Lauren Frayer

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai visited executives at Facebook, Oracle, Intel and other tech giants in Silicon Valley on April 17, as he considers how he might rethink and replace the agency’s hotly contested network neutrality rules. Speaking to reporters April 20, Chairman Pai stressed he’s been “consistent” in his view that he “favor[s] a free and open internet and that I oppose Title II,” a reference to the portion of law that Democrats tapped in order to subject the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to utility-like regulation. “Outside of the context of any pending proceeding, I’ve been simply soliciting thoughts on how to secure the online consumer protections that people have talked about,” Chairman Pai said. A spokesman for Chairman Pai did not immediately respond to a request for more details about the meeting. Chairman Pai himself did not provide further information about his consultations when asked at a press conference following a series of votes April 20 that relaxed regulations on the telecom industry.

The DC Circuit Court granted the FCC’s motion to remand the Lifeline Reform Order back to the Federal Communications Commission. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and 12 states sought court review of the Order, and the FCC, on its motion, said it will soon commence a proceeding to eliminate the federal Lifeline broadband provider designation process at issue in these cases, recognizing that state governments, not the FCC, have primary responsibility for designating carriers that can participate in the Lifeline program.

[Commentary] If the public had any doubt as to whether Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai was going to follow his own regulatory philosophy consistently during his term, one of the votes April 20 confirms that he chooses to follow his own principles only when it suits the powerful companies and political interests that back him. Applying his own ideas against the “UHF discount” draft order reveals much:
One of Chairman Pai’s abiding goals is to root out “obsolete rules,”
According to his regulatory philosophy “regulators should be skeptical of pleas to … afford special treatment,”
“as a creature of Congress, the FCC must respect the law as set forth by the legislature,”
“throughout my time at the Commission, I have worked on ways for the FCC to foster diversity in the broadcast industry,” and
“consumers benefit most from competition.”

Chairman Pai’s and Commissioner O’Rielly’s vote tomorrow morning will violate all five of these principles simultaneously: they are starting on a path of massive media consolidation by reinstating a technically obsolete rule justified by promising to change a rule Congress has specifically prohibited the FCC from changing and making it more difficult for smaller stations owned by women and people of color.

[Cheryl Leanza is the policy adviser for the United Church of Christ’s media justice ministry, OC Inc.]

Remember when federal regulators made rules that seemed tailored to benefit the technology industry? Not anymore. On April 20, the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to take votes on two measures that would continue efforts to unwind rules created during the Obama administration. The first would make it easier for broadband providers to increase charges on other companies that connect to their networks. The second would ease the limit on how many stations a broadcast television company can own.

President Donald Trump recently signed a resolution to undo internet privacy rules that would have kept companies like AT&T and Comcast from selling users’ browsing histories and other personal data. Almost immediately, a number of states — among them Washington, Connecticut and Massachusetts — moved to pass new rules that would in effect replicate those nullified by Congress. But California, a pioneer of privacy protections, has so far been silent. That could soon change. Assemblyman Ed Chau, a Democrat who heads the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, said he was holding meetings on steps the Legislature could take to safeguard personal information.

The biggest players in advertising and tech are mapping out a strategy to kill off the digital ads that have been deemed as the absolute worst by consumers. The most likely approach is the adoption of a "technology" -- the term "ad blocker" has baggage among many of the participants in talks on the subject -- that would prevent browsers such as Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge from displaying autoplaying video ads with sound, pop-up ads and ads that quickly flash or change colors.

The discussions are taking place among members of the industry's Coalition for Better Ads, including Google, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, WPP's ad-buying giant GroupM, Facebook, Thomson Reuters, The Washington Post, the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Association of National Advertisers, according to Stu Ingis, counsel to the coalition and attorney at Venable LLP. "The end game here is to remove these types of ads which are undercutting the consumer internet experience," Ingis said. "Truthfully, those ads can potentially and seriously undercut the broader internet ecosystem." A "blocking mechanism" or "technology" to prevent such ads from appearing will be put into place before the end of 2017, Ingis predicted.

Like most public libraries across the United States, Multnomah County Library (MCL) has long provided access to public computers, the Internet (through Wi-Fi), and personalized training to the community it serves. MCL has leveraged grants and partnerships to provide tailored services to community members with low technology literacy and few resources. The library is a primary partner in a collaborative, regional digital inclusion effort that includes:1) documenting community needs, 2) increasing access to low-cost devices and broadband service, and 3) delivering training where it’s needed most. In recent years, the library has focused increasingly on technology-related service in languages other than English, including Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese and Chinese. Multnomah County Library is the largest provider of free broadband access, equipment, and training in the greater Portland area. MCL will host approximately two million free Wi-Fi and public access computing sessions this year. The library also offers about 1,900 classes, open labs, and individual tutoring sessions each year to help people get online, use their devices, and build digital literacy skills.

You often hear the FTC described as America’s top cop on the privacy beat. We’re not the only agency working on privacy and data security issues, of course, but we have the broadest jurisdiction. And for more than 20 years, we have used it thoughtfully and forcefully to protect consumers even as new products and services emerge and evolve.

How can you keep up to date on what’s up on our beat? Once a year, we release our Privacy and Security Update. The latest update for 2016 and updates for 2015, 2014, and 2013 tell you where we’ve been on behalf of America’s consumers – and where we’re going. What these updates demonstrate is that even as technology and the privacy landscape evolve, our interest remains constant: to protect consumers’ personal information and ensure that they can confidently take advantage of the many benefits offered by a vibrant and innovative marketplace.

The G20 (Group of 20) is a forum for representatives of governments of 20 major economies to consider and address issues of common interest impacting the citizens of these economies. As the president of the G20, Germany initiated a work stream focused on the digital economy. Over the past four months, representatives of the G20 countries have been examining policies and practices that will further the growth, development and deployment of digital economy technologies. These policies and practices cover all aspects of the digital economy, from connecting to the internet, to the use of international standards, to strengthening user confidence in digital technologies, to policies that allow U.S.-headquartered companies to compete around the world.

Recognizing the importance of these factors, the United States signed the G20 Digital Economy Ministerial Declaration. The Declaration recognizes and reiterates many fundamental principles that have made the internet possible and have improved the quality of our lives. By committing with our G20 partners to the free flow of information across national borders, to the protection of intellectual property, to the use of industry-led international standards, and to fair competition, we will ensure that the full potential of the digital economy can be realized, and that our citizens will reap its benefits. The United States government will continue to work with Germany, other G20 partners and all other interested countries to strengthen these fundamental principles, while fighting against efforts to weaken them or create barriers that impede U.S. companies from accessing and competing in foreign markets.

Congressional Republicans are baldly enticing donors with the promise of meetings with senior legislative staff, effectively placing access to congressional employees up for sale to professional influence peddlers and other well-heeled interests. Documents show that the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee are both telling donors that in exchange for campaign contributions, they will receive invitations to special events to meet with congressional staff including chiefs of staff, leadership staffers, and committee staffers.

While selling donors access to senators and representatives and their campaign staff is nothing new, the open effort to sell access to their legislative staff — the taxpayer-funded government employees who work behind the scenes to write legislation, handle investigations, and organize committee hearings — appears to be in violation of ethics rules that prohibit campaigns from using House and Senate resources in any way. Congressional ethics rules flatly forbid Capitol Hill employees from engaging in fundraising activities as part of their official duties. Any explicit fundraising work must be done strictly as a volunteer, and there must be a clear firewall separating government work from campaign work. It’s arguably the last fig leaf left when it comes to giving the appearance that campaign contributions are not directly linked to official acts.