Op-Ed

[Commentary] The disturbing implications of abolishing internet privacy rules go far beyond how the internet is used. By selling customer data, larger internet service providers could capture more of the market, albeit unfairly, leaving smaller ISPs in the dust and harming what little competition exists. A decrease in internet access competition will be bad for consumers, as competition is what drives companies to provide the best possible service to consumers at the lowest possible price. T

he bottom line is that private information should be kept private, both for the good of the consumer and for the overall health of the internet ecosystem. With Congress stripping away consumer privacy protections, it’s up to states push back against the repeal of federal policies that protect basic consumer rights. California and other states have already taken the first step toward making that a reality. Now the question remains: Will other states follow?

[Dane Jasper is the CEO and cofounder of Sonic, the largest independent ISP in northern California]

[Commentary] The internet is fundamental to economic opportunity, social action and innovation in the modern age. It has the power to democratize information, it allows us to communicate instantly and effectively, and in recent years, it has facilitated innovation and been the catalyst for social justice movements. That’s why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supports a free and open internet.

You may be wondering why the NAACP is weighing in on net neutrality. Throughout our 108 year history, the NAACP has always opposed discrimination and has fought for justice and equal opportunity for all. We see the fight for net neutrality as an extension of that mission. In fact, during our 108th annual convention in Baltimore, our board of directors and members unanimously passed a resolution firmly stating our position on net neutrality.

With the fate of net neutrality on the line, the NAACP urges Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to respect the congressional intent behind Title II of the Telecommunications Act, to protect the free flow of information and not jeopardize it by removing high-speed broadband from the equalizing framework of Title II. ISPs should not be able to discriminate against any information, or against any groups of people, based on their profit margins or their whims. Information is power and no one should be allowed to strip that power away—and definitely not on our watch.

[Derrick Johnson is interim president and CEO of the NAACP and founder of One Voice Inc.]

[Commentary] Private businesses can and should have the discretion to block web content they find objectionable. That discretion is, however, precisely the opposite position taken by Google and others in the network neutrality debate at the Federal Communications Commission. Under current FCC rules (47 CFR 8.5), “A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content...” If they were broadband Internet access service providers, GoDaddy, Google, and Scaleway would be prohibited by current federal law from blocking access to Daily Stormer. But none of these entities meets the FCC’s technical definition of a “broadband Internet access service provider.” Instead each of these entities has the power and the discretion to block Internet content that it dislikes. That discretion, however, is difficult to exercise.

[Harold Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute]

[Commentary] I’ve been struck by the similarity between recent calls for suppressing white supremacist speech and past calls for suppressing Communist speech. Of course, there are differences as well — there always are for any analogy — but I thought I’d note some likenesses. Communists, neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates — I can’t stand them. They are supporters of ideologies of slavery and murder. They are losers, who lost for very good reason. But their speech should be protected, I think; and the cases for stripping protection from such speech have always been very similar.

[Eugene Volokh teaches at UCLA School of Law]

Anxiety about the health of competition in the US economy — and elsewhere — is growing. The concern may be well founded but taking forceful action will require economists to provide some practical ways of proving and measuring the harm caused by increasing market power in the digital economy.

The forces driving concentration do not affect the US alone. In all digital markets, the cost structure of high upfront costs and low additional or marginal costs means there are large economies of scale. The broad impact of digital technology has been to increase the scope of the markets many businesses can hope to reach. In pre-digital days, the question an economist would ask is whether the efficiencies gained by big or merging companies would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. Another key question was whether it would still be possible for new entrants to break into the market. Digital platforms make these questions harder to answer.

• One much-needed tool is how to assess consumer benefits.
• A second issue is how to take into account the interactions between markets, given that most platforms and tech companies steadily expand into other activities and markets.
• A third issue, perhaps the most important, is the effect increasing concentration has on incentives to innovate and invest.

[Diane Coyle is professor of economics at the University of Manchester]

[Commentary] Although the Federal Communications Commission said it intends to alter the Open Internet rules, it won’t fill in specifics until probably this fall, after the comments are analyzed. That makes it hard to pin down precise effects on cost, although that hasn’t prevented predictions.

Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who came up with the phrase “net neutrality,” said it’s clear the rule changes would bring price hikes in a betrayal of the populist rhetoric that helped decide the election. “Did Trump voters really vote for higher cable bills?’’ he asked in a New York Times opinion piece the week the FCC announced its review. “Cable costs have gone up year after year, by multiples of the cost of living index,’’ said Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and now a special adviser to Common Cause. “The more monopoly power you have, the more prices are going to go up.’’ Opponents of net neutrality say the business model wouldn’t change with the new rules, so rates should remain stable. “I don’t think you would see very much difference,’’ said Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College specializing in law and telecommunications.

