Op-Ed

This is a story that defies two strongly held beliefs. The first—embraced fervently by today's Federal Communications Commission—is that the private marketplace is delivering world-class internet access infrastructure at low prices to all Americans, particularly in urban areas. The second is that cities are so busy competing that they are incapable of cooperating with one another, particularly when they have little in common save proximity. These two beliefs aren’t necessarily true.

Among the hundreds of people waiting to visit Mahatma Gandhi one day was a mother who sought help in battling her son’s obsession with eating sugar. When it was their turn in line, instead of immediately counseling the boy, Gandhi asked the pair to come back in two weeks. Following a two-hour wait on the day of their return, the anxious mother repeated her request. Gandhi promptly spoke with her son and the boy agreed to work on breaking his sugar fixation.

A strong innovation economy could propel the United States’ economic growth and create countless jobs. Internet speeds could be 100 or even 1,000 times faster than 4G. And communities currently on the wrong side of the digital divide (especially lower-income urban and rural areas) could obtain quick connections for the first time. Other countries, especially China, are eager to seize these opportunities for themselves, confident that the first mover will claim the bulk of the benefits (as happened when the United States led on 4G).

The biggest barrier for US leadership in 5G: the Trump Administration’s own misguided trade policies. Indeed, the administration’s trade war with China threatens to increase the costs of wireless infrastructure by hundreds of millions of dollars at a critical moment in the race to 5G.  It’s a classic case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.

"Our media is precious. It’s how, outside of our strictly personal spheres, we speak to each other, inform each other, learn from each other, entertain each other, increasingly how we govern ourselves." With these words, Michael Copps opened a public hearing on media ownership rules. The hearing was not in Washington, DC, but Chicago, Illinois. Copps was not a local official, but a commissioner at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Google, Facebook, and Twitter have no incentive to inject bias in their platforms, because consumers across the political spectrum use social media and discriminating against any of them could drive people away. Consumers would be substantially worse off if social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were broken up. Their value to consumers derives in no small part from the fact that they allow people to communicate with their friends and families with a single click.

The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on Sept 26 on “Examining Safeguards for Consumer Data Privacy,” intended as an opportunity for lawmakers to learn about “possible approaches to safeguarding privacy more effectively.” That’s great except for two small things. No consumers were invited to speak on safeguarding consumer data privacy. No consumer advocates were invited to speak on safeguarding consumer data privacy. Who was invited?

In our working paper, we discuss how civil rights and minority-focused advocacy groups have engaged – or circumvented – Internet policy issues to better serve the communication and technology needs of their underrepresented constituents. In addition, in accordance with critical race theorists (e.g.

Will I go to prison for violating the terms of service? This is the question journalists must ask themselves, now, when writing data stories based on public information collected from a website, such as Facebook or Twitter. Violating a terms of service that prohibits scraping can carry with it possible criminal liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). No journalists have been prosecuted under this statute, but their sources have, and some journalists have been asked to stop using specific reporting tools by Facebook.

The Coalition for Local Internet Choice and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors asked for my view of the Federal Communications Commission’s pending order, proposing to cap the fees that state and local governments may charge for small-cell attachments. According to the FCC’s draft order, these price‐caps will save the industry $2 billion in costs to operate in metropolitan areas—which will translate into $2.5 billion in new wireless investment, primarily in rural areas. Here are my concerns: