Op-Ed

[Commentary] Today network neutrality is often described as the principle that internet service providers (ISPs)—and only ISPs—treat all data on the internet the same. But it wasn’t always this way and shouldn’t be this way going forward.

[Commentary] The Senate voted 52–47 to revive an Obama administration rule ensuring equal treatment for online traffic—the so-called “net neutrality” rule recently erased by the Trump Federal Communications Commission. But the vote wasn't really about "net neutrality." Instead, it was a deeply political, bipartisan call—three Republican Senators signed on—for internet freedom writ large. Here's why: "Net neutrality," these days, is shorthand for "We don't like how much unconstrained power Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink have over us." 

[Commentary] How can Republicans get right with network neutrality?

Step One: Know your history: At its heart, net neutrality is a competition issue. From Roosevelt to Reagan, we are the party of competition and should never cede that ground. Net neutrality principles and free trade principles are based on the exact same market theory. 

Step Two: Stream Ahead: Americans love streaming and reject cable.

[Commentary]  I had been waiting with bated breath for the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA. On May 14, not only did the Supreme Court strike down the federal law at issue, which had stopped states, counties, and cities from legalizing sports gambling within their borders, but it also appears to have invalidated a broad swath of congressional limitations on state tax authority. (Oh, and it also saved sanctuary cities.) What I, for one, didn’t expect is that it would have such significant implications for state tax law as well. Why might it?

[Commentary] Bruce Henderson hypothesizes that a stable, competitive industry will never have more than three significant competitors and that the industry will find equilibrium when the market shares of the three competitors reach a ratio of 4:2:1. Taking a closer look at the wireless businesses of the four major operators in the U.S., the market share in revenue terms at the end of 2017 was: Verizon (38%); AT&T (31%); T-Mobile (17%); and, Sprint (14%). In terms of profitability as measured in operating income before depreciation and amortization (OIBDA), the relative differentials wer

[Commentary] The best and fastest vehicle for bringing back the vital protections of net neutrality resides in both houses of Congress. It’s called a “Joint Resolution of Disapproval” which is allowed under a law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA allows Congress to overturn an agency decision soon after it is adopted with a simple majority of members in attendance. This Congress used the CRA last April to repeal Federal Communications Commission rules that would have required ISPs to protect the privacy of their customers.

[Commentary] It is clear the questions surrounding online consumer protection and data privacy go well beyond Facebook. My committee and the American people need to hear directly from the major players in the tech industry. Consumers deserve a deliberative and exhaustive examination of the digital ecosystem that has become a part of our lives. The House Commerce Committee extends an open invitation to Silicon Valley CEOs. Come and testify before our committee, explain your business model, and enlighten consumers about how your industry affects their daily lives.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission is pushing forward with changes to the Lifeline program, which would hamper recovery efforts and cut off hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans — who are also US citizens — from vital telecommunications services. The Trump administration’s FCC has proposed changes that would sharply alter the purpose and scope of the program, further antagonizing hurricane victims who are still struggling to rebuild. Before the catastrophic 2017 hurricane season, over 500,000 island households relied on the Lifeline program to stay connected.

[Commentary] The proposition here is simple: This T-Mobile/Sprint deal will shrink the market for nationwide mobile wireless service from four players to three, giving consumers fewer choices and increasing the likelihood that prices will be higher and service offerings will be less consumer-friendly. Decreased competition in a market that is already consolidated? This deal should be an easy one for the government to reject. Companies seeking to merge typically promise the sun, moon, and the stars to regulators in order to obtain approval, and T-Mobile and Sprint are no different.

[O-ed] How can civic leaders ensure that their communities have the needed broadband connectivity to strengthen current businesses, catalyze local entrepreneurs, and attract new investment?