Agenda

[Commentary] The proposed witness list for a September network neutrality hearing at the House Commerce Committee betrays a dismaying ignorance about why net neutrality is an issue.

The committee set the hearing up as something of a clash of titans, inviting the chief executives of the largest broadband providers and the biggest Internet companies, such as Google, Facebook and Netflix. The only thing missing was a steel cage. The point of having net neutrality rules isn’t to protect multibillion-dollar Internet companies. It’s to give other companies a chance to join or topple them. The rapid pace of technological change makes even companies with enormous economies of scale vulnerable to disruption, especially when consumers can easily switch from one shiny online object to the next. Curiously, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and other Republicans have voiced less concern about the prospects of these smaller online businesses — the ones likely to inject a crucial dose of innovation into the 21st century economy — than the ability of giant, consolidating broadband providers to invest in faster, more widely available services. Better broadband connections in rural America, poverty-stricken inner cities and other underserved areas is a most worthy goal. But those connections shouldn’t come at the cost of net neutrality.

If Republican lawmakers don’t like applying decades-old utility-style regulation to broadband providers, they need to work with Democrats to give the commission explicit new authority to protect the open Internet from interference. Otherwise, the fight over how to do that will be always-on too.

By this Order, the Federal Communications Commission extends the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking until August 30, 2017. The Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking set dates for filing comments and reply comments of July 17 and August 16, 2017, respectively. While it is the policy of the Commission that “extensions shall not be routinely granted,” we find that an extension of the reply comment deadline is appropriate in this case in order to allow interested parties to respond to the record in this proceeding. We find that permitting interested parties an additional two weeks in which to file their reply comments will allow parties to provide the Commission with more thorough comments, ensuring that the Commission has a complete record on which to develop its decisions.

Apparently, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is working on a media ownership order that would allow newspaper-broadcast and radio-TV cross-ownership. The item also could remove the prohibition on owning two of the top four-rated stations in a market, and "tweak" the eight-voices test for allowing duopolies (two stations in a market owned by a single entity). Currently newspaper-TV and radio-TV combinations cannot be co-owned in the same market, with the exception of some grandfathered combos. The duopoly restrictions currently prohibit common ownership of two TV stations in a market if it would result in fewer than eight independent outlets, which means no station co-ownership in smaller markets. Reducing the number of independent voices (stations) in a market would expand the number of markets where dual ownership would be allowed.

The item is not expected to deal with the UHF discount or 39 percent national station ownership cap, apparently. While it initially looked like it could be circulated to the other commissioners for a vote at the Sept 28 meeting, that timeline would likely be pushed to at least October.

Republican Reps are seeking to eliminate the Federal Communications Commission’s newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership rule through draft legislation reauthorizing the federal agency. The 1975 rule bars media companies from owning and operating newspapers and TV stations in the same local market. The FCC reauthorization draft bill that was discussed during a House Commerce subcommittee oversight hearing on July 25 includes a section called “elimination of daily newspaper cross-ownership rule.”

Democratic Reps are reportedly largely opposed to eliminating the rule. “Committee Democrats will not support any efforts to eliminate the broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership rule,” a Democratic aide said. “We should not be making it more difficult for independent voices in the media to thrive, especially as the Trump administration continues its misguided attacks on the free press.”

Senate lawmakers are also planning on releasing an FCC reauthorization bill before the end of 2017. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) said after a panel executive session on Aug 2 that FCC reauthorization will be one of the first things that the committee addresses when lawmakers return from the August recess. It is unclear if the committee’s legislation will also include a provision eliminating the media cross-ownership rule as part of the agency’s reauthorization.

At a recent panel convened by the Wireless Future Project at New America, Ellen Satterwhite, of the American Library Association, noted that 40 percent of libraries cannot meet the minimum speed requirements set by the Federal Communications Commission (100Mbs for small libraries and 1Gbs for large ones) because of high costs or lack of access. We need only look at Idaho to get a glimpse of this absurd pricing: One library there pays $1000 per month for 5Mb service, while another pays $650 per month for 40Mb service.

So how can we ramp up connectivity in these areas? One potential solution that has shown promise is fixed wireless internet. This, in a nutshell, involves beaming internet access from a broadcasting tower directly into people’s homes via a small receiver on their roof. These sorts of point to multi-point (P2MP) fixed wireless services are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in Middle America, in part because of the relative ease of deployment and the ability to provide gigabit-level speeds. You might be wondering, then, how we can encourage fixed wireless. At the panel, advocates and industry leaders discussed the possible benefits of expanding, or sharing, wireless spectrum access in the 3.7-4.2GHz band to wireless internet service providers, or WISPs. This would be a boon to rural WISPs like Jeff Kohler’s Rise Broadband. Kohler noted that companies like Rise are starting to “feel the squeeze” on the spectrum they’re currently allowed to operate on. He also noted that the cost per customer is considerably less as well, often being roughly $250 for someone using fixed wireless, where the average rural fiber consumer could be upwards of $1,000. In fact, the overall cost of deploying “wireless fiber” for his company was roughly one-tenth of the price of standard fiber.

