Lauren Frayer

Virtually every day, Democratic lawmakers write the Trump Administration demanding answers on a range of issues. And every day they are met with the sounds of silence.

The recent unanswered letters include: a request from senators asking for details on Jared Kushner’s conflicts of interest; another asking how agencies will implement Trump-ordered changes to Obamacare; and a third asking for details on officials the administration has quietly installed in so-called beachhead teams across the government. A recent, informal audit by Rep John Sarbanes (D-MD) found 100 letters that went unanswered as of mid-March, though not all of them made clear requests for information. “These findings confirm what many feared: The Trump Administration has little regard for transparent government,” Rep Sarbanes said. A Rep Sarbanes spokesman said the audit found just a small handful of letters that did receive responses, such as one sent to the Federal Railroad Administration and another related to a pipeline issue. The reasons for the lack of responses aren’t clear.

[Commentary] Voice of America still operates under its congressionally-approved 1976 Charter, requiring it to report accurately, objectively, and comprehensively, and reflect a range of opinions. It carries what are called “editorials” reflecting US government positions, written by a special policy office at VOA. Over the decades, VOA has succeeded, to varying degrees, at making the case that its government-paid reporters are no different than those working for commercial media. But any notion that “whole of government” approaches can exclude participation by VOA, challenges common sense.

A recent Washington Post editorial, in support of a new agency TV program that is clearly part of the counter-disinformation effort, said staffs at VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are “made up of professional journalists … [who] do not want to be US propaganda tools.” Good for them. But the fact remains that every two weeks they accept government paychecks. And at the end of the day will be progressively more enmeshed with the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. Government-paid journalists can no longer pretend they are just like their friends at CBS, NBC, AP, NPR, Reuters, and others, or expect to be seen as such by those working for non-government media. That’s simply living in delusion.

[Dan Robinson had a nearly 35 year career at the Voice of America, serving most recently as senior White House correspondent from 2010 until 2014, congressional correspondent based in the US House of Representatives from 2002 to 2010, and chief of VOA's broadcasts to Burma from 1997 to 2002.]

Federal regulators plan to reverse an Obama-era rule that prevented major television-station owners from buying stations or readily selling themselves, a move that could touch off a wave of deals among media companies.

The proposal, which would effectively loosen a national cap on audience share for station owners that the rule had tightened, is scheduled to be put before the Federal Communications Commission in late April, an agency official said. Chairman Ajit Pai is expected to announce the plan on March 30. The longstanding ownership cap limits TV groups to a 39 percent national audience share. But for years, the government said station owners didn’t have to fully count UHF stations in calculating their share because UHF was typically a less powerful signal.

The Obama-era FCC eliminated the so-called UHF discount last September, contending that the distinction between UHF stations and VHF stations had effectively disappeared. The FCC under Chairman Pai is expected to revert to the previous rule in one of a series of actions he is taking as he plans to reverse several policies adopted under his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, who was FCC chairman for much of President Barack Obama’s second term.

According to lobbyists and consumer advocates, the overturning of broadband privacy rules a forerunner to a pair of bigger fights that will shape the US internet and media industries for years to come: the network neutrality regime that sets the ground rules for access to digital communications and media, and approval of AT&T’s $109 billion bid for Time Warner.

The severe retrenchment of FCC power fits with the agenda of Ajit Pai, the Republican-appointed commissioner who took over as chairman of the agency after the election. Chairman Pai has been a vociferous opponent of net neutrality, and has already taken snips out of the regime put in place by the Obama-era FCC to limit the powers of cable and telecoms companies to exert more control over the data flowing through their networks. The shift in direction to unshackle the network companies threatens to reset the competitive landscape, and is shaping up to be a mixed blessing for internet giants like Google and Facebook.

[Commentary] Now that the White House, Congress, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are getting serious about rural broadband deployment — in contrast with the past eight years — it is time to develop strategies that actually make positive impacts.

Policies for rural broadband have seemed random the past eight years: billions of stimulus dollars were thrown at unneeded and failed projects, the FCC expanded failing systems like Lifeline, the Obama White House and the FCC moved to limit the profitability of rural broadband, and the FCC chose an arbitrary definition for broadband. These failed policies wasted billions of dollars and did little to help rural communities gain broadband connectivity. It is time to let markets lead the way.

