Public Knowledge

After almost two years of having no rules and no protections, broadband providers and advertisers want to further delay having strong privacy protections from consumers. We cannot continue to have zero accountability from broadband providers when it comes to protecting the public’s personal information, from social security numbers to our internet browsing history to even our physical location. Americans have a right to control their own data and what happens to it, which is why Public Knowledge joined 10 other public interest groups in filing this Opposition. Broadband providers should remember that consumers aren’t the product -- they’re the customers, and they have a right to control how their information is used.

Despite the change in administration, the Federal Communications Commission has a law to abide by and an obligation to implement. Section 629 of the Communications Act is the law of the land, and it directs the FCC to ensure that consumers can choose from a competitive market for 'unaffiliated' devices that can access their complete cable TV or other pay-TV subscriptions. Ending the set-top box monopoly would bring the benefits of competition, including lower prices and better devices, to cable subscribers. Consumers currently spend about $20 billion a year for overpriced boxes they aren’t allowed to dump. They should be able to access online and cable programming in one integrated interface, boosting programming diversity and allowing access to alternative viewpoints. Despite the FCC’s recent efforts on this issue, the law has not been enforced and consumers continue to be burdened by a multi-billion dollar set-top box ripoff. Chairman Pai should continue the FCC’s work to bring consumers relief in this matter.

Public Knowledge joins a coalition of consumer, labor, small business, and environmental groups in a letter opposing the nomination of Rep Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) as Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Public Knowledge senior policy counsel Phillip Berenbroick said, "The Communications Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public interest. Congressman Mulvaney’s record of ideological-driven devotion, without regard to facts of consequences, to deregulation and promoting corporate interests stands starkly at odds with the FCC’s broad mandate to promote the public interest by enhancing competition, universal service, and diversity in media and information. OMB plays a critical role in the regulatory process, including reviewing FCC rules that advance the public interest, protect consumers, and promote competition and innovation in the telecommunications, media, and technology sectors. However, Congressman Mulvaney has fought to undermine the core functions and legitimacy of a Federal role in regulating anti-consumer and anti-competitive corporate activity. Additionally, he has advocated for a rigid cost-benefit analysis in all agency rulemakings that is distinctly at odds with the aims of the Communications Act. At OMB, Congressman Mulvaney is likely to lead the assault on consumer protections and rules that curb anti-competitive conduct, which would be disastrous for communications policy. He should not be confirmed.”

As a new administration takes the reins in Washington, we at Public Knowledge have launched a renewed effort to promote freedom of expression on affordable communications platforms for all. We urge everyone to join this fight for the fundamentals of a truly democratic society, from the right to vote to the right to use all communications tools without fear of retaliation or interference from government or dominant corporate giants. The Trump Administration may jeopardize the Federal Communications Commission's ability to make networks more open, affordable, and available to all of us, and may risk the agency’s capability to maintain consumer rights and protections on the internet.

Please join us in the ongoing fight for fairness in the digital age. Whether it is consumers' pocketbooks or their fundamental right to speak without interference and participate in our democracy, we need your support and active commitment during a time of political change. Now, more than ever before, is a time to engage and provide the energy necessary to make a fair and just society that works for all of us.

Public Knowledge joins six public interest groups in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) urging Congress to oppose three bills targeting consumer protections in the digital age. The bills, the Midnight Rules Review Act (HR 21), the Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (HR 26) and the Regulatory Accountability Act (HR 5), would upend longstanding and fundamental structures of federal administrative law. Taken together, they would broadly paralyze multiple expert agencies’ ability to enforce the law, which is especially dangerous in the media and communications sector. Such changes could increase prices, undermine citizens’ health and safety, and even endanger the nation’s communications network.

Kate Forscey, government affairs associate counsel at Public Knowledge, said, "“All Americans rely on modern communications technologies in their day-to day lives and deserve ready and able watchdogs to protect us from corporate abuses like sneaky fees and unexpected data overages, as well as ensuring privacy protections and the reliability of the network, especially in emergencies. These bills would strip consumers of important safeguards that go unnoticed precisely because they have been so effective in protecting people for generations. In a world of ever-increasing consolidation of media power in the hands of two or three companies, these safeguards remain essential to the continued functioning of our democracy and society.

