Op-Ed

[Commentary] By launching 11,943 satellites SpaceX will do to telecoms what WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger did to SMS and in doing so capture a $1tn+ business — and there’s fringe benefits for Tesla.

What SpaceX are actually seeking is to replace every broadband and communications provider on the planet, by cutting out the middle man of land-based networks that stand between you and the internet. In doing so they will be essentially competing with every communications provider in the world — a business valued at over a trillion dollars. Forget about poor communities in Africa for a second: this is a pitch to replace physical fibre/cable connections in modern industrialised economies But a few questions arise from this including the big one: mobile phones. Will the plan be to have mobile phones work directly with satellites overhead? Is that even possible? Or will there be a hybrid approach — provide broadband to physically static locations and work from there?

[Gavin Sheridan is the Founder and CEO of Vizlegal.]

[Commentary] Today’s privacy rules are anything but clear. Internet content providers like Google, Facebook and Amazon are regulated for privacy by the Federal Trade Commission, the historic internet-privacy protection body. Internet-service providers that link consumers to the network, such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, were also regulated for privacy by the FTC until 2015, when the Federal Communications Commission classified internet access as a telecommunications service, stripping the FTC of that authority. Privacy is too important to be left to the whims of regulatory agencies.

Instead, Congress should consider taking an approach akin to the Browser Act (HR 2520), sponsored by Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), that would unify privacy rules across the internet under the FTC, from operating systems to browsers to ISPs to edge content providers.

[Rick Boucher was a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from Virginia for 28 years and chaired the House Communications Subcommittee. He is honorary chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) and head of the government strategies practice at law firm Sidley Austin]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s L Band is made up of frequencies prime for cellular services but largely walled off for satellite links.

In 2004 the FCC moved to relax L-Band rules, permitting deployment of a terrestrial mobile network. Satellite calls would continue, but few were being made, and sharing frequencies with cellular devices made eminent sense. By 2010, L-Band licensee LightSquared was ready to build a state-of-the-art 4G network, and the FCC announced that the 40 MHz bandwidth would become available. LightSquared quickly spent about $4 billion of its planned $14 billion infrastructure rollout. Americans would soon enjoy a fifth nationwide wireless choice. But in 2012 the FCC yanked LightSquared’s licenses. Various interests, from commercial airlines to the Pentagon, complained that freeing up the L Band could cause interference with Global Positioning System devices, since they are tuned to adjacent frequencies. Yet cheap remedies—such as a gradual roll-out of new services while existing networks improved reception with better radio chips—were available. In reality, the costliest spectrum conflicts emanate from overprotecting old services at the expense of the new. With its licenses snatched away, LightSquared instantly plunged into bankruptcy. Five years on, the company has recapitalized and re-emerged with a new name, Ligado. It has hired deft policy players and is making deals to mitigate conflicts. Yet regulatory impediments continue to block progress. Years after the L-Band spectrum was slated for productive use in 4G, it lies fallow—now delaying upgrades to 5G. This familiar impasse in the political spectrum begs for correction.

The FCC should let Ligado use satellite licenses for cellular services. It should also permit competitors, including Ligado, to bid for new L-Band spectrum rights. Remaining border disputes should be consigned to binding arbitration, not allowed to sandbag progress in open-ended skirmishing. This would move radio spectrum out of oblivion and into the mobile broadband networks craved by consumers, innovators and the US economy. Just like the National Broadband Plan called for in 2010.

[Hazlett is a professor of economics at Clemson and former chief economist of the FCC (1991-92)]

[Commentary] One of us is the inventor of the personal computer, and the other a former commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. We come from different walks of life, but each of us recognizes that the FCC is considering action that could end the internet as we know it.

If FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s majority permits fast lanes for the biggest internet service providers (ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T), companies could speed up or slow down the sites and services they prefer. That’ll be great for their business affiliates and corporate friends, but woe to the startup that wants to build the next great web service — it could find itself in the slow lane, unable to compete with established firms. And pity the local blogger who criticizes her ISP’s crummy service — the broadband gatekeeper would be free to slow or silence her.

The path forward is clear. The FCC must abandon its ill-conceived plan to end net neutrality. Instead of creating fast lanes for the few, it should be moving all of us to the fast lane by encouraging competition in local broadband connectivity and pushing companies to deliver higher speeds at more affordable prices. It’s the right thing for us as consumers and as citizens.

