Lauren Frayer

The House of Representatives joined the Senate in a joint resolution to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s recent privacy rules, leaving only President Donald Trump’s signature before the rules are officially revoked. But while the immediate impact of the joint resolution may be hard to see, it paves the way for a much larger shift in FCC enforcement and, ultimately, the structure of the web itself.

For decades, one of the basic principles of the internet has been that it’s the same no matter where you’re logging on. Now, carriers are getting the chance to tie your online activities closer to your real identity, drawing on the name and address you gave when you signed up for service. Under Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC seems to have little interest in holding them back. That could have a profound impact on the nature of the web — and after today’s joint resolution, there may be no going back.

The influence of social media platforms and technology companies is having a greater effect on American journalism than even the shift from print to digital. There is a rapid takeover of traditional publishers’ roles by companies including Facebook, Snapchat, Google, and Twitter that shows no sign of slowing, and which raises serious questions over how the costs of journalism will be supported. These companies have evolved beyond their role as distribution channels, and now control what audiences see and who gets paid for their attention, and even what format and type of journalism flourishes.

This report, part of an ongoing study by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School, charts the convergence between journalism and platform companies. In the span of 20 years, journalism has experienced three significant changes in business and distribution models: the switch from analog to digital, the rise of the social web, and now the dominance of mobile. This last phase has seen large technology companies dominate the markets for attention and advertising and has forced news organizations to rethink their processes and structures.

[Commentary] One lesson I learned early on in news is that what journalists value and what their audiences value are often frustratingly misaligned. We see high-quality news outlets and low-quality ones and wonder why anyone would choose the latter over the former. But the decisions of customers aren’t driven solely by perceptions of “quality”; they’re also derived from more prosaic factors like customer service, cost, feelings of community and personal connection, and a sense that both sides of the transaction have similar interests at heart.

In an environment where trust is no longer the default — where reading your local daily in the morning and watching a news broadcast at night have moved from standard to niche behavior — doing great journalistic work isn’t enough.

The White House has already said President Donald Trump plans to sign the resolution using the Congressional Review Act to rescind the Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy rules. That leaves an open question of how the agency and Congress will choose to address the issue in the future. In his reaction to the House vote, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai seemed to suggest his next step would be to undo Title II, rather than create new rules that align with existing ones at the Federal Trade Commission.

Title II classified broadband internet access service providers as common carriers and put them under the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction. It's the same policy that bolsters the network neutrality rules, meaning revoking Title II could be tied to rolling back net neutrality. House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) is in step with Chairman Pai on leaving privacy to the FTC. "I hope the FCC will take up and review what was done under the Wheeler regime on Title II," he said, referencing the previous FCC chairman. "Repealing Title II solves the whole problem. I think we gotta get this back to where we can legislate in this space, and take the bill we drafted a few years ago that would put into statute prohibitions on bad behavior, on throttling, and paid prioritization and blocking, there's bipartisan agreement on that. But when the Obama administration forced the FCC to go straight to Title II, that created all these problems."

As we implement the Lifeline program—as with any program we administer—we must follow the law. 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. This is how the program worked over two decades, over three Administrations, and over eight Chairmanships. However, the FCC last year rejected this bipartisan consensus, snatching this legal responsibility away from states and deciding to create its own federal ‘Lifeline Broadband Provider’ designation process.

At the time, I explained why the Commission lacked the authority to do this. Twelve states, from Vermont to Wisconsin, are currently challenging the legality of the FCC’s order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In my view, it would be a waste of judicial and administrative resources to defend the FCC’s unlawful action in court. I am therefore instructing the Office of General Counsel to ask the D.C. Circuit to send this case back to the Commission for further consideration. And the FCC will soon begin a proceeding to eliminate the new federal designation process. In the meantime, we must consider the Lifeline Broadband Provider applications that are pending at the FCC. In last year’s order, the Commission delegated to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority to address such applications. I do not believe that the Bureau should approve these applications.

