Op-Ed

[Commentary] According to a new survey, Americans overwhelmingly favor a permanent law over regulations that can be changed from administration to administration. Indeed, 74 percent of Americans said they would support net neutrality legislation that enabled them to use the internet free from government or corporate censorship, while creating rules that ensure a level playing field. It’s time to end the slowest game of policy pingpong before it drags into another decade.

It is high time for Congress to finally step up — after multiple decades of hibernation — and pass affirmative, bipartisan legislation that makes net neutrality the law of the land. That is something that CALinnovates has proposed for three years now; we are gratified that others are finally jumping on the bandwagon. Congress must wake from its two-decade slumber regarding internet policy to take the decision away from the FCC and cement net neutrality once and for all.

[Mike Montgomery is the executive director of CALinnovates]

[Commentary] Fostering competition and punishing anti-competitive conduct creates an environment where innovators can create new products and services in response to consumer demand more freely, without having to spend time and money to comply with static, “one-size-fits-all” regulations from Washington, D.C. With that in mind, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with its jurisdiction over our nation’s antitrust and competition laws, is ideally equipped to both protect the interests of consumers and foster competition in the ISP marketplace.
FTC enforcement of antitrust laws preserves innovation and consumer benefits.
FTC has the most extensive experience to address anticompetitive conduct.
FTC provides regulatory certainty and prevents overregulation.

[Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee]

[Commentary] Government and corporate control of the press is certainly not new but has gone in a new direction, exacerbated not just by the rise of right wing populism but also by digital technology and the far reach of the internet. It’s hard to remember now how many people thought the internet would secure the reign of independent journalism by boosting the flow of information. Instead, the loss of advertising revenues for traditional media has created a cascading effect that in some countries has left the press fighting for its life. This collapse of the old business model paved the way for media capture to take hold. Finding solutions to the problems of capture, or at least ways to limit its effects, is one of the crucial challenges of our time. Government regulation of cross-ownership, digital taxation, and financial support for quality media are just a few much-needed solutions.
[Schiffrin is the director of the Technology, Media and Communications specialization at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to reclassify broadband as an information service – the status it had for nearly two decades under which the internet grew and flourished -- has received over 20 million comments expressing views on both sides of the issue. Amid all the noise, it’s important to ensure that one aspect of the rulemaking not be overlooked: its huge impact on rural America.

The best way to ensure that all corners of the country get the connectivity they need is for the FCC to restore the classification of broadband as an information service. Thereafter, Congress should enact legislation that codifies open internet rules and at long last puts to rest a debate that has raged for more than a decade.

[Rick Boucher was a Democratic member of the US House 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 the law firm Sidley Austin.]

[Commentary] Democratic governments concerned about new digital threats need to find better algorithms to defend democratic values in the global digital ecosystem. Democracy has always been hard. It requires an exquisite balance between freedom, security and democratic accountability. This is the profound challenge that confronts the world’s liberal democracies as they grapple with foreign disinformation operations, as well as home-grown hate speech, extremism, and fake news. Fear and conceptual confusion do not justify walking away from liberal values, which are a source of security and stability in democratic society. Private sector and government actors must design algorithms for democracy that simultaneously optimize for freedom, security, and democratic accountability in our digital world.

[Eileen Donahoe is Executive Director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University, and former U.S. ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council]

[Commentary] Amid the avalanche of Title II comments were comments filed by eleven Democratic members of Congress—several of whom sit on the House Commerce Committee—who claim their background working on telecommunication issues over the years gives them the “unique ability to provide input on the actual meaning and intent” of both the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A simple review of the plain text of these statutes and the substantial case law interpreting them, however, appear to raise doubts about that claim.

Let’s start with the Congressmen’s central argument that the FCC “fundamentally and profoundly misstates the law” because the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemmaking (NPRM) “takes an impermissibly narrow view” of the Communications Act’s “public interest” standard. “Any action the FCC takes based on the analysis contained in the proposal,” they claim, “will be legally flawed and contrary to the law.” The problem with this argument is that regardless of how one views the “public interest” standard, application of this standard is irrelevant to the fundamental legal question raised in the NPRM. The Congressmen next argue that by reversing reclassification, the FCC “would remove the statutory privacy rules that can protect broadband users before they are harmed.” Again, this argument is legally inaccurate. The Democrat lawmakers’ third major legal argument is that the FCC is improperly focusing on whether the 2015 Open Internet Order depressed investment in broadband infrastructure. Every serious attempt to analyze the data indicates that the prospect of Title II regulation has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure, and by a significant amount.

