FCC Chairman Ajit Pai

Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against a Syracuse man for allegedly threatening to kill Congressman John Katko and his family if he did not support net neutrality. Specifically, federal prosecutors allege that the man left a voicemail at Congressman Katko’s office saying, among other things: ‘[I]f you don’t support net neutrality, I will find you and your family and I will kill . . . you . . . all. Do you understand? I will literally find all . . . of . . . you and your progeny and just wipe you from the face of the earth.’

Is social media a net benefit to American society? Given the increasingly important role that social media plays in our daily lives, this is a question that all of us, including groups like the Media Institute, need to grapple with. Now, I will tell you up front that I don’t have an answer. And I won’t touch on particular policy issues, like social media’s role in elections. What I have in mind is something broader. With that, let me suggest two trends that I believe have lowered our discourse—and how social media has enabled each. First: Everything nowadays is political.

Much has been said and written over the course of the last week about the plan to restore Internet freedom. But much of the discussion has brought more heat than light. I’d like to cut through the hysteria and hot air and speak with you in plain terms about the plan. First, I’ll explain what it will do. Second, I’ll discuss why I’m advancing it. And third, I’ll respond to the main criticisms that have been leveled against it.

Rounding out our December meeting will be two matters that were previewed yesterday.

First, the Federal Communications Commission will consider an order that would restore Internet freedom and return to the bipartisan, light-touch framework that helped America's Internet economy become the envy of the world. And unlike the previous Administration, which pushed through its Internet regulations without letting the public see what was being proposed, anyone can read my plan. It's on the Commission's website —more than three weeks before our scheduled vote.

[Commentary] I’m proposing today that my colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission repeal President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations. Instead the FCC simply would require internet service providers to be transparent so that consumers can buy the plan that’s best for them. And entrepreneurs and other small businesses would have the technical information they need to innovate. The Federal Trade Commission would police ISPs, protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai released the following statement on his draft Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was circulated to his fellow Commissioners Nov 21 and will be voted on at the FCC’s Open Meeting on December 14:

Across the board, we are reviewing our regulations to make sure that they reflect current market conditions; that they are applied evenly and fairly; and that they are consistent with the law and sound principles of economics. In some cases, that means streamlining rules to reflect current technological and marketplace realities.  In other cases, that means eliminating them altogether.  In all cases, it means getting government out of the way as much as possible in order to encourage private initiative. Beyond that, we have adopted a posture of regulatory humility.

So what does it mean for a government agency to be on the side of innovation? Having served on the FCC since 2012, I’ve certainly had time to think about that question. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the most effective strategy for seizing the opportunities of the digital age is promoting the power of free markets. Instead of viewing innovation as a problem to be regulated based on rules from the past, government should see innovation’s potential, guided by markets that embrace the future.

[Commentary] For over four decades, the Federal Communications Commission has restricted the ability of broadcast media outlets to also own newspapers, and vice versa, in the same market, under what is known as the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule. This rule was established in 1975 with the stated purpose of preserving and promoting a diversity of viewpoints. Arguably, it made sense at the time. But with the internet now dominating the news landscape, the rule is no longer needed, and may actually be undermining the diversity of viewpoints it was intended to foster.

On Oct 5, several Members of Congress wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai regarding the FCC's Notice of Inquiry "Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion." The lawmakers wrote, "we strongly oppose any proposal to lower speeds from the current standard of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload to 10 Mbps download/I Mbps or to find mobile broadband as a universally appropriate replacement for fixed, home broadband." On Oct 24, Chairman Pai responded, writing, "With respect to claims that the Section 70