Phillip Berenbroick

Universal service is the core principle of US telecommunications policy, and Congress has directed the Federal Communications Commission to ensure affordable advanced telecommunications capabilities are available to everyone. Members of Congress from across the political spectrum, the Administration, the FCC, and state and local lawmakers vigorously agree that bringing the benefits of high-speed broadband to all areas of the US is a moral and economic imperative.

Public Knowledge joined the Benton Foundation and 20 other rural, education, and public interest groups in a letter urging Congress to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to reallocate spectrum in the 3700 to 4200 Mhz band (the “C-Band”) benefits rural and low-income Americans struggling to access broadband. In the letter, the groups argue that permitting foreign satellite operators to privately sell the public’s airwaves will achieve little more than windfall profits for satellite operators.

Today, Americans can choose between four nationwide wireless carriers – but that choice is now threatened by the proposed merger of Sprint and T-Mobile. If allowed to proceed as proposed, this merger will condense the market to just three national carriers, leading to higher prices, foreclosing the entrance of new competitors and eliminating jobs. And while the companies have promised that this deal would speed the roll out of 5G and improve rural service, the facts belie these claims. This deal offers no meaningful public benefit and threatens vast consumer harms.

While the Federal Communications Commission is correct to take steps to promote broadband deployment (like its recent Order promoting a one-touch-make ready regime for pole attachments), its proposal to limit state and local oversight of wireless deployments on public property is likely to have little success in promoting deployment, and instead is little more than a brazen wealth transfer of $2 billion from state and local taxpayers to the nation’s largest wireless companies.

[Commentary] On April 17, the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing on paid prioritization -- an issue that is central to the net neutrality debate. While most internet service providers (ISPs) have claimed that they have no plans to block or degrade traffic once the Federal Communications Commission's 2017 net neutrality repeal Order goes into effect (exactly when that will be remains TBD), commitments (or lack thereof) not to engage in paid prioritization have remained a moving target.

Recently, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 4986 -- a bill that, among other things, reauthorizes the Federal Communications Commission and approves the agency’s funding for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. House passage followed an announcement that the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Commerce Committee had reached an agreement to support the legislation -- framing the bill as reauthorizing the FCC and spurring deployment of 5G wireless networks across the nation.

[Commentary] Under the guise of promoting network investment and deployment and enhancing consumer choice, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s attack on the Lifeline program does the complete opposite. His plan proposes to kick all non-facilities-based service providers out of the Lifeline program, which includes wireless carriers like Tracfone’s Safelink Wireless or Virgin Mobile’s Assurance Wireless, that don’t have their own networks but lease capacity from facilities-based providers (e.g., AT&T, Sprint) and serve approximately 70 percent of Lifeline subscribers.

The allegations that Verizon has failed to build out to nearly a million New York City households it is obligated to serve are troubling. Although new broadband deployments are costly and time intensive, broadband providers have a responsibility to comply with their franchise agreements. Moreover, it is imperative that modernization of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure provide an upgrade for all.

While there is disagreement between New York City and Verizon regarding whether the company has met its deployment commitments, this dispute highlights the ongoing need for policymakers to clearly define what they mean when describing the availability of broadband service. There is widespread bipartisan support for promoting broadband deployment to unserved and underserved areas in any federal infrastructure legislation. Lawmakers should ensure that households and multi-dwelling unit buildings are actually able to subscribe to broadband services that are ‘available’ to them, and that ‘availability' includes service options that are affordable for even low-income consumers. It would be easier to achieve this affordability if, for instance, landlords didn’t prohibit the installation of competing service provider equipment in residences due to contracts with existing service providers. This practice harms consumers and competition by driving up costs and needlessly delaying the technology transitions.

Public Knowledge joins a coalition of consumer, labor, small business, and environmental groups in a letter opposing the nomination of Rep Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) as Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Public Knowledge senior policy counsel Phillip Berenbroick said, "The Communications Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public interest. Congressman Mulvaney’s record of ideological-driven devotion, without regard to facts of consequences, to deregulation and promoting corporate interests stands starkly at odds with the FCC’s broad mandate to promote the public interest by enhancing competition, universal service, and diversity in media and information. OMB plays a critical role in the regulatory process, including reviewing FCC rules that advance the public interest, protect consumers, and promote competition and innovation in the telecommunications, media, and technology sectors. However, Congressman Mulvaney has fought to undermine the core functions and legitimacy of a Federal role in regulating anti-consumer and anti-competitive corporate activity. Additionally, he has advocated for a rigid cost-benefit analysis in all agency rulemakings that is distinctly at odds with the aims of the Communications Act. At OMB, Congressman Mulvaney is likely to lead the assault on consumer protections and rules that curb anti-competitive conduct, which would be disastrous for communications policy. He should not be confirmed.”

Public Knowledge, along with other public interest organizations [including the Benton Foundation], filed reply comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on competition in the high-speed broadband “business data services” (BDS) market.

The record in the FCC’s BDS proceeding shows what observers have long known -- that the BDS market is overwhelmingly monopolistic and warrants increased FCC oversight. Incumbent BDS providers possess immense market power and use it to inflate prices, costing businesses, non-profits, community anchor institutions, wireless carriers, and local governments tens of billions per year in excess BDS charges. Ultimately, these costs are borne by all consumers and taxpayers. After a decade-long proceeding and the largest data collection in the history of the FCC, it’s now time for the agency to take action to reform the BDS market by promoting competition and protecting consumers, who bear the heavy burden of these costs.