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. If you live in one of the communities, the local government builds a fiber-optic connection to your home, but you get service from the ISP you choose and they pay a fee to the local government. Open access is a prospect for thousands of communities that want to improve Internet access but do not want to directly compete with established firms in the industry. 

[Amina Fazlullah was a 2017/18 Mozilla Fellow and is current policy counsel with Common Sense Media. Christopher Mitchell is the Director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance as well as the Director of Policy for Next Century Cities]

The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued a Request for Comments (RFC) seeking public input on the development of a comprehensive, long-term National Spectrum Strategy. The strategy must accomplish several goals, including increasing spectrum access, improving spectrum sharing, enhancing spectrum management, and leveraging ongoing research and development activities. The National Spectrum Strategy must also help to improve the competitiveness of both our terrestrial and space-related technology industries. The RFC points to the complementary goals of Space Policy Directive-3 (SPD-3), which President Trump issued this past summer. SPD-3 calls on the United States to improve policies, processes and technologies for spectrum use to address challenges posed by orbital congestion and radiofrequency interference in space. NTIA is seeking recommended actions as well as information that can improve our understanding of the issues raised in the presidential memorandum and the spectrum-related portions of SPD-3. All interested parties are invited to comment

The request for comments is another step in fulfilling President Trump’s call for development of a national spectrum strategy as announced on Oct. 25, 2018. NTIA sent a letter to federal agencies in Nov 2018 asking them to report on their future spectrum needs over the next 15 years. 

Sprint and T-Mobile are urging Comcast to say publicly how it believes it will be affected by the proposed merger of the nation’s third and fourth largest wireless network operators. But Comcast is having none of it. “Comcast’s strategic perspective on, and assessment of, the competitive impact of the Proposed Transaction [between Sprint and T-Mobile] on Comcast’s nascent wireless business and its television and broadband businesses—including discussions of Comcast’s wireless business strategy, contractual terms, and related business negotiations—constitutes competitively sensitive information that is not otherwise publicly available and falls squarely within the Commission’s definition of Highly Confidential Information,” Comcast told the Federal Communications Commission. The company wrote that Sprint and T-Mobile “are asking the Commission to make Comcast’s—a non-party’s—Highly Confidential internal competitive and strategic analyses widely available to the public. Such a request is at odds with the Commission’s confidentiality policy and implementing regulations. Public disclosure of this sensitive commercial information would result in competitive harm to Comcast.”

This paper examines how and why activist groups representing marginalized communities of color are increasingly engaging in communications technology policy issues, particularly in relation to issues of digital access and representation. It explores three distinct but related case studies to disentangle the issues and concerns of a range of communities of color, and the challenges and opportunities for their advocates in navigating the highly technical communications technology policy arena: the first case study, which centers on the NAACP's original opposition to net neutrality, reveals the primacy of issues surrounding the “digital divide” to populations of color, and the difficulties of engaging in technical conversations surrounding Internet governance when issues of access persist. Meanwhile, the second case reviews the campaign by Free Press to promote set-top box liberalization as an issue of representation and diversity to both policymakers and citizens. The final case, which examines the work of the Tribal International Carrier to build an alternative internet servicenetwork for Native populations, highlights the precarity which organizations must strategically navigate in order to mitigate the influence of both the state and large corporations over Internet policy issues in order to both serve and represent their constituents. In all, this paper presents and extends upon a novel approach to communications policy research, foregrounding the need to integrate critical race frameworks and, relatedly, to center the breadth, depth, and lived experiences of communities of color, which can therein facilitate more inclusive digital media and communication environments and policy structures.

[The authors are students at Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California. Also see Race, Ethnicity, and Communications Policy Debates: Making the Case for Critical Race Frameworks in Communications Policy]

I thank my Democratic colleagues for their support in electing me Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. There is no better committee in Congress, and I am so fortunate to have the support of my colleagues in leading this committee in the 116th Congress. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to build a stronger economy, create more good-paying jobs and protect consumers from skyrocketing costs. In the coming months, we will push an aggressive agenda to rebuild America, combat climate change, make health care and prescription drugs more affordable, and protect peoples’ privacy. We’ll also conduct robust oversight of the Trump Administration’s ongoing actions to sabotage our health care system, exacerbate climate change and weaken consumer protections.

Sen Joe Manchin (D-WV) lifted his hold on Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr after the agency promised to prioritize rolling out funding for wireless broadband in rural areas. Sen Manchin announced the hold on Commissioner Carr the week of Dec 10 after the FCC announced it would pause the funding program while it conducts an investigation into coverage data submitted by major wireless carriers.

Sen Dan Sullivan (R-AK) also announced that he would be lifting a hold he had placed on Commissioner Carr’s confirmation, over concerns about the FCC's work on rural healthcare. “After receiving concrete commitments and timelines from Chairman Pai to get the Rural Health Care program back on track in Alaska, Senator Sullivan lifted his hold on Commissioner Carr last night,” the senator's office said.

This is my case for why I am pro-agency rulemaking authority, and you should be too.

1. Agencies Are Nimbler Than Congress, responding to changing circumstances and technology in closer to real time.
2. Agencies Have Relevant Expertise -- people who work at agencies tend to build deeper, specialized knowledge on the issues within their agency’s mandate.
3. Opportunities for Public Participation -- whenever an agency wants to promulgate a rule, it must first put forward the rule for public comment. And, ulike your member of Congress, who can file your comment in a folder never to be consulted again, the agency actually has to take the public comments into account and respond to them in the final rule.