Op-Ed

[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.]

[Commentary] At a certain point, we must all pause to ask: How is it that the only time our mouthy, straight-shooting, politically incorrect president seems to bite his tongue is when he is called upon to denounce white supremacists? Does it have much to do with the fact that he lines the senior ranks of his administration with outspoken white supremacists, including Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart? And why is the administration so interested in curbing civil rights investigations and stopping funding for counter-white nationalism efforts? These questions should trouble every American, and therefore be on the tip of the tongue of every journalist.

Until we get real answers, it’s time to stop calling the president’s favored political zealots by their favored self-identifying term. Journalists can’t allow agents of hatred to set how they are defined. Their rebrand is little more than a cover-up for white supremacists to continue to commit foul acts of disrespect, intimidation, and violence.

[Shaya Tayefe Mohajer is a freelance journalist in Los Angeles.]

[Commentary] It is those who turn to violence and view themselves as a law unto themselves that are “the other side.” To be clear, I do not speak of those who merely defend themselves. If an armed mob assaults protesters, then those assaulted have the right to defend themselves. No, the “other side” are those who think that they have been provoked so that the rule of law no longer applies. Those who think they are a law unto themselves, empowered to deal death and violence for their ‘sacred cause.’ These who consider themselves their own law, and those who encourage them, are the “other side.” They are the enemy that needs to be condemned.

So I say again, there is no “all sides.” There is no “both sides.” There is no right versus left in the defense of the principles of free speech and democracy. Are you with the Rule of Law, or do you believe yourself a law of your own? Those are the two sides — and only one is at fault for the deaths in Charlottesville.

[Harold Feld is Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge]

[Commentary] I was fired by Google Aug 7 for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

[Damore worked as a software engineer at Google’s Mountain View campus from 2013 until this past week.]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has before it the question of Sinclair Broadcast Group’s $3.9 billion proposed acquisition of Tribune Media. It is a major decision, since the resulting broadcast behemoth would hold as many as 233 local television stations reaching into more than 70 percent of American homes.

Allegations about the Trump administration’s closeness to Sinclair – including Jared Kushner’s campaign deal – have been made. All I know is what I read, but the lead up to the actual decision has been significant and seems to presage approval. The statutory test for the FCC’s decision – and the only test Congress has instructed the commission to use – is whether the merger is in the “public interest.” The corporate interest of Sinclair is obvious; they may be a politically friendly company, but whether they meet the public interest test is now even being challenged by others of the same political stripe. Not to be lost in the decisionmaking is the statutory rationale behind broadcast licenses in the first place. In the belief that broadcasting is a public trust, broadcast companies have been given use of the public’s airwaves. The key to that public trust is providing news and information to the local community of license, a concept that appears in danger by the one-two punch of the FCC’s elimination of the local studio requirement and the national network designs of Sinclair. Ultimately, the decision comes down to the record in the proceeding. The richness of the record on this matter would suggest that even though the Trump FCC has bent the rules to facilitate such a merger, it is not in the public interest.

[Commentary] There is a long-standing tradition in American politics that when your term of office is over, you retreat quietly into the background and allow a tasteful period of time to pass before you get back into the arena. Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, however, does not appear to have bought into that tradition. Wheeler, apparently unhappy about the efforts of his successor, Ajit Pai, to undo the former chairman's signature regulatory enactment— the imposition of legacy common carrier price regulation on the internet—has continued to advocate for the survival of the regulatory structures he instituted while in office. It is difficult to see how the former chairman's internet policy is likely to make broadband services more available, better, or cheaper.

Whatever the role the FCC has to play in the modern communications market, Wheeler's retrogressive regulatory approach is counterproductive. America appears now to be suffering the consequences of it. If, as the data appear to suggest, Wheeler's signature regulatory contribution has cost the nation billions in network investment, reduced employment by 100,000 telecommunications jobs per year, and slowed improvements in broadband quality, it is incumbent on his successor to press forward with the clean-up hastily. Happily, Chairman Pai appears intent on doing precisely that. The sooner the broadband industry gets to say, “good riddance” to the Wheeler FCC's Title II regulatory regime, the better.

[Ford is Chief Economist of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

[Commentary] The more we debate Title II versus Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, the more it is clear that everyone wants the same outcome: we all want an open internet. The issue is determining which path will best enable the internet to be most accessible to Americans for opportunity, innovation and entrepreneurship, with the requisite transparency and privacy protections. Let’s end this debate once and for all.

A bipartisan Congress should put its differences aside to create a federal law that governs the internet. The solution to this is problem is not whether we go with Title I or Title II — the solution lies in “Title X,” a new law that will expressly set out the rules of the road for the entire internet ecosystem. The simple fact is — and I think most of us agree — that we do not want anyone to arbitrarily block or slow content on the web. We do not want discrimination in the flow of traffic on the internet. We want transparency in how our internet usage is impacted by Internet service providers (ISPs), edge providers and the government. Further, as we build out these digital networks, every community must be free of digital and infrastructure redlining.

Title X would be a law that harmonizes the ecosystem that has nurtured the innovation and led to the U.S. becoming a global leader in speed, access and adoption, while ensuring strong consumer protections — across all platforms and regardless of their provider. If ever we needed an X factor, we need it now, if we are to maximize the power and the promise of the internet.

[Kim Keenan is the president and CEO of Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council]