Agenda

A messy, public brawl over a Google critic’s ouster from a Washington think tank has exposed a fissure in Democratic Party politics. On one side there’s a young and growing faction advocating new antimonopoly laws, on the other a rival faction struggling to defend itself.

At issue is a decades-long relationship between Democrats and tech companies, with Democratic presidents signing off on deregulation and candidates embracing money and innovations from companies like Google and Facebook. Now, locked out of power and convinced that same coziness with large corporations cost them the presidency, Democrats are talking themselves into breaking with tech giants and becoming an antimonopoly party.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has sat dormant for more than seven months under President Donald Trump — but the Administration says it’ll staff up and resume its work soon.

Chartered in its modern form in 2000, PCAST long has operated as the White House’s main interface with academics, industry experts and others who can help shape the government’s approach on a wide array of complex, cutting-edge issues. Under President Trump, though, there’s no one on the council. It’s one of many science-and-tech advisory arms at the White House that’s still severely depleted in staff, a series of vacancies made all the more striking by the president’s previous push to cut federal research spending. In the meantime, PCAST’s charter, technically, is set to run out: Obama’s executive order authorizing the council expires at the end of September. Apparently, President Trump is on track to sign his own executive order re-establishing PCAST in September. The process of staffing it will then fall to the leader of the White House’s other research team, the Office of Science and Technology Policy. But that office, known as OSTP, still has no director, and the President has offered no timeline for when he’ll nominate someone for the job. Even then, filling the ranks of PCAST might prove especially difficult in the coming months.

Twelve senators sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai and Commissioners Clyburn, O’Rielly, Rosenworcel and Carr on August 31, 2017, expressing concern that the FCC appears ready to decide that mobile broadband could be a substitute, rather than a complement, to fixed broadband service, and that slower-speed mobile service substitutes as effectively. They noted the FCC’s current policy provides that Americans need access to both mobile and fixed broadband services, with speeds of at least 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. They said such substantial shifts in policy require greater consideration and debate, and urged the Commission to grant an extension of 30 days for both the initial and reply comment periods for the Section 706 Advanced Telecommunications Capabilities Report Notice of Inquiry (NOI).

On August 4, 2017, the Commission released the Connect America Fund Phase II (CAF II) Auction Comment Public Notice, seeking comment on detailed proposals for conducting the Phase II reverse auction designated as Auction 903. While many of the pre-auction and bidding procedures and processes proposed for this auction are similar to those used in other Commission auctions, the proposals include some new procedures and processes. To facilitate public input on the proposals, the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force announces that the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus will host a webinar about the proposed auction process on September 11, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET.

The reason why network neutrality is so important—and why this issue remains so fiercely contested—is that it amounts to the free speech principle for the internet. This open access concept is absolutely essential, net neutrality advocates argue, because the entire US economy—and indeed society—is now deeply rooted in internet connectivity. More than that, net neutrality ensures that US democracy will continue to thrive by allowing all voices—even unpopular ones—to be heard. "Net neutrality is what democracy looks like," said Winnie Wong, a veteran political activist involved in Occupy Wall Street, People For Bernie, and the Women's March on Washington. "Without it we can't tell the story of the struggle for social justice. If the government empowers corporate monopolies to dictate how and what we can share online, we'll never be able to advance our vision of racial justice, climate action, and economic equality." With so much at stake, US faith leaders are also getting involved. "An open internet is vital for our organizing efforts here in North Carolina, and around the country," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, a leading national justice organizer and President of Repairers of the Breach.

Facing such strong public opposition to his net neutrality rollback, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai may punt the issue to Congress, which is actually what the nation's largest ISPs want. The broadband industry's real goal, according to many tech policy experts, is to move this battle to the Republican-led US Congress, where deep-pocketed ISPs can lobby to craft internet policy rules that favor themselves. If the ISPs are successful, look for a spirited net neutrality debate this fall featuring Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). This fight is far from over.

How fast is a broadband internet connection?

That question is at the heart of a controversy at the Federal Communications Commission. After a study about connection speeds in the US, the FCC decided that too few people had access to high speed internet. But that conclusion never sat right with the commission's Republicans, who argued that the agency set too high a bar in deciding what counts as broadband. Now that the GOP is in the majority at the agency, the FCC is considering new guidelines for gauging the availability and competitiveness of high speed internet. There's no specific proposal yet, but based on their past statements there's a good chance those same commissioners will vote to lower it. That could affect how much funding is available to expand broadband networks into rural or low income areas.

The issue hasn't received as much attention as the debate over net neutrality, but Roberto Gallardo , a researcher at Purdue University's Center for Regional Development, worries that lower standards would reduce the motivation of broadband providers to expand service into rural communities, which already lag behind urban areas in both speed and availability of high speed internet.

If the FCC decides that rural areas and poor neighborhoods have adequate coverage, future funding for internet infrastructure upgrades could receive short shrift, says Harold Feld, a senior vice president of the digital-rights advocacy group Public Knowledge.

After four months of debate, the Federal Communications Commission is nearly ready to stop accepting feedback on its proposal to kill network neutrality. Final comments are due Wednesday, August 30th, by end-of-day Eastern time. Once the comment period closes, the FCC will review the feedback it received and use it as guidance to revise its proposal, which if passed, would reverse the Title II classification that guaranteed net neutrality just two years ago. The commission is supposed to factor in all of the feedback it received when writing its final draft, so if you do have strong feelings on the matter, it’s worth leaving a comment. And clearly, this proceeding has struck a chord.

There are currently almost 22 million filings on the proposal, setting a dramatic new record at the FCC. The last net neutrality proceeding set the prior FCC comment record at what at the time seemed like a whopping 3.7 million responses.

The technology sector has been on edge, waiting to see if the new administration will make the reforms needed to spur innovation and startup activity, or whether it will make policy changes that end up stifling it. There are a few key areas of tech policy that are top of mind for tech CEOs and other industry participants, including four key issues: Expanding tech talent, intellectual property protection, artificial intelligence and automation, and network neutrality. Current Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is arguing to end internet service providers’ status as common carriers (on par with utilities), and instead “reestablish” market forces in regulating the internet. His view is that this would increase infrastructure investment and innovation among the aging broadband networks. This is not surprising, given President Trump’s view on this as a “top-down power grab,” drawing analogies to the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine.

The Federal Communications Commission and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have established September 27, 2017 as the date for the next nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Like 2016’s test, all EAS participants must file Form 1 a month before the test. The Form 1 has been modified, however, requiring information that was not requested previously. In addition, the FCC’s Emergency Test Reporting System (ETRS) has been revamped so that prior log in codes do not work and the system’s functionality is now unfamiliar to prior users. As a result, while the Form 1 is technically due next Monday, August 28th, anyone who has not yet started the filing process should begin immediately and aim to finish the process this week.

Apparently, the government review of AT&T’s $85 billion takeover of Time Warner has reached an advanced stage, people close to the situation said, a significant milestone in a deal that was closely watched for signs of how the Trump administration would view large mergers.

The deal’s regulatory review has hit a late-stage point where AT&T lawyers are discussing merger conditions with the Justice Department. The review process has reached that point despite a vacant seat atop the department’s antitrust division. An approval could underscore the administration’s pro-business credentials. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump attacked the proposed deal. “AT&T is buying Time Warner, and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” he said. President Trump has since avoided talking publicly about the transaction but frequently complained on Twitter about the way CNN, a unit of Time Warner, has reported on him.