The Biennial Review is generally a housekeeping process, giving the Federal Communications Commission an ongoing duty to clear away truly outdated telecommunications regulations that are still on the books solely because nobody has taken the time to repeal them. It is most definitely not meant to provide an opportunity to re-argue the Commission’s most recent policy initiatives, like net neutrality, or to seek broad forbearance and deregulation to harm consumers and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Major industry incumbents need to remember that the community that fought for strong net neutrality rules and real privacy protections is watching every backdoor and loophole. We will not stand idly by while companies that fought the adoption of these policies probe for opportunities to move policy in the direction of anti-competitive, anti-consumer deregulation at the expense of the public interest.

The Federal Communications Commission cancelled its agenda items for the Thursday, November 17 Open Meeting. The following may be attributed to Harold Feld, Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge:

“We are disappointed that the FCC will not act on the previously announced November agenda. While respecting the tradition that the FCC should generally wait for the new administration before acting on any new initiatives, these items were essentially completed and ready to move. It seems absurd that if Chairman Wheeler had scheduled the meeting on election day, we would have already resolved the decade-old proceeding on legacy business data services pricing. More importantly, the agenda items address real and pressing problems in the broadband marketplace. These problems do not simply go away due to an administration change. When Republicans take over, they will need to address the same competitive problems, or explain to the American people why they plan to perpetuate our broadband duopoly.”

Public Knowledge sent a letter to President-elect Donald J. Trump encouraging him to end the cable box rip-off affecting millions of Americans -- and costing consumers billions of dollars. Public Knowledge President and CEO Gene Kimmelman said, “We hope the President-elect and his transition team will move quickly to stop cable monopolies and media giants from ripping consumers off to the tune of almost $15 billion dollars per year with outrageous cable box fees.” The letter reads, "President-elect Trump, these outrageous cable box rental fees have dogged consumers for decades thanks to powerful Washington insiders and cable lobbyists. We urge you to join with millions of Americans to get the FCC to unlock the box, a proposal that benefits all Americans."

Consumers have a lot to complain about when it comes to their cable, broadband, and wireless services. But the issue that hits closest to home is their bills - they’re too high, too confusing, and larded with hidden fees. Cable industry billing practices are a big part of how the cable industry gets away with jacking up rates at more than twice the rate of inflation over the past twenty years. It’s 2016, and this has been a problem for far too long. You know it, I know it, and the American people definitely know it.

Sen Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO) office recently put out a very strong report addressing cable billing abuses and uncovering a plethora of abusive practices. And when they catch errors, not all companies fix them automatically - even when they know the bills are wrong. It’s up to consumers to catch the providers’ “mistakes” and demand refunds.

The week of Oct 24, the Federal Communications Commission made two huge moves to help consumers navigate the digital marketplace. The first was to finally pass its long-awaited landmark broadband privacy rules. But tucked inside that order was something equally important, if less high-profile: a commitment by the FCC that by February 2017, it will embark on a proceeding to address mandatory binding (or forced) arbitration clauses.

If these have flown under the radar for you, it’s because they are the epitome of fine print. Forced arbitration clauses are sneaky language injected into contracts, which can eliminate one of your fundamental legal remedies as a consumer: the class action lawsuit. Without the threat of a class action, consumers can be left without a practical legal remedy, which is critical in the event that a company pursues business practices that clearly rip customers off. This move was just the latest example of the FCC fighting for consumer rights in the face of continued pushback from corporate interests. Consumers should cheer loudly - but also remember that this is just the kick-off. Important issues for consumers remain on the FCC’s agenda, and it remains incumbent upon all of us to be vigilant -- to help the Commission enact yet another critical consumer protection in the telecommunications industry, which is central in our daily lives. And, much like in a class action itself, that’s something we can all get behind together.