At some point, we all hope that Congress will step up and pass some sort of Open Internet legislation to put this debate to bed. If that effort is to be successful, then it is incumbent on Members of Congress to bring greater focus, insight and analytical rigor than they demonstrated in this particular filing.

[Lawrence Spiwak is the President of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]

[Commentary] I have longtime friends who believe that the public interest requires the Federal Communications Commission to strictly limit the ownership of multiple TV stations. I genuinely understand and respect their opinions. But, my personal experience over 40 years in the industry suggests that TV ownership limits intended to enhance diversity may, in fact, prevent the creation of meaningfully diverse competitors.

Some of my longtime friends seem to oppose repeal of the TV station ownership rules because one beneficiary of repeal might be Sinclair Broadcasting Company, a company widely believed to have conservative views. But these same friends would be the first to insist that Federal licensing decisions cannot — must not — be based on political views. I have not always been on the same page with Sinclair, particularly during a business dispute over the first round of Fox affiliation renewals. But, Sinclair has emerged as a genuine television industry leader, especially on technology issues. And, for all we know, the next beneficiary of deregulation could be Tegna, Scripps, George Soros or Tom Steyer. And that is what free markets, competition and diversity are all about. My real world experience with the television ownership rules leaves no doubt that consumers will be well served by their repeal.

[Preston Padden is the former president of the ABC Television Network and EVP of parent, the Walt Disney Company.]

[Commentary] Broadband infrastructure is only a prerequisite for adequate digital inclusion, not a sustainable solution in itself. Research examining the economic impacts of broadband access in rural regions in the US found a stark difference in economic outcomes when ‘access’ was defined as the availability of broadband infrastructure versus ‘access’ being defined as the adoption of a residential broadband connection. Broadband infrastructure alone provided only minimal economic benefits to households and regions, while increased broadband adoption was linked to individual-level and community-level economic improvements.

The cost of fixed broadband subscriptions is often cited as the single most important factor in hindering broadband adoption in areas where the infrastructure is available. However, research suggests that while affordability is certainly key, there are also other factors that should be considered. One well-cited cross-country analysis of cultural factors affecting broadband adoption lists lack of understanding of the services and content that can be accessed online as one reason individuals in the US may not adopt high-speed broadband, as well as an actual insufficiency in online content relevant to a particular community. To truly equalize the digital playing field, we need to carefully consider the factors affecting individuals’ ability to gain high-speed broadband access once the infrastructure becomes available in their geographic region. The findings cited here speak to the importance of investments in educational programs and services addressing digital literacy, content creation, and other aspects critical to sustainable broadband adoption.

[Jana Wilbricht is a Ph.D. Candidate in Communication Studies at the University of Michigan, and worked with NDIA during the summer 2017 as a research fellow of the Consortium on Media Policy Studies (COMPASS).]

[Commentary] I spent my career at Microsoft trying to imagine what technology could do, and still I wasn’t prepared for smartphones and social media. Like many parents with children my kids’ age, I didn’t understand how they would transform the way my kids grew up — and the way I wanted to parent. I’m still trying to catch up. For other parents trying to decide how to do their job in a way that feels right despite the bewildering array of changes brought on by smartphones and social media, I want to share some of the resources that have helped me and my friends. Hopefully, these tips can spark conversation and help parents become resources for each other:
Learn about the issue
Unplug
Have Tough Conversations
Advocate for your kids
Make a Plan
[Melinda Gates is a businesswoman and philanthropist. She is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]

[Commentary] The rise of what we might call “cheap speech” has fundamentally altered both how we communicate and the nature of our politics, endangering the health of our democracy.

The path back to a more normal political scene will not be easy. In the old days, just a handful of TV networks controlled the airwaves, and newspapers served as gatekeepers for news and opinion content. A big debate back in the 1980s and earlier was how to enable free expression for those who did not own or work for a media company and wanted to get a message out. It seems cheap speech, despite its undeniable benefits, has come with a steep price for our democracy.

[Richard L. Hasen is the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine]