Editorial

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has finally gotten around to asking Sinclair how it intends to comply with the national and local ownership rules. The merger puts it in nominal violation of the caps and it will have to do something to get below them. I applaud the FCC move as the public has the right to know just how Sinclair plans to proceed.

[Commentary] I authored a number of empirical studies examining the effect of network neutrality regulation on investment, employment, and broadband speeds. A few parties offered comments and criticisms on my research including the Open Technology Institute at New America, AARP, and Netflix. Of these, the criticisms levied against my work are either uncompelling or wrong. While I found no valid or meaningful criticisms of my work, one attempt to discredit it was so incoherent and inaccurate that I feel it is worth commenting on more fully to avoid confusion. It is clear from its comments that Free Press has zero comprehension of my empirical analysis.

[Commentary] The blinding rise of Donald Trump over the past year has masked another major trend in American politics: the palpable, and perhaps permanent, turn against the tech industry.

The new corporate leviathans that used to be seen as bright new avatars of American innovation are increasingly portrayed as sinister new centers of unaccountable power, a transformation likely to have major consequences for the industry and for American politics. People who think the money tech spends can buy protection from the political system misunderstand their dynamic: The transfers of money referred to blandly as “campaign finance” are equal parts bribery and extortion, and the system works best when the target is scared. And the political class can smell blood. That Zuckerberg campaign was, to the political world, blood in the water, a signal of a new vulnerability around his company and his industry. That’s a tough place to start before the committee.

[Commentary] Some political TV advertising can be misleading, especially those super PAC (political action committee) commercials. You’re not sure where they come from or who is behind it. But what Facebook found out is worse: A Russian-backed "troll farm" bought $100,000 worth of advertising space on Facebook through fake accounts, according to the company. The shadowy entity had a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda. The new state of media carries specific problems, such as how you can buy advertising. In particular, reports suggest the Russian “troll farm” was using Facebook’s automated, self-service ad-buying tool. All that means way less oversight. And in some cases, social media wants to take a big hands-off approach.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is planning to make some major overhauls at the FCC. Eight months into his term, Pai is preparing to “modernize [the FCC’s] rules to match the realities of today’s marketplace.” At 2017’s National Broadcast Association’s Radio Show, Pai announced he would present to his fellow FCC Commissioners at least one Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) every month, starting in September. These monthly NPRMs are intended to address concerns that Chairman Pai has assessed are part of those "outdated or unnecessary media regulations that should be eliminated or modified.”

Pai’s statements at NAB focused on broadcasting, while his statements via a blog post go into more detail on what’s ahead outside of the broadcast industry. With the tentative agenda for the Commission’s upcoming September meeting posted, it’s shaping up to be a busy time at the FCC for the foreseeable future

On August 8, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission launched a new assessment of “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,” (otherwise known as the “706 Report”). This report is long overdue, as the report is supposed to be issued annually, but the last 706 Report was released on January 29, 2016. The Notice of Inquiry (NOI) properly seeks comment on both fixed and mobile broadband connections. It acknowledges that the two technologies have different technical characteristics and limitations, and that broadband providers choose to market their fixed and mobile products in different ways. As Commissioner Clyburn notes in her concurring statement, fixed and mobile services are complements, not substitutes.

While some press accounts suggested that the FCC reached a tentative conclusion to equate the two technologies, it only sought comment on this question. The FCC also sought comment on how the markets for fixed and mobile services differ, and it did not say that mobile broadband access is a replacement for fixed broadband. To be clear, the SHLB Coalition does not believe fixed and mobile services are substitutes. Students cannot complete homework and seniors cannot apply for government services with just smartphones. While smartphones can help bridge the digital divide for individuals, they do not replace the gigabit speeds provided by fiber or fixed wireless technologies that anchor institutions need.

[Commentary] Neither Google, nor Eric Schmidt, told New America to fire Barry Lynn or his colleagues. They did not have to. Academics fill an intellectual gap that regulators often don’t have time to fill themselves. They supply the knowledge that politicians either don’t possess, or have no time to ponder. Whether it’s because the whole system is increasingly marketised and reliant on corporate funding, or just that big corporates have switched on to this as a way to pursue their agenda, the pressure on experts to alter their testimony to serve the interests of business is only going to increase.

Silicon Valley is subtler, too. If you control the research that happens, you change the entire tack of the conversation. Furthermore, you change the perception of reality itself. If the academics arguing that modern platform monopolies cause damage to the competitive landscape are drowned out by hundreds more funded by technology firms arguing that everything is fine, they look like a lunatic fringe no matter how strong their arguments.

[Commentary] It should be among the easier tasks of a cabinet member to affirm, without hesitation, that the president he or she serves represents the values of the American people. But that was more than Secretary of State Rex Tillerson could muster during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” Asked by Chris Wallace whether President Trump’s morally vacuous response to the racist march and deadly violence in Charlottesville (VA) made his job harder, Mr. Tillerson said, “I don’t believe anyone doubts the American people’s values or the commitment of the American government or the government’s agencies to advancing those values and defending those values.” “And the president’s values?” Mr. Wallace asked. Mr. Tillerson replied, “The president speaks for himself, Chris.” Coming from the man the president picked to represent the nation around the world, it was a stunning admission, devastating in its simplicity and painful in its accuracy.

[Commentary] Major telecommunications companies, like AT&T and Comcast, control the underlying network that powers the internet. Websites like Facebook and Twitter provide a powerful service on top of that network. But if those websites start censoring conversations or booting users, there's always room for a competing upstart. Don't like Google? Try Bing. However, because they control internet service itself, telecommunications have the ability to shut down the upstarts. It would be as if a power company could charge people more, or deny electricity service, based on its own arbitrary standards. Don't like it? You probably don't have much choice. Nearly half of all US households have only one option for wired broadband service.

In the 21st century, internet access has become another must-have utility. It should be regulated like one. Companies like Cloudfare can choose their users - that option shouldn't be available to Comcast or AT&T. The likes of Prince, Zuckerberg and Bezos need to have a public conversation about the role they play in fighting hate groups and protecting freedom of expression. Telecoms, on the other hand, just have to ensure the internet works.

[Commentary] I found that most of Sinclair’s news-producing stations were as mainstream as the Mississippi River. And if you believe that mainstream is synonymous with liberal (I don’t), then Sinclair will be, upon closing of the Tribune deal, the nation’s leading purveyor of liberal news and views in broadcast television. In my diligent research, I found many damning news reports about President Donald Trump, his populist agenda and his apparent collusion with the Russians during the campaign. On top of that, I found biting satire aimed at Trump and the GOP leadership just about every day in late night and heaps of scripted entertainment programming that make a mockery of traditional family values. Many of these stations, I would note, are not in blue states where the out-of-touch elites dwell, but in solidly red states that generally back Republicans and supply Trump with his he-can-do-no-wrong supporters.

I believe that Sinclair’s national news is much more conservative than the networks’ are liberal. But, for the foreseeable future, the networks will be pumping out far more national news than Sinclair is. As Sinclair said in its filing, the Big Three “dominate the national broadcast news offerings in most local markets.” Right now, it all kind of evens out. So, the next time you hear someone say that Sinclair will destroy America by broadcasting politically driven news, you should ask: What news — ABC, CBS or NBC?