The more likely outcome, though, is that prices will go up for some, and perhaps down for others, while consumers have more options based on how and how much they use the internet. A key part of the likely change will be “paid-prioritization,’’ which means companies could pay for faster and dedicated bandwidth as well as better positioning for their content – the same way a Google ad goes to the top of your search listing. Those costs are almost certainly going to come back to consumers in one way or another.

[Anders Gyllenhaal is senior editor at McClatchy]

[Commentary] Today, faced with serious economic and political dysfunction, we are in need of another round of deep institutional renewal: a Third Republic. We need to coalesce around how best to create shared prosperity. This necessitates increasing productivity — the growth of which has been weak of late — and creating more well-paid jobs as well as finding better ways of redistributing the gains from new technologies and globalization in the fairer way.

Redesign antitrust for the era of big data: The role of large, dominant corporations in the U.S. economy has reached alarming proportions. The conventional commercial doctrine is that data are proprietary to the companies that collect them. This needs to change profoundly and completely since the playing field can only be leveled by making data available to all potential competitors. One way of achieving this is to ensure data belong to the people who generate the information, i.e., to individuals who drive cars, surf the internet, and buy goods. Enforcing this principle will ensure that data can be accessed by all, but also that individuals are compensated for the activities that generate information, at the same time as receiving a strong degree of privacy protection. The American Third Republic needs to clean up the influence industry and strengthen the institutional foundations of our democracy.

[Daron Acemoglu is a co-author with James A. Robinson of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. imon Johnson is the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of Management.]

[Commentary] Commissioner Carr of the Federal Communications Commission should lead the drive to bring the FCC into the 21st century by adopting necessary and recognized reforms. Fortunately there is already a blueprint on the shelf created some 20 years ago by Democratic Chair Bill Kennard which proposed mirroring the Federal Trade Commission’s structure with greater focus on competition, consumer protection and economics. This common-sense plan is a natural part of the evolution of a telecom regulator, which by design should support the transition the market from monopoly to competition, not invent new things to regulate in an attempt to be relevant.

Over the years, the FCC has created tasks and functions for itself that are duplicative, if in not in conflict with many other government agencies.Reversing this trend won’t be easy, but reorienting the FCC’s mission around economics is a good first step that will help grow the economy, create jobs, and spur innovation. Carr should take the lead to modernize the agency.

[Roslyn Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.]

[Commentary] The front-page story in The Wall Street Journal announced, “Walt Disney Co. just became the biggest cord-cutter Hollywood has ever seen.” The iconic company announced it was starting two online streaming services that will bypass its traditional cable television distribution. Thank you, Open Internet Rule!

The sine qua non that made it all possible was the Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Rule that the cable operators cannot deny, degrade or deprioritize Disney access to their broadband service, even when it is competitive to their cable service. This is the very same rule that the Trump FCC, at the request of the lobbyists for the big broadband companies, has announced an intention to eliminate. And the very same rule that Republican legislators are pushing content providers to help them scuttle. The Open Internet Rule – especially the General Conduct Rule portion – is like Disney’s famous character Jiminy Cricket, who acted as Pinocchio’s conscience. As the Jiminy Cricket of the Internet Age, the Open Internet Rule sits on the shoulder of broadband providers to make sure they do the right thing.

[Tom Wheeler is a visiting fellow with the Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation, and former Chairman to the FCC.]

[Commentary] Today, US technology companies adhere to a wide array of requirements from repressive governments that undermine Internet freedom and privacy. These demands violate international law, including the right to freedom of expression. But the enormous benefits of market access outweigh the relatively low costs associated with accepting repressive governments’ demands.

Undoubtedly, there are circumstances in which requests for information or access to accounts are reasonable, such as when investigating terrorism and major crimes. But the misuse and abuse of this power by authoritarian governments are routine. Unless the U.S. government stands in support of companies that refuse to comply with wrongful requirements, authoritarian regimes will feel emboldened to make ever-increasing and unreasonable demands. And while U.S. technology companies should be able to invest in Internet-restricting countries, if their choices directly facilitate the persecution of these governments’ political opponents, then they should bear the costs.

[Jared Genser is an international human rights lawyer based in Washington.]