Gigi Sohn

Sohn set out recommendations to ensure that the Internet is accessible and affordable and that broadband Internet access service (BIAS) providers and online platforms are transparent about how they conduct their businesses. Affordable access to the Internet is rarely discussed in conversations about Internet openness. An open network is of limited value, however, if significant numbers of people cannot access it for cost or other reasons. In the United States, fully twenty percent of Americans are not connected to BIAS.

In my Georgetown Law Technology Review article, I propose a new policy framework to restore an open Internet ecosystem.

In my previous post, I highlighted four reasons why the U.S needs a unified policy framework for an open Internet ecosystem: 1) lack of competition/incentive and the ability to discriminate; 2) collection of and control over personal data; 3) lack of transparency; and 4) inadequacy of current laws and enforcement. Many of these problems can be addressed with targeted legislative and regulatory interventions.

[Analysis] In a new article for the Georgetown Law Technology Review, I seek to jumpstart a conversation about how to shape an Internet ecosystem that will serve the public interest. First, let me lay out the rationale for a new, unified policy framework for an open Internet: 1) Lack of Competition/Incentive and Ability to Discriminate, 2) Collection of and Control over Personal Data, 3) Lack of Transparency, and 4) Inadequacy of Current Laws and Enforcement.

I applaud Rep. Coffman for signing the net neutrality discharge petition. The Joint Resolution of Disapproval of the FCC’s December 14, 2017 net neutrality repeal order is the fastest and best way to restore FCC authority to protect consumers and competition in the broadband market. Surely his constituents will appreciate his leadership in taking this important step.

[Commentary] The best and fastest vehicle for bringing back the vital protections of net neutrality resides in both houses of Congress. It’s called a “Joint Resolution of Disapproval” which is allowed under a law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA allows Congress to overturn an agency decision soon after it is adopted with a simple majority of members in attendance. This Congress used the CRA last April to repeal Federal Communications Commission rules that would have required ISPs to protect the privacy of their customers.

[Commentary] The proposition here is simple: This T-Mobile/Sprint deal will shrink the market for nationwide mobile wireless service from four players to three, giving consumers fewer choices and increasing the likelihood that prices will be higher and service offerings will be less consumer-friendly. Decreased competition in a market that is already consolidated? This deal should be an easy one for the government to reject. Companies seeking to merge typically promise the sun, moon, and the stars to regulators in order to obtain approval, and T-Mobile and Sprint are no different.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has portrayed the Lifeline program and the people who benefit from it as hopelessly corrupt. Now he is proposing to make changes that will, for all intents and purposes, destroy the program. He aims to severely reduce both the supply of and demand for Lifeline-supported services. 

[Commentary] The vote by the Federal Communications Commission repealing its 2015 network neutrality rules will have an especially negative impact on online innovation.

[Commentary] In doing away with the 2015 rules that prohibit broadband providers from discriminating against or favoring certain content, applications and services (that is, no blocking, no throttling, no fast lanes and a general rule against discrimination), Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has radically departed from bipartisan FCC precedent. This opens the door for companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter to pick winners and losers on the Internet by controlling which online companies get faster and better quality of service and at what price.