Lauren Frayer

[Commentary] In addition to the US, Canada was also all abuzz with Network Neutrality news last week, and for the completely opposite reason: Our communications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), released a landmark decision that planted a flag for Net Neutrality, bolstering the future of online innovation, competition and affordable choice and allowing residents to meaningfully participate in today’s digital society.

There are two key takeaways from this decision that should give Net Neutrality advocates and internet users in the United States some hope: First, public input was crucial to this victory.Over 55,000 people made their views known to the Commission in one way or another, and the CRTC took note. Second, persistence pays off. This fight isn’t a sprint or a marathon. It’s more like an obstacle course where you emerge exhausted and covered in mud — but know the effort was worth it. There’s always another battle to struggle through, but each one still takes you forward, even if it doesn’t seem like it at the time.

[Cynthia Khoo is a Toronto-based lawyer working on internet policy and digital rights, including acting as external counsel to OpenMedia.]

Apparently, the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Uber's use of a secret software that was used to evade authorities in places where its ride-hailing service was banned or restricted. The investigation, in its early stages, deepens the crisis for the embattled company and its chief executive and founder, Travis Kalanick, who has faced a barrage of negative press this year in the wake of high-profile sexual harassment complaints, a slew of executive departures and a consequential trade-secrets lawsuit from Google's parent company.

The federal criminal probe focuses on software developed by Uber called "Greyball." The program helped the company evade officials in cities where Uber was not yet approved. The software identified and blocked rides to transportation regulators who were posing as Uber customers in an effort to prove that the company was operating illegally.

In its bid to blow up the nation’s cellular industry a half-decade ago, a company named LightSquared proposed something no wireless carrier had done before: It vowed to build America’s first retail cellphone network using airwaves traditionally reserved for orbiting satellites. After a multiyear restructuring during which LightSquared’s owner and top investor — the embattled hedge-fund manager Philip Falcone — stepped aside, the company has re-emerged. It has a new name — Ligado — and even grander ambitions.

If it succeeds, Ligado will be well-positioned to control a massive chunk of the industrial market for connected devices, a market that Morgan Stanley thinks will be worth $110 billion a year by 2020. Ligado is promising not only to build the world’s first wireless network using ground-based airwaves that had long been considered unsuitable for cellular use, but it’s also planning to join that capability with a satellite hovering above North America.

[Commentary] Contrary to popular belief, Spicer is actually doing a good job. Not for reporters or the general public, who disagree with that assessment. But Spicer doesn’t answer to them; he answers to the president. And he has served President Donald Trump well in two important ways. First, Spicer has succeeded in fanning the flames of the feud between Trump’s White House and the media. The other measure of Spicer’s success is his steadfastness in defending the president.

[Neal Urwitz is director of external relations at the Center for a New American Security.]

[Commentary] In the week since Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai benton logoopened a new chapter in the ongoing network neutrality debate, the courts and Congress have confirmed that the ball is squarely in the FCC's court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a request to further review the net neutrality rules it upheld in 2016, citing the Chairman’s upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as the reason. In the legislative branch, Republican Senators introduced a bill that would nullify the FCC’s net neutrality rules and prevent any future action by the FCC. But Senate Democrats claim a bipartisan compromise is highly unlikely. For now, net neutrality's future is at the FCC.

A big reason current network neutrality rules need to get the boot, says Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, is that they're curbing broadband investment in low-income neighborhoods — cutting off important information and services 21st-century citizens access via high-speed Internet. But were these 2015 rules, which aimed to prevent companies that bring Internet into homes from favoring their own content over others, really the culprit?

A review of broadband investment over the past two years paints a more complicated picture. One study of the largest carriers, the basis Pai’s claim, does show investment fell over the two-year period the rules were in effect. But that was largely due to AT&T. It's blamed the Open Internet rules for decreased broadband investment. Analysts point out, however, that like other large carriers it was engaged in a competitive shift that likely played a role — two mammoth acquisitions including the $85.4 billion deal for Time Warner. At the same time, Comcast — another big spender of broadband investment — increased its outlays by double digits. "You are going to hear a lot of posturing when it comes to the attempts to stifle some of those regulations," said Tuna Amobi, an equity analyst at CFRA Research who tracks companies such as Comcast and Charter Communications (which want the rules repealed) and Netflix (which supports them).

"What we saw ultimately was that, frankly, it was more or less a lot of noise," Amobi said. The market is simply too competitive not to invest, he says. "No one wants to be left behind."

A Q&A with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.

He wants the government to focus on correcting actual anti-competitive behavior that Internet providers might demonstrate, rather than regulating against hypothetical harms. "Preemptive regulation is appropriate when there's a major market failure — when the Internet is broken," he says. Chairman Pai argues that his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, unnecessarily inserted the government into the Internet economy, stifling its innovation and growth.

Federal prosecutors have begun a criminal investigation into Uber’s use of software as part of the company’s program known as “Greyball” that helped drivers avoid local regulators.

Thank you for inviting me to join you today to discuss the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, or TCPA. The D.C. Circuit has yet to issue an opinion on ACA International’s appeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s TCPA Omnibus Order, which was joined by a wide array of parties. And I hope against all hope that a number of aspects of that Order will be overturned. Perhaps indicative, the D.C. Circuit recently said that TCPA did not give the FCC authority to require opt-out notices on solicited faxes. But regardless of the outcome on the broader TCPA appeal, I expect that the FCC will need to revisit the issue to write rules that are truly clear and rational. The 2015 rules are neither. Recognizing this reality, I would like to outline three overarching points to help frame the discussion and guide the adoption of any replacement rules.
1) Legitimate Businesses Should be Able to Make Informational and Telemarketing Calls
2) Valid Callers Should be Able to Operate in an Efficient Manner
3) The Commission Should Focus on Actual Harms and Real Bad Actors

[Commentary] We reject the idea that the federal government should control the Internet. That’s why we have introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which will complement Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s efforts to repeal the 2015 Internet takeover by preventing the FCC from issuing any similar regulations in the future.

As Pai recently explained, “regulations designed for monopoly will push the market further toward monopoly.” This is not what is best for citizens in Utah, Wisconsin, Texas or the rest of the country. We want more competition, not less. More investment, not less. More innovation, not less. We support an open Internet. But we reject the notion that heavy-handed regulations are the way to accomplish this goal.