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate people's free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the US as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Gov Paul LePage (R-ME) and sent warning letters to Utah's congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump. Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings. "People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and they're hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback," said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. "That includes people who disagree with public officials." Most of the officials targeted so far — all Republicans — say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.

As the number of online comments in the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality proceeding soars to record highs, groups on both sides of the debate are calling on Congress to investigate mounting allegations of fake public input. The latest allegations come from the conservative-leaning National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), which said a whopping 5.8 million pro-net neutrality comments submitted between July 17 and Aug. 4 using the same one sentence appear to be fake. The docket has been plagued for months by charges that many of the comments are duplicates, filed under fake names or submitted without the permission of the people who supposedly signed them. The growing controversy is raising questions about how the comments will be used when the FCC mulls a final order. "It's almost unimaginable how anybody thinks this could do any good," NLPC President Peter Flaherty said.

[Commentary] In a perplexing dance toward consensus, left and right have united to pour vinegar on Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s effort to add Tribune Media’s 42 television stations to the 173 it already owns. You’d think that Sinclair—which hikes on the conservative side of the news by forcing its stations to air commentaries by former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn and other right-tilting segments (“Terror Alert Desk”)—would be cheered by its fellow media ideologues. But no. Newsmax, One America News Network and Glenn Beck’s the Blaze have joined with the lefties from Public Knowledge, Common Cause, Free Press and Media Matters for America to decry the $3.9 billion acquisition. The opposition doesn’t stop there. Such businesses as DISH Network and T-Mobile have decanted their protests, too, demanding that the Federal Communications Commission block the deal, as have broadcast trade associations.

The lefty opposition against Sinclair actually seems to be an argument against media diversity and for media homogeneity. Nowhere on television—not even on Fox-owned stations—is the conservative point of view pursued as aggressively as it is at Sinclair. If rejecting what other journalists are doing and following a unique viewpoint isn't the mark of media diversity, I don't know what is. If the left truly wished death upon Sinclair, it would urge the FCC to change ownership rules so that big broadcasters with different news “philosophies”—ABC (Disney), NBC (Comcast), and CBS—could buy more stations. But the left remains too stitched up in its 1950s thinking about consolidation to advocate that. Might Sinclair’s fight for Tribune’s stations turn out to be a fool’s bargain? For the media diversification reason chronicled above, the conventional television business model has passed its golden years. In 2015, the Bernstein research outfit predicted a “period of prolonged structural decline” for the television industry as viewers continue to defect from ad-supported outlets to on-demand services like Netflix and Hulu. Maybe instead of discouraging Sinclair from making the deal, the company’s foes and competitors should encourage them to close it.

The Federal Communications Commission launched a new inquiry seeking comment on ways to expand opportunities for next-generation services – particularly wireless broadband services – in mid-band spectrum. The NOI seeks comment on three specific mid-range bands (3.7-4.2 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, and 6.425-7.125 GHz), and asks commenters to identify other non-federal mid-band frequencies that may be suitable for expanded flexible use.

The NOI asks for input on, among other things, the following issues:

• How can the Commission best provide for flexible use of these bands to allow the introduction of additional fixed and mobile wireless services?
• How can the Commission protect existing services against harmful interference?
• What are the appropriate authorization mechanisms to maximize efficiency and promote flexible wireless use, including exclusive use, non-exclusive use, and unlicensed use?
• Can service rules governing existing services be modified to make the bands more suitable for wireless use?
• Can existing rules be eliminated to reduce regulatory burdens and maximize efficient use?

Often sparring partners, the wireless industry and public interest advocates both came out in support of the AIRWAVES Act — but with very different hopes for where the legislation would lead.

The bill instructs the Federal Communications Commission to auction off the government-controlled spectrum of radio frequencies used for wireless communication, with the first auction to be held by next December. The bill would allow some spectrum for exclusive, or “licensed” use, as well as some for shared, or “unlicensed” use. Public interest advocates have pushed the FCC to give more access to unlicensed users by allowing them to share spectrum with private companies who get exclusive rights to certain bands. Those with licenses argue sharing can interfere with their signals. The AIRWAVES bill, which stands for Advancing