In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission extend the deadline for Boomerang Wireless to notify, de-enroll, and transition subscribers currently receiving a Lifeline-supported broadband Internet access service (BIAS) in service areas where Boomerang’s only eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation is a Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP) designation. The FCC finds that granting this extension is in the public interest and necessary to prevent service disruption and hardship for the current Boomerang subscribers

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai met with the House Commerce Committee's Rural Telecommunications Working Group to discuss expanding broadband access in rural communities. Some of the topics the group touched on included the Universal Service Fund, call completion and the FCC's 477 Form, according to a committee aide. "The meeting with Chairman Pai was an opportunity for a robust, bipartisan discussion about bridging the digital divide that too often exists between rural and urban areas," said Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH). "Reducing regulatory barriers and investing in deployment of broadband infrastructure will help more of our communities - especially rural communities - compete and stay connected in the 21st century economy."

Our top priority so long as I serve as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is to close what I’ve called the digital divide—the gap between those with access to next-generation technologies and those without. We will work bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans, no matter who they are or where they live.

How do we do that? We believe the most powerful tool for unleashing investment and innovation is a competitive free market—and are thus focused on rules that promote it. That’s why—consistent with decades of bipartisan tradition—we are pursuing a light-touch regulatory approach. This approach suggests that the Internet should be free from heavy-handed government regulation. It seeks to eliminate unnecessary barriers to infrastructure investment that could stifle broadband deployment. It aims to minimize regulatory uncertainty, which can deter long-term investment decisions. It favors facilities-based competition—that is, creating an incentive to build one’s own network instead of relying on another’s (which depresses the deployment incentives of each). It encourages competition among companies using any technology and from any sector—cable, telco, fixed wireless, mobile, and satellite. It embraces regulatory humility, knowing that this marketplace is dynamic and that preemptive regulation may have serious unintended consequences. And it places demands on the FCC itself—to be responsive to the public and to act as quickly as the industry it regulates. This regulatory approach, not the command-and-control rules of the 20th century, is most likely to promote digital infrastructure and opportunity.

Previously, the Federal Communications Commission affirmed that it sought to promote the deployment of 4G LTE in all areas where it would not be offered by the private sector in the absence of universal service support. To identify those geographical areas potentially eligible for such support, the FCC decided to use 4G LTE deployment at a minimum advertised download speed benchmark of at least 5 Mbps, based on service providers’ Form 477 filings. The FCC concluded that any census block not fully covered by unsubsidized 4G LTE of at least 5 Mbps advertised download speed will encompass areas that are eligible for support in the Mobility Fund II auction. While the FCC directed its Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) to make an initial determination of eligible areas by census block based on the Form 477 filings, it also stated its intention to “provide a robust process for interested parties to challenge our list of presumptively eligible areas for MF-II support.”

To aid interested parties, and to provide additional information about the geographical areas eligible for Mobility Fund II support, the WCB and WTB propose to release minimum advertised or expected 4G LTE speed data included in the December 31, 2015, and June 30, 2016 Form 477 filings (and any subsequent Form 477 filings) to facilitate Mobility Fund II analysis. Disclosure of the minimum advertised or expected speeds associated with service providers’ 4G LTE coverage submitted in their Form 477 filings will enable a transparent process for challenges, and final determinations of areas eligible for Mobility Fund II support. Strong public interest benefits support disclosing the minimum advertised or expected 4G LTE speeds.

[Commentary] It is good to be one of the handful of companies controlling data transmission in America. It’s even better — from their perspective — to avoid oversight. And it’s best of all to be a carrier that gets government to actually stop existing oversight. The stagnant telecommunications industry in America has long pursued the second of those goals — avoiding oversight, or even long-range thinking that would favor the interests of all other businesses and all other Americans over those of AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Comcast — by proclaiming that there is something really magnificent coming any day now from the industry that will make anything regulators are worrying about irrelevant. And now that technique is at the heart of achieving Goal Three—wiping out oversight.

Case in point: Right now, plans are being implemented at the FCC and at least 17 state legislatures to block cities from constraining uses of their rights-of-way by private cellular companies for 5G deployments that — you guessed it — are coming any day now. In other words, if a city wants to set up a fair and competitive system that favors competitors, citizens, and long-range goals instead of the interests of a single big company—well, that would be illegal. This nationwide effort is aimed at, effectively, privatizing public rights of way.