Op-Ed

[Commentary] We in the US are deeply concerned about the way the European Union’s new privacy guidelines, which came into effect last week, will force big changes in the way US and European companies do business. Donald Trump’s administration supports the new General Data Protection Regulation’s goal of protecting personal online data while continuing to enable transatlantic data exchange. We are also committed to working with the EU to implement the new guidelines.

[Commentary] Even as wireless carriers are already rolling out 5G trials across the US, to keep pace with activity happening internationally and bring this transformative network to fruition in a timely fashion, policymakers must make a few more key moves. First, states and municipalities must streamline policies to infrastructure deployment. Next, and equally important, is that the federal government – namely, the Federal Communications Commission – must do its part as well.

[Commentary] In a few days, the nations of the European Union take the first step to establish a New Digital World Order when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes into effect on May 25. For the first time, government has stepped in on a comprehensive basis to oversee the unregulated collection of personal information through the internet. Unfortunately, it is not the United States of America that is leading the world in protecting personal rights. Instead, the Old World is leading the New World.

[Commentary] Telemedicine — the delivery of health care services using communications technology — can be a critical tool for making Americans healthier. A concerted push to seize the untapped potential of telemedicine could help us tackle today’s health challenges. The most crucial step in seizing the opportunities of digital medicine is making sure that every community has high-speed Internet access.

[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.