[Steve Wozniak is a computer engineer who co-founded Apple Computer, Inc. with Steve Jobs. Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2011, is a special adviser for Common Cause.]

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission takes up the issue of whether to reverse the Obama-era Open Internet Order, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?

My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations – called "throttling," the practice of limiting download speeds – for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our findings reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy's effect. The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn't – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes.

[David Choffnes is a researcher at Northeastern University]

[Commentary] The week of Oct 2, the Senate has a chance to make a profound difference for the 2.7 million children whose parents are incarcerated. Headlines covered victory after victory as the Federal Communications Commission woke from a 10-year sleep and began adopting rules to protect consumers from paying $17 for a 15-minute phone call to jail and eye-popping fees imposed on families when they deposit money to pay for calls. One federal appointee has changed all that — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai — and his confirmation vote is expected Oct 2.

Senators who believe in leaders that follow the rules, act according to their conscience, put low-income people and children first, and who protect the First Amendment above all else should vote against Chairman Pai. Speak out now and call your senator to oppose Chairman Pai’s confirmation.

[Cheryl Leanza is the policy adviser for the United Church of Christ’s Office of Communication, Inc.]

[Commentary] Actual policy actions to protect our vote from outside interference have been next to nil. That needs to change now.

First, and most obviously, our cybersecurity must be strengthened. We need greater education on how to prevent cyberattacks; more coordination between layers for cybersecurity at the individual, group and government levels; and new government regulation mandating upgrades in cybersecurity for everyone and everything involved in the electoral process. Second, information about Russian state propaganda — not censorship of these content providers — must be provided to the American people. Third, foreign purchase of advertisements aimed at influencing elections must be prohibited. Fourth, Americans who colluded with Russian (or any foreign) actors to influence the outcome of our elections must be punished.

[Michael McFaul is director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Hoover fellow at Stanford University. He was previously special assistant to President Obama at the National Security Council from 2009-2012 and former U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014]

[Commentary] If you believe communications networks should be fast, fair, open, and affordable, you need ask your senator to vote against Ajit Pai’s reconfirmation. Now. The Senate vote on Pai is imminent. When it happens, it will be a stark referendum on the kind of communications networks and consumer protections we want to see in this country.

Senators can choose a toothless Federal Communications Commission that will protect huge companies, allow them to further consolidate, charge higher prices with worsening service, and a create bigger disconnect between broadband haves and have-nots. Or, they can vote for what the FCC is supposed to do: protect consumers, promote competition, and ensure access for all Americans, including the most vulnerable. It shouldn’t be a hard decision, and what we’ve seen over the past eight months makes the stakes clear.

[Gigi Sohn served as counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from November 2013 to December 2016. She is currently a fellow at the Open Society Foundations]

[Commentary] The new revelations of widespread use of personal e-mail for official business by Jared Kushner and five other White House advisers are no minor indiscretion. Rather, they represent the latest episode in a critical systems failure in the Trump presidency — one that strikes at the heart of our democracy.

At issue is the Presidential Records Act, a post-Watergate statute Congress enacted to establish public ownership of presidential (and vice-presidential) records. It obligates the White House and those who work there to preserve all records relating to their official duties. Despite these legal requirements, the first eight months of President Trump’s administration have been marked by stories of deleted presidential tweets, by the use within the White House of messaging applications that destroy the contents of messages as soon as they are read, and now by White House staff using personal e-mail accounts to conduct government business. It is now up to the courts to hold the president accountable to those he governs by affirming his and his staff’s obligations to maintain and preserve records. Our democracy itself is at stake.

[Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and served as chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2011. Anne Weismann is chief FOIA counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]

[Commentary] This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will officially confirm that the US wireless marketplace is characterized by effective competition. As this new generation of wireless service takes hold, it seems likely that most Americans will no longer have a reason to buy both types of service.

Peter Rysavy, an engineer whose firm has been examining wireless technology issues for more than two decades, says that “eventually consumers will pay for just one broadband connection, fixed and mobile.” He sees 5G as “a serious threat” to the wireline-only companies because it will enable consumers who generally prefer wireless to abandon wired broadband altogether.

[Shane Tews is president of Logan Circle Strategies]