Lauren Frayer

[Commentary] The common currency in the internet age for both “edge” providers such as Google and the operators of “core” broadband networks such as Verizon and CenturyLink is information to provide consumers with enhanced online experiences. Given Americans’ voracious use of the internet, and what our browsing and buying habits say about us, common sense would dictate that the U.S. Government’s approach to the complex issue of consumer privacy should be comprehensive and not piecemeal: for industry-wide problems we need industry-wide solutions, not unique rules for one kind of company and different rules for another.

The FCC under former Chairman Tom Wheeler didn’t care less about cohesive policy approaches. Rather than attempting to harmonize its privacy policy with the approach taken by the Federal Trade Commission that already oversees online privacy issues, the FCC decided to re-invent the wheel and write its own set of draconian rules creating gaps and inconsistencies with the FTC’s approach. The FCC’s privacy rules were just bad rules. They were an excellent example of politically-driven asymmetrical regulation specifically designed to transfer economic profits from the core of the network to the edge. In plain English, the FCC’s rules were designed to help edge companies like Google protect their market share against competition from broadband service providers like AT&T. In so doing, the FCC perversely provided further incentive for broadband providers to reduce network investment. The Congressional Review Act does not change the state of the governing law. This is because the CRA is not designed to re-write an administrative agency’s governing statute, but to provide Congress with a direct oversight mechanism to review and disapprove how an administrative agency implements its governing statute. According to the CRA, if Congress disapproves of a specific rule, then an administrative agency may not reissue that rule “in substantially the same form….”

For the last year or so, the music industry has been buzzing with optimism that its fortunes have finally begun to turn around after more than a decade of digital disruption and plunging sales. Now it has proof. On March 30, the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group that represents the major labels, reported that music sales in the United States generated $7.7 billion in retail revenue in 2016, up 11.4 percent from the year before. That is the industry’s highest sales figure since 2009 and its best percentage gain since 1998. The increase is largely the result of online streaming, which is rapidly eclipsing all other forms of consumption. Streaming contributed $3.9 billion in 2016, up 69 percent from the year before, and now makes up 51 percent of the business — the first time it has had a majority of sales in the United States.

Previously I have asked, what additional steps can the Federal Communications Commission take to maximize the benefits and opportunities, of the agency’s Healthcare Connect Fund (HCF). While the $400 million a year program has historically been undersubscribed, requests for support in funding year 2015, the most recent available, reached a historic high of nearly $378 million. Given the finite funding available for this program, I believe we should constantly be thinking about the best ways to improve its effectiveness. One such idea, is the RURAL Telehealth Act, introduced during the last Congress. This bipartisan bill recognizes, that non-rural hospitals and health-care providers, may be best positioned to bring telehealth services to their communities. I welcome your thoughts on how this legislation would impact South Carolinians, our fellow citizens and your goal of bringing advanced telehealth services to communities most in need.

Too many organizations concentrate on raising awareness about an issue without knowing how to translate that awareness into action, by getting people to change their behavior or act on their beliefs. It’s time for activists and organizations to adopt a more strategic approach to public interest communications. Social change activists need to use behavioral science to craft campaigns that use messaging and concrete calls to action that get people to change how they feel, think, or act, and as a result create long-lasting change.
[Ann Christiano is the Frank and Betsy Karel Endowed Chair in Public Interest Communications and Professor in the Department of Public Relations. Annie Neimand is a Ph.D. candidate in the Sociology Department.]

The Department of Commerce and First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) announced the selection of AT&T to build the first nationwide wireless broadband network dedicated to America’s first responders. This record-breaking public-private partnership is a significant investment in the communications infrastructure that public safety desperately needs for day-to-day operations, disaster response and recovery, and securing of large events. It will also make 20 MHz of prime broadband spectrum available for private-sector development. The broad terms of this 25-year agreement between FirstNet and AT&T are:

FirstNet will provide 20 MHz of high-value, telecommunications spectrum and success-based payments of $6.5 billion over the next five years to support the Network buildout – FirstNet’s funding was raised from previous Federal Communications Commission spectrum auctions;
AT&T will spend about $40 billion over the life of the contract to build, deploy, operate and maintain the network, with a focus on ensuring robust coverage for public safety;
Additionally, AT&T will connect FirstNet users to the company’s telecommunications network assets, valued at more than $180 billion.

