Press Release

While I fundamentally disagree with the merits of the Federal Communications Commission’s [net neutrality] proposal, what is equally concerning is the lack of integrity to the FCC’s process that has led to this point.

To review, the FCC has held zero public hearings. The FCC has knowingly maintained a system that has already been corrupted and is susceptible to abuse. This has led to the following problems:

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr announced that Evan Swarztrauber has joined his office as Policy Advisor for media issues. Evan joins Commissioner Carr’s office from TechFreedom, where he was Director of Public Affairs. In that role, Evan worked on a wide range of issues, including media ownership, video competition, and the broadcast incentive auction. He also managed the organization’s communications and outreach teams, and represented the organization in a diverse array of coalitions.

FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn announces the appointment of April Jones as Policy Analyst and Special Assistant. Jones joins Commissioner Clyburn’s office from Hausfeld LLP, a global antitrust law firm, where she was an attorney focusing on complex civil litigation matters in antitrust and consumer protection law. Prior to this role, she clerked at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where she worked primarily on the E-commerce and Telecommunications portfolios.

Sen Maggie Hassan (D-NH) led 27 of her colleagues in a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, expressing concern over reports that bots filed hundreds of thousands of comments to the FCC during the network neutrality policymaking process and calling on the Chairman to delay the planned December 14th vote to roll back net neutrality rules until an investigation of the state of the record is conducted.

I had the opportunity to go to the Supreme Court to watch the oral arguments in a case called United States v. Carpenter. Carpenter deals with what standard law enforcement must meet to obtain cell site location information from a wireless carrier, which fundamentally is about the appropriate balance between privacy and security. This is an issue of great interest to Verizon.  Verizon joined an amicus brief in the case this summer, and we will host an event in Washington, DC to discuss it in more detail in the new year. 

The Benton Foundation joined Public Knowledge and 40 other consumer protection groups, digital divide advocates, and local government agencies -- including New York City -- in a letter urging Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to delay the vote on the “Restoring Internet Freedom” Draft Order, which would roll back the agency’s net neutrality rules if adopted. Specifically, the groups propose the FCC delay the vote until a pending court case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- the en banc review in Federal Trade Commission v.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau announced that the launch of the Lifeline National Verifier would be delayed until early 2018 due to ongoing work by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to ensure Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said, "“The Lifeline program is an important tool for closing the digital divide but for too long, it’s plagued by waste, fraud, and abuse.

Over the past week, there has been a lot written about what happens to the internet assuming the Federal Communications Commission adopts the proposed order, circulated Nov 22, at its next scheduled open meeting. I would suggest that most of what has been written falls in the category of misinformation and rhetorical excess. I thought I might try something different and attempt to limit us to a discussion of facts. The short answer is, of course, that there will be no change in how your internet works after the order is adopted.

As an unwavering champion of network neutrality, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn believes in setting the record straight. Chairman Pai made a number of claims and predictions in his dissent from the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order.

What, if anything, is constraining the Trump Justice Department in its dangerous war on leakers, whistleblowers, and journalists? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Freedom of the Press Foundation are teaming up to find out.