Lauren Frayer

Until we see otherwise, we should take the Trump Federal Communications Commission at its word that it’s serious about improving the E-Rate program rather than cutting the number three federal aid to education program (like the Trump budget proposes for number one and number two). But those who propose changes must do what any 10th grader would do: their math homework. So, for this homework assignment, let’s ask four questions.

First, what would be the financial impact on rural schools?
Second, how would per-pupil allocations affect the access of rural schools to fiber?
Third, how would the proposals affect current activities?
Fourth, what kind of fiscal deficit for rural schools might be created by this change?

Reform of the E-Rate program has been a huge success for America’s schools and students. Now the people who voted against it are in charge. I hope they do their math homework while remembering their ABCs: Access Benefits Children.

[Commentary] As the White House and Congress develop an infrastructure plan promised during the campaign, many, including senators, House members and mayors, are urging that broadband be included. Here are eight simple ground rules we hope Congress will follow in crafting broadband-related infrastructure incentives:
1. Limit and carefully control direct investment funds.
2. Don’t offer ongoing support.
3. Use market mechanisms where possible.
4. Extend “Dig Once/Climb Once” policies on government property.
5. Improve government processes that hinder private investment.
6. Embrace emerging technologies.
7. Address nonfinancial causes of the digital divide.
8. Use the bully pulpit to encourage digital want-nots.

[Blair Levin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Larry Downes is project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy.]

A group of Democratic Sens is asking top telecommunication companies to provide details of their privacy policies in the wake of Republicans’ repeal of broadband privacy rules. The Senators, led by Sen Ed Markey (D-MA), sent letters containing a list of questions about privacy to AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and CenturyLink.

In their list of questions, the senators grill the companies on what their policies are regarding the use of sensitive information for advertising. “Do you obtain affirmative opt-in consent to use, share, or sell any of the following information: web browsing history, app usage history, the content of communications, children’s information, health information, financial information, geo-location, and Social Security numbers?” reads one. The letter was also signed by Sens Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

When Congress voted to overturn internet privacy rules in March, the swift action by Republican lawmakers sent a clear message: They were just getting started. The next target is network neutrality, which is the guarantee that all internet content is equally accessible. That could be followed by cuts in broadband subsidies for low-income households and a relaxation in rules preventing media consolidation in local markets.

Republican regulators and lawmakers have been waiting for this moment. Coordinating across the government, they are putting several telecommunications and technology policies created during the Obama Administration on the chopping block. Already, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who was appointed to the agency by President Barack Obama and named to lead it by President Trump, has begun chipping away at the low-income broadband subsidy and net neutrality rules created by his Democratic predecessor.

Roku appears to be arming itself for the coming network neutrality war. Roku has hired a pair of Republican lobbyists through an outside government-affairs firm, according to a federal ethics reports, specifically to focus on net neutrality. It’s the first time the company has ever retained lobbyists in Washington, DC.

For years, Netflix had been a primary political player in this fight, as a public advocate for strong open internet rules that sparred openly with the likes of Comcast. As Netflix has struck deals with the cable giant and others to speed up its traffic, however, the streaming company has tempered its tone. Enter Roku, which, unlike Netflix, soon may find reason to be even more vocal in the debate: The company is considering whether it should launch an over-the-top pay TV service, apparently. In other words, it increasingly could find itself in direct competition with internet providers.

Rep GK Butterfield (D-NC) has hit the nail on the head when it comes to proposing solutions for a more inclusive media landscape. I heartily support and applaud his introduction of the Expanding Broadcast Ownership Opportunities Act (HR 1883). Reinstating a tax certificate program and establishing a pilot incubator program are two of the proposals our office outlined in the recently released #Solutions2020 Call to Action Plan. Transforming the dismal reality of the present ownership landscape, into a future that offers abundant opportunities for women and minorities will not be an easy task. Rep Butterfield’s legislation is an important step towards greater broadcast ownership diversity and I look forward to working with him and all interested Members of Congress in pursuit of this shared goal.

I’m here to discuss the role of economics at the Federal Communications Commission. The state of the FCC’s economic analysis and data collection is not where it needs to be. There are four key problems: 1) economists are not systemically incorporated into policy work at the FCC; 2) economists work in silos; 3) cost-benefit analysis is largely ignored; 4) the FCC has often used data poorly.

