Tom Wheeler

The Nov 27 Senate hearing on the activities of the Federal Trade Commission highlighted the shortcomings of applying industrial-era thinking to internet-era challenges. The new digital reality calls for both expansive regulatory oversight as well as legislative action. FTC Chairman Joseph Simons' constrained description of the FTC’s authority highlights the need for creative new responses the the ongoing collision between conservative dogma and the unconstrained activities of Big Tech.

The digital era has spurred tremendous advancements throughout human society, but it has also led to immense instability and inequality. Now, a handful of companies maintain unfettered dominance over key components of economic activity, with little signs of slowing. In this paper, Tom Wheeler sheds light on the issues of the information age by demonstarting its parallels with the Gilded Age, during which rapid industrial expansion led to centralized power and eventually gave way to massive reforms.

If the American people and Congress are looking to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for leadership in the protection of personal privacy, they should prepare for disappointment. In a recent filing with the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the FTC walked away from giving consumers meaningful control of their private information. The bromides they espoused sound remarkably similar to the arguments of the companies that routinely exploit our privacy.

The activities of the past week have reshaped the future of network neutrality and the strategy for protecting that future. On Nov 5, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the DC Circuit Court that twice upheld the 2015 Open Internet Rule. The second development was the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives. 

The time has come for a new set of guardrails for information capitalism that protect citizens and promote marketplace competition. The framework for such policies already exists and is embedded in the principles of common law. Companies have responsibilities: a “duty of care” to not cause harm, and a “duty to deal” to prevent monopoly bottlenecks. The harvesting of personal information – often without the individual’s knowledge – infringes on the sovereignty of the individual and their personal privacy.

Sept 28 will see a White House rally to promote US leadership in fifth generation (5G) wireless technology. There is no doubt that 5G is an important step forward for wireless technology that will benefit consumers and drive economic growth. However, it is time to take a deep breath and let logic temper emotional battle cries and political gamesmanship. We need to spend less time worrying about China and more time asking how we can we race to make 5G work for all Americans.

The Trump Administration appears to be following through on the president’s threats to online freedom of speech. The attorney general of the United States is convening a meeting with state attorneys general  “to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be…intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.” Five Republican state attorneys general have been invited to attend so far.

The United States Senate Committee on Intelligence convened on Sept 5 to review the practices of internet platform companies, especially as they relate to protecting against any further election interference. What was notable was who refused to participate: the alpha dog of the internet—Google. Instead of an open back-and-forth that would educate both the senators and the public, Google determined that written testimony from their general counsel was sufficient.

It is time for the technology industry to compromise on regulations — specifically around privacy, competition, and operational openness. Responsible corporate action must now extend beyond the voluntary commitments that have governed the first decades of the digital era. Since the earliest days of the internet, policymakers have been afraid to touch it, subscribing to the mythology that somehow they could break the magic. But the effects of digital dominance on privacy, competition, and openness are now clear for all the see.

Sinclair Broadcasting has a right to establish that that they did not engage in “misrepresentations and/or lack of candor”—an assertion by the Federal Communications Commission—in matters related to its $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune Media. The FCC has designated the matter for an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. That hearing must go forward. The character of the licensee is an important component in determining whether the party is a fit trustee for the public’s airwaves.