Brookings

On Nov 16, the Federal Communications Commission released a ‘re-think’ of the Lifeline program. The FCC decision focuses squarely on prior criticisms, and plans to scale back the $2.25 billion annual program in three important ways. First, it proposes to only support facilities-based providers, and might prevent resellers (telecommunication providers who provide service, but don’t own and operate their network) from offering subsidized subscription plans.

[Commentary] The day after the Trump Justice Department sues to block the vertical integration of AT&T and Time Warner, the Trump Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes eliminating rules that could be used to prevent the same harms to consumers. Right hand…meet left hand. Fighting against monopolization in the internet era…meet ideologically-driven “do what the big guys want.” The Trump FCC’s proposal to eliminate the over-two-year-old Open Internet Rule is a shameful sham and sellout. The assertion that the FCC proposal is somehow pro-consumer is a sham that doesn’t pass the

[Commentatry] We exist in a time when technological capabilities and economic incentives have combined to attack truth and weaken trust. It is not an act of pre-planned perdition. Unchecked, however, it will have the same effect. The broader question is how to deal with the exploitation of the Web as a vehicle for de-democratizing communities fueled by fact-free untruth? I would argue that it was software algorithms that put us in this situation, and it is software algorithms that can get us out of it.

Based on an analysis of all 435 congressional districts, every member stands to benefit from federal policies that boost wireline broadband availability and adoption. Developing bipartisan solutions—especially for Republican members’ constituents, who face the largest broadband gaps—will ensure that every household has a chance to participate in America’s rapidly-evolving digital economy. 

[Commentary] The ramifications of Russian exploitation of social media exceed its potential electoral impact. It even exceeds the involvement of the Russians. The broader ramifications are how social media algorithms divide us, how those divisions can be exploited, and whether there are solutions. By fracturing society into small groups, the internet has become the antithesis of the community necessary for democratic processes to succeed. This is bigger than the current discussion of political advertising rules for the internet.

[Commentary] Online courses have the potential to improve instruction at every level of education. Adaptive online courses can allow students to learn at their own pace, with material adjusting to fit the needs of both advanced and remedial learners. Online courses can also open up more curricular offerings in schools that lack specialists, such as those in rural areas. Online courses are particularly attractive to school and district leaders looking for ways to trim costs.

[Commentary] Net neutrality advocates and opponents alike have demonstrated their steady investment in a specific outcome that juxtaposes regulation over no regulation. These deep seated divisions are played out among members of Congress, industry leaders, activists, and even academics. Given the tumultuous history of net neutrality at the Federal Communications Commission, the future of internet regulations will remain uncertain in the US. Today’s decisions will be vulnerable to challenges from a possible Democratic administration and potentially overturned if argued before the Supreme Court. Congress may be the only entity that can offer a more permanent solution to what is driving the debate – adherence to the principles of an open internet and the application of the appropriate legal authority. As the FCC works on its repeal, Congress should exercise leadership to identify a legislative solution that marries – rather than polarizes – these two perspectives to reach bipartisan agreement. Clearly, a congressional solution cloaked in partisanship will not be the starting place for such negotiations. Congress cannot remain gridlocked on this issue given their constituents’ reliance on the digital economy. Citizens are increasingly leveraging the internet and other new technologies for employment, entrepreneurship, health care, education, civic engagement, and other critical functions. Elected officials must start the negotiations in radical agreement on internet openness, given that the digital economy will continue to face broadband capacity challenges (i.e., spectrum and infrastructure concerns) as demand for services rises.

As such, Congress should delve into the question of legal authority conditioned not on emotion or political party, but on the most appropriate and sustainable framework for its application. Under this scenario, a bipartisan agreement could abandon Title II based on its outdated and perfunctory application to the online economy and focus on codifying the bright line rules through statute. A compromise might also include an additional bright line rule that offers consumers a formal means for complaint and adjudication at the Commission. Or FCC authority can perhaps be shared with the FTC: making one agency the cop on the beat over behavioral and commercial practices (FTC) and the other over technical misgivings and other consumer concerns (FCC).

[Commentary] Yet before the partisan noise over network neutrality rises to the level of screeching decibels, it might be useful to provide some much-needed context. During the past two years, as the original Title II Order proceeding moved ahead, I wrote a series of pieces for Brookings’s TechTank that touch on issues that have as much relevance now as they did when first released. Published collectively here for the first time, I hope they will be considered in real time by policy advocates of all stripes, along with the FCC itself, as positions are formulated and final new internet service rules are adopted that will have long-term consequences.