So today, I’m launching a plan to fix it. Specifically, I’m pleased to announce that I am beginning a process to establish an Office of Economics and Data, or OED. This Office will combine economists and other data professionals from around the Commission. I envision it providing economic analysis for rulemakings, transactions, and auctions; managing the Commission’s data resources; and conducting longer-term research on ways to improve the Commission’s policies.

The House Communications Subcommittee held a hearing on wireless spectrum and the economy, but it had to wait for Democratic and Republican lawmakers to air out their grievances over the passage last week of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution rolling back Federal Communications Commission broadband privacy regulations. The back-and-forth was particularly heated and even personal, illustrating the widening political divide on Capitol Hill.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA) and full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) used their opening statements to weigh in on Republicans "ramming" the CRA down the "public's throat," as Rep Doyle put it. Rep Doyle also called out CTIA (though not by name)—a CTIA witness, the only association witness, was at the table—for supporting the CRA, saying the industry association had acted in a "selfish and irresponsible way." He said he expected more from it and its members, and the American people did as well. Saying that CTIA's support for the CRA meant that there were no privacy protections, Rep Doyle said: "Believe me, my constituents and your customers are not happy about this." House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) shot back that the issue had been "horribly spun" and that the FCC created the problem when it reclassified ISPs under Title II and took over regulation of broadband privacy form the Federal Trade Commission.

House Democrats have released a suite of "connectivity" bills April 5 that would, among other things, prevent the Federal Communications Commission from targeting broadcasters "or anyone else" on the basis of viewpoint, toughen FCC political ad disclosure rules, and boost broadcast diversity.

The Protecting Dissenting Viewpoints and Voices Act (HR 1574), introduced by Rep Ben Jay Luján (D-NM), stems from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision not to weigh in on President Donald Trump's branding of news outlets as "fake news" and in the shadow of the President's ongoing threats, or perceived threats, including invoking potential changes in libel laws or, as a candidate, suggesting his Administration should bock a deal involving Time Warner, which owns one of his main targets, CNN. The bill would prevent the FCC from revoking any license, denying a license transfer, or taking action against an individual for their viewpoints on issues of public importance. The bill would also prevent the President from directing an agency from retaliating over a broadcast viewpoint.

The Keeping Our Campaigns Honest (KOCH) Act (HR 1439), whose name is a reference to the Koch brothers, who are big Republican donors, was introduced by Reps John Yarmuth (D-KY), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Luján. It would "direct the FCC to revise its sponsorship identification rules to require that the true identity of individuals behind anonymous campaign ads be disclosed."

The Expanding Broadcast Ownership Opportunities Act, introduced by Rep GK Butterfield (D-NC) would boost data and reporting requirements for ownership diversity, restore the tax certificate program and establish a minority incubator program (see separate story).

The Connected Government Act which would require government websites to be optimized for mobile.

The Family Telephone Connection Protection Act (HR 1184) which would require the FCC to regulate prison phone rates.

Amidst a sea of suits, Melissa Dodd, Chief Technology Officer of San Francisco Unified School District, became the second woman named as the top CTO of the year by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). Most provocative was Tom Wheeler, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who CoSN lauded for his public service.

Wheeler shared his pride in helping oversee the changes the FCC made in managing E-rate, the program that funds internet connectivity to schools. "Remember your ABCs: Access benefits children," Wheeler said. He also shared his fears about the current FCC's directions, particularly the impact of moving to a per-pupil reimbursement policy. Here's what Wheeler proposed the current FCC ask:
1. What will be the impact of per-pupil reimbursement on rural schools? Urban areas typically have four times as many students as their rural counterparts.
2. How will per-pupil reimbursement affect fiber installation? About 3,700 U.S. schools still lack adequate bandwidth, Wheeler pointed out, and need fiber.
3. How will the administration continue to incentivize states to step up and support connectivity? Forty-two state governors have made connecting schools a priority. States have provided $200 million in matching funds to support the work. But if the federal government scales back, will states continue to step up?
4. What kind of fiscal deficit will the FCC's new policy create, especially for rural schools?