Fred Campbell

John Kruzel at PolitiFact recently rated as “Half True” the claim that Verizon’s throttling of the data service it provided to the Santa Clara County Fire Prevention District (FPD) during the Mendocino (CA) fires demonstrated the danger of repealing the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality regulations. The claim should have been rated “Mostly False” to “Pants on Fire,” because the experts on whom Kruzel relied ignored critical facts and analysis.

[Commentary] Today network neutrality is often described as the principle that internet service providers (ISPs)—and only ISPs—treat all data on the internet the same. But it wasn’t always this way and shouldn’t be this way going forward.

[Op-ed] There is considerable confusion about what’s really at stake in the congressional debates over net neutrality and online privacy regulation.

[Commentary] During the last Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) reauthorization, the process was derailed by debates about other cable industry (Pay TV) issues.

Pay TV is pushing Congress to transform STELA into a debate about “retransmission consent” -- the right of TV stations (Free TV) to control redistribution of their programming. Pay TV claims they are raising consumer prices because Free TV is charging too much for retransmission rights. Spinning it as a consumer issue has prompted Congress to ask whether it should adopt reforms to retransmission consent in the STELA process.

The answer is “No.” Changes sought by Pay TV could have significant consequences for video consumers and market participants that cannot be adequately explored in the truncated STELA process. The absence of credible evidence that retransmission prices are too high begs the question Congress should be asking: Why has Pay TV made this their highest legislative priority?

In short, Pay TV’s fixation on retransmission rights isn’t about programming prices -- it’s about eliminating the Free TV model and increasing advertising revenues for Pay TV distributors. This explains the cognitive dissonance of some free market advocates who, while clamoring for repeal of retransmission consent and other provisions that are essential to the Free TV model, are not advocating for repeal of provisions mandating that TV stations broadcast their signals for free. It’s a nifty way of killing Free TV without expressly acknowledging it.

[Campbell is executive director of the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology and former chief of the FCC's wireless bureau]

[March 11]