-circuit the laborious task of identifying, clearing and auctioning potential “greenfield” bands of government spectrum (although as spectrum is always in short supply, those efforts should certainly continue) and provide a powerful incentive for existing license holders to convert their spectrum through relatively quick regulatory changes for use in enterprise partnerships; consumer-focused commercial endeavors; or sold in the secondary market for other purposes. Under these scenarios, more high-value commercial spectrum would be available for advanced wireless services which, in turn, will lead to more investment, innovation and infrastructure deployment.

If Chairman Pai is truly serious about increasing infrastructure and innovation, then he needs to send a loud and clear signal that the FCC is “open for business” for repurposing spectrum from low to high value uses. The Commission has a unique opportunity to bring much-needed spectrum for commercial use on its own motion without having to deal with the bureaucracy of the rest of the federal government. It need only seize it.

[Lawrence J. Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

The Next Net Neutrality Debate

[Commentary] Common carriage, the time-honored civic ideal enshrined in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, remains an indispensable civic ideal. Yet it was never intended as a one-size-fits-all solution, and is by no means the only regulatory tool in US policymakers’ toolkit.

Network neutrality is predicated on a cartoonish caricature of the history of American communications that has long exaggerated the importance of garage-based startups, while discounting the innovative potential of the digital behemoths that dominate cyberspace today. Innovation is too important to be left to the lawyers or the economists. Now that it looks as if the Title II designation for ISPs is history, it is time to explore other options. What do to? To begin with, acknowledge that the current legal regime is anything but neutral and stop demonizing the ISPs. Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet, the parent of Google, have benefited hugely from the status quo without having channeled more than a trickle of their enormous profits into the maintenance and improvement of the existing information infrastructure. They are free-riding on a network that the ISPs built. Lawmakers should strike down existing laws that discourage innovation in municipal broadband, increase government spending on network expansion for thinly settled regions, and institute tax incentives to nudge existing content providers to fund high-quality local journalism and investigative reporting. The Title II designation for ISPs was a patchwork solution to an ongoing challenge. Differential pricing is not a panacea, but it worked for the late 19th-century telephone business, and it deserves a chance today.

[Richard John is a professor at the Columbia University School of Journalism]

Net Neutrality explained: "Imagine internet is pizza ..."

July 12, tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Reddit will be participating in an event called the Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is the belief that internet service providers should treat all content, applications and websites the same, without favoring or blocking specific ones. What does that actually mean?

We asked experts in the field to explain by using metaphors and here is what they said: John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge: “Here is a simple metaphor: The telephone system, which has long been regulated to protect the public interest. You probably wouldn’t like it if you tried to order pizza from your favorite local place and were connected to a Papa John’s instead because it had got some special deal. Or if a Verizon telephone only connected to other Verizon phones. Obviously, there are a lot of differences between internet access and the telephone and how they work and how they are built, but the basic principle that essential communication systems ought to be non-discriminatory is the same.”

Who Has Your Back? AT&T, Verizon, Other ISPs Lag Behind Tech Industry in Protecting Users from Government Overreach

While many technology companies continue to step up their privacy game by adopting best practices to protect sensitive customer information when the government demands user data, telecommunications companies are failing to prioritize user privacy when the government comes knocking, an Electronic Frontier Foundation annual survey shows. Even tech giants such as Apple, Facebook, and Google can do more to fully stand behind their users.

EFF’s seventh annual “Who Has Your Back” report digs into the ways many technology companies are getting the message about user privacy in this era of unprecedented digital surveillance. The data stored on our mobile phones, laptops, and especially our online services can, when aggregated, paint a detailed picture of our lives—where we go, who we see, what we say, our political affiliations, our religion, and more. AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile, and Verizon scored the lowest, each earning just one star. While they have adopted a number of industry best practices, like publishing transparency reports and requiring a warrant for content, they still need to commit to informing users before disclosing their data to the government and creating a public policy of requesting judicial review of all NSLs.

Benton

Search