This innovative public-private partnership will create more than 10,000 new jobs and ensure public safety has a voice in the growth and evolution of the Network. In addition, FirstNet and AT&T will maximize the resources they are bringing to the partnership to create a financially self-sustaining network.

The GOP's technology offensive, which has included rolling back the Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy rules and will likely take aim at network neutrality next, has handed a potential political weapon to Democrats and consumer groups, who are eager to use it. "Voters across party lines understand the importance of personal privacy and are not going to be happy as they find out that Republican senators and Senate candidates used a party-line vote to put data including health and financial information for sale to the highest bidder," said Ben Ray, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

We took a look at the contributions received by members of the House and Senate from the telecommunication industry, Here’s what we found:

On the House side, while there wasn’t a huge difference in overall funds received by lawmakers voting for or against the privacy resolution, there was a gap in the Republican vote. GOP lawmakers who voted to quash the rule received an average of $138,000 from the industry over the course of their careers. The 15 Republicans voting nay? They got just $77,000. Some Democrats were quite popular targets for industry contributions. Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) of Maryland, for instance, who is the second-highest ranking Democrat in the House, has received more than $1.3 million from telecom interests in the course of his long career, more than all but two House members; he received almost $190,000 in the 2016 cycle alone. Still, he voted against the bill, as did Rep James Clyburn (D-SC) ($968,000 career), Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA) ($864,000), and every other Democrat.

[Commentary] In essence, the GOP leaders and members voting the wrong way this week have accomplished an exquisitely dishonest trifecta. They gutted the Federal Communications Commission’s privacy rules based on a Title II statute while claiming that the Title II statute still protects you. Then they promised to gut the same Title II statute while claiming that the Federal Trade Commission still protects you. And it turns out they want to gut the FTC too — the very same agency they’re holding up as a champion of privacy protections. Last but not least, these lawmakers say the FTC’s approach to online privacy is superior because the agency analyzes each potential violation on a case-by-case basis while the FCC’s privacy protections are rooted in broad bright-line rules.

With the aid of their industry donors, the GOP has tried to frame this fight as a debate about complex legal authority and bureaucratic procedures. The reality is much simpler. They’re opposed to any regulations that put the interests of real people before the profit margins of monopoly Internet service providers, and they will take up whatever nonsensical procedural complaints are handy to chip away at strong consumer protections.

President Donald Trump has renewed his suggestion that libel laws might need to be tightened so he could pursue news outlets whose stories he feels are wrong or unjustified attacks. In a tweet March 30, the President once again took aim at one of the mainstays of the mainstream media. "The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world," he wrote. "Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?" That followed a tweet from March 29: "Remember when the failing @nytimes apologized to its subscribers, right after the election, because their coverage was so wrong. Now worse!"

Broadcasters and cable operators who want to get compensated for post-incentive auction repack expenses, and broadcasters who want to get their incentive auction winning bid payments, need to read the latest Federal Communications Commission public notice. That notice, released on the eve of the March 30 close of the incentive auction, says it contains "essential steps that Payment Applicants must take before receiving incentive payments based on winning reverse auction bids or payments from the Television Broadcaster Relocation Fund (the Fund) for expenses eligible for reimbursement." That includes how to enter and update bank account information, tracking those payments, and the impact of ownership changes.

The notice reads, "Before the Commission can direct disbursement of incentive payments, a winning bidder must certify its agreement with and acknowledgement of specified payment terms and provide necessary information regarding the account to which the incentive payment should be made." The FCC can't yet say when broadcasters will be getting their money, since it depends on when the forward auction bidders pony up the cash for their spectrum. Broadcasters will get their winnings in a lump sum, with stations in the first phases of the repack getting the money first if the FCC is not able to hand it all out at once. The FCC will release a "Ready to Pay" public notice when it is ready to pay broadcasters, or multiple notices if it has to pay the first-phase stations first. That will depend on how much and when they collect from forward auction bidders.