Localities often have zoning, permitting, and other regulations that make broadband deployment costly, and procedures vary from location to location. This multiplies the complexity of planning and permitting and adds costs. There is a need to streamline permitting processes, promote nondiscriminatory access to conduits and poles, facilitate infrastructure sharing, and eliminate unnecessary post-construction cleanup requirements.

Restrictions on how broadband providers can generate revenue constrain broadband expansion by limiting profitability. The FCC’s net neutrality restrictions are an example. Broadband service providers in targeted rural areas could also be allowed to charge content providers for access to customers, perhaps making it profitable to provide broadband access without a subsidy.

[Jamison is the director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida. He was also part of President Trump’s FCC Transition Team]

Reps Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) launched a petition to block congressional action that would get rid of consumer broadband privacy protections. The petition — hosted on Whitehouse.gov — asks the government not to “let Internet providers spy and sell our online data” and to “please keep the FCC's Privacy Rules” in place. “Other laws block the FTC from enacting any rules on ISPs,” the lawmakers' petition reads. “Consumers would have no privacy rules. We want better privacy protections like the FCC rules, not more loopholes.”

The House Commerce Committee’s Communications and Technology Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), held a hearing entitled, “Realizing Nationwide Next-Generation 911.” A fun time was had by all.

The voice, text, video and data capabilities of today’s smartphones have redefined the way we communicate and live our lives and our first responders will soon have the robust broadband communications capabilities of FirstNet. But the nation’s 911 network – which ties the public to our first responders – may not be keeping pace with these technologies. The Subcommittee examined where the nation currently stands in modernizing our 911 services with these next generation technologies and avenues to move this critical component to public safety forward.

On March 7, a dozen US senators wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai with “serious reservations” about his decision to “set aside, rescind, and retract” the FCC’s E-rate Modernization Progress Report.

On March 22 Chairman Pai replied saying, “The report at issue was released in the last days of the previous Administration. Not only were Commissioners not given the traditional 48 hours to review it, but it was not shown at all to Commissioners before being released. This was unacceptable and an abuse of the FCC's processes. Reports like this should not be (and henceforth, will not be) issued without advance notice being provided to Commissioners. Revocation simply affirms that a report issued improperly has no legal or other effect going forward and does not necessarily reflect the views of a majority of Commissioners. With that said, the report will remain available on the agency's website for public review.”

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai put more pressure on the Lifeline affordable internet program, announcing that he would allow states to decide which companies are certified to participate. The announcement comes after Chairman Pai's decision earlier in 2017 to cut nine providers from the Lifeline program, which elicited criticism from groups that supported the measures.

In his new statement, Chairman Pai said that he would not defend federal certification for the Lifeline program — which subsidizes internet access for low income households — out of respect for states' own legal jurisdictions. “But as we implement the Lifeline program — as with any program we administer — we must follow the law,” Chairman Pai’s statement read. "And the law here is clear: Congress gave state governments, not the FCC, the primary responsibility for approving which companies can participate in the Lifeline program under Section 214 of the Communications Act.” Twelve states are challenging the legality of FCC’s orders regarding Lifeline. Chairman Pai said that it would be a “waste of judicial and administrative resources to defend the FCC’s unlawful action in court,” noting the “FCC will soon begin a proceeding to eliminate the new federal designation process.” Chairman Pai also said that he believed that the FCC should not approve the pending Lifeline Broadband Provider applications for broadband companies seeking to be part of the Lifeline program.

In 2016, the Federal Communications Commission created a streamlined federal Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP) designation process working within statutory limitations. The process allowed for broadband-only provision of service and flexibility in service areas to encourage new entrants into the Lifeline marketplace.

A federal designation process encourages more companies to enter the field because it streamlines the application/designation process and reduces administrative costs for Lifeline broadband providers. This was an innovative way to help close the digital divide. Since his designation as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the Benton Foundation has noted Ajit Pai’s dichotomous nature: he’s the folksy, down-to-earth populist, but also a Washington insider; he’s for a light regulatory touch and closing the digital divide – just not when it comes to Lifeline. On one hand, Chairman Pai has proposed streamlining local rules for improving broadband infrastructure deployment, but, in today’s announcement, he seems fine with creating more hoops for potential Lifeline broadband providers to jump through. Here’s what today’s announcement means: less competition in the Lifeline marketplace and less choice for Lifeline consumers. The FCC is short two commissioners, so it seems the chairman is trying to occupy two chairs or, at the least, talk out of both sides of his mouth. But if you’re really listening, the message is clear: Ajit Pai is anti-competition and anti-consumer.