Op-Ed

Most Americans do not have much of a choice in Internet service providers, even in big cities. But for a lucky few, they have not only a robust gigabit connection but also a choice of many providers. This is most common in an arrangement called “open access.” Some 30 communities spread across the United States have embraced this model — where the local government builds a fiber-optic infrastructure and acts as a wholesaler, allowing independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer the actual service to households and businesses.

Today, Americans can choose between four nationwide wireless carriers – but that choice is now threatened by the proposed merger of Sprint and T-Mobile. If allowed to proceed as proposed, this merger will condense the market to just three national carriers, leading to higher prices, foreclosing the entrance of new competitors and eliminating jobs. And while the companies have promised that this deal would speed the roll out of 5G and improve rural service, the facts belie these claims. This deal offers no meaningful public benefit and threatens vast consumer harms.

That Facebook can’t stay out of the headlines is not just a crisis for Facebook. It’s also a crisis for the Federal Trade Commission—indeed, it’s a “credibility-check moment.” Every day that passes in which the consent order is not enforced against Facebook adds to speculation that something is deeply broken at the agency. Moreover, the tech firms want the FTC to be named as their sole regulator, pre-empting stronger action by states and their attorneys general to protect privacy.

Dear Chairman Pai,

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai would have you believe that the network neutrality repeal was of no consequence — the Internet wasn’t destroyed, cute pictures of cats and dogs are still in abundance, Google and Netflix are alive and well. But even in the short 6 months since the Dec 14, 2017 repeal of the net neutrality rules became effective, we have seen how consumers and competitors lose when broadband providers are given license to self-regulate and the FCC discards its responsibility to oversee the market.

In the hopes of increasing digital equity, here are some observations and suggestions for framing, enacting and collectively furthering digital inclusion policy. 1) Terminology helps frame policy. 2) Anchor policy in comprehensive frameworks. 3) Government has a role as a convener & participant, but not a singular responsibility. 4) Digital inclusion planning and policy should be intentional, and also nurtured. 5) Build community capacity and work with trusted ambassadors.

It seems counterintuitive that a phone line could be a "speaker." But the cable industry very much wants to ensure that the act of transmitting speech from Point A to Point B is protected by the First Amendment, so that making a cable connection carry any speech it isn’t interested in amounts to unconstitutional “forced speech.” The addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court roster gives the industry a significant boost.

The lack of affordable broadband access in the US has resulted in large-scale educational inequities especially in rural areas where 31 percent of Americans have no choice of broadband providers. For many years, Educational Broadband Service (EBS) licensees have been dedicated to helping solve these inequities, but a proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission is putting these services at risk. EBS licensees are accredited educational institutions (or nonprofits focused on serving the needs of accredited educational institutions).

Remember when futurists told us that the internet would result in the “death of distance”? That prophecy has fallen short, as cities remain hubs for commerce and community. The growing geographic consequences of digital technologies puts new demands on decision makers at all levels of government. Bolstering their levels of expertise on these issues is clearly needed and each of the local policy issues raised above would benefit from additional analytical scrutiny.

“Something has to be done,” President Donald Trump tweeted Nov 26. Frustrated by CNN, with which he has an ongoing beef, President Trump suggested that the United States create its own “worldwide network to show the World the way we really are — GREAT!” Despite the proposal’s origin in conflict with the press, it’s a really good idea. So good, in fact, that under another president’s watch — Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 — it happened. Seventy-six years ago, the world was a dark place.