Lauren Frayer

Comcast used to be the biggest cable TV company in the US. And it still is. But now it’s something more important: It’s the biggest broadband company in the US. The company announced it has 22.5 million TV subscribers and 25.1 million broadband subscribers. That puts it a couple million subscribers ahead of Charter, its nearest competitor for internet access, and well ahead of everyone else.

Some have argued the Federal Communications Commission should not have privacy authority at all because it lacks privacy “expertise, personnel, or understanding.” But Congress should not heed those arguments.

The FCC has long protected the privacy of telephone customers and would use that expertise in enforcing broadband privacy. Nor should Congress attempt to gut the Federal Trade Commission’s authority by, for instance, capping the time period of consent decrees at eight years rather than the typical 20 years, which Congress has indicated it wants to do. The FTC has been an effective privacy protector for the past two decades in part because it has many tools to protect consumers. Congress would be making a mistake should it undermine either agency’s authority in the name of “protecting” consumer privacy. Americans want and deserve better privacy protections—and they almost got them. Unfortunately, Congress and the president had different plans and have made it more difficult for consumers to protect their privacy. But there are still some paths forward, even if less optimal, to protect broadband privacy. The battle lines have been redrawn, and we have to adjust—quickly.

In addition to the work needed on independent programming, we continue to fail miserably as a nation when it comes to the state of minority and women ownership in the broadcast space. The good news is that there is quantifiable data showing that a tax certificate program, can be a successful tool to combating the problem. During its 17 years of existence, the Federal Communications Commission’s Tax Certificate Program, successfully helped to bring numerous diverse entrepreneurs into the broadcast industry. Earlier in April, Rep GK Butterfield (D-NC) introduced the Expanding Broadcast Ownership Opportunities Act, legislation which would reinstate a tax certificate program and establish a pilot incubator program. I strongly support the goals of this bill and look forward to working with Rep Butterfield and other interested Members of Congress on legislation to improve the state of broadcast ownership diversity.

Finally, I am pleased to share that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced his intent to charter the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment.

[Commentary] Are organizations taking sexual harassment allegations against powerful men seriously? Given that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly will soon be taking a permanent vacation from the network in light of sexual assault allegations, you might think, yes, of course they are. But I doubt even this move will add up to real change. To investigate why, we ought to look at a defining feature of networks like Fox—the fact that they’re run almost exclusively by men—and what this frequently means for pushing back against sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Federal Communications Commission will lift its so-called “quiet period” on April 27 following the wrap-up of the incentive auction of 600 MHz spectrum, and analysts and industry insiders expect the mergers and acquisitinos talk to heat up quickly. The CEOs of Verizon, T-Mobile and SoftBank have all voiced their interest in potential tie-ups, and Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure noted that he was in Tokyo to meet with the parent company and discuss the carrier’s business. Speculation of major tie-ups has increased in recent months with the election of Donald Trump in the midst of the auction.

While it’s too early to know exactly how regulatory agencies might react to any specific deal, analysts and executives generally agree that they’ll demonstrate a far lighter regulatory touch under President Trump than they did under President Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the US wireless market has grown increasingly competitive, as evidenced by the launch of unlimited-data plans by all four major carriers. The market will only get more heated later this year as cable companies such as Comcast and Charter launch wireless service. Meanwhile, Dish Network—which sits on a pile of unused spectrum—continues to plot its course onto the dance floor.

Facebook acknowledged that it has become a battleground for governments seeking to manipulate public opinion in other countries and outlined new measures it is taking to combat what it calls “information operations” that go well beyond the phenomenon known as fake news.

In a report and summary of response plans on its website, Facebook describes well-funded and subtle efforts by nations and other organizations to spread misleading information and falsehoods for geopolitical goals. These initiatives go much further than posting fake news stories to include amplification - essentially widening the circulation of posts through a variety of means - carried out by government employees or paid professionals, often using fake accounts.

Residents of rural United Kingdom are one step closer to gaining access to faster internet services capable of streaming high-definition TV shows and movies. The British Parliament passed a law giving the government authority to introduce a universal service obligation that would require broadband download speeds of 10 megabits a second for the remaining 5 percent of the population that don’t have access to that level of service -- about 1.4 million homes. To subscribe to online video services that have become increasingly popular around the world, you need fast a broadband connection. Almost 250,000 UK premises can’t get speeds higher than 2 megabits, and more than 600,000 can’t get 5, according to a report in 2016 from Ofcom, the UK communications regulator.

The vote follows months of discussions between Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative government and BT Group Plc, the former British phone monopoly, about offering basic broadband in rural areas. Implementation of the law will be the responsibility of a future government, with British voters heading to the polls on June 8 for a general election called earlier this month. The broadband provision was part of the Digital Economy Bill, among several rushed through Parliament before shutting down in advance of the election.

The 2017 World Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), shows that violations of the freedom to inform are less and less the prerogative of authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. Once taken for granted, media freedom is proving to be increasingly fragile in democracies as well. In sickening statements, draconian laws, conflicts of interest, and even the use of physical violence, democratic governments are trampling on a freedom that should, in principle, be one of their leading performance indicators. In the span of just a year, the number of countries where the state of the media is considered “good” or “fairly good” has fallen by 2.3%. Countries regarded as model democracies are no exceptions.

The United States’ ranking for press freedom declined in 2017, driven in part by Donald Trump’s attacks on the news media, which also triggered a decline in other democracies. Reporters Without Borders, which compiles the World Press Freedom Index based on its assessment of the legal environment and government threats to journalists, ranked the United States 43rd out of 180 nations. It finished two spots lower than a year ago, ranking just behind Burkina Faso and just ahead of Comoros. “The election of the 45th president of the United States set off a witchhunt against journalists,” the group said in an analysis of its data. “Donald Trump’s repeated diatribes against the Fourth Estate and its representatives — accusing them of being ‘among the most dishonest human beings on earth’ and of deliberately spreading ‘fake news’ — compromise a long US tradition of defending freedom of expression.”

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s playbook to curb free speech and silence dissenting voices goes far beyond his Twitter rants and his verbal attacks on the press. The president’s appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, unveiled his plan to kill network neutrality at a closed-door FreedomWorks-sponsored event.

It’s appropriate that Chairman Pai made this announcement at a gathering sponsored by a telecom-funded organization that played a key role in elevating the racist Tea Party movement. His plan will allow powerful corporations to silence the voices of everyday people — especially people of color — who struggle to be heard. But these are surroundings Chairman Pai is comfortable in. He’s a former Verizon lawyer and a former Senate staffer for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a hero to White nationalists. And now Pai will carry out Trump’s agenda to silence dissenting voices.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote on—and given its Republican majority, likely pass—the network neutrality proposal during an open meeting May 18. But that will only start what promises to be a lengthy battle for the future of net neutrality.

To truly torpedo the requirements, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will have to make the case that he’s doing so for good reason. A 1946 law called the Administrative Procedures Act bans federal agencies making “capricious” decisions. The law is meant, in part, to keep regulations from yo-yoing back and forth every time a new party gained control of the White House. The FCC successfully argued in favor of Title II reclassification in federal court in 2016. That effort means Chairman Pai might have to make the case that things had changed enough since then to justify a complete reversal in policy. “That’s a pretty dramatic reversal,” says Marc Martin, chair of communications law at Perkins Coie. “Presuming there’s an appeal, a court may find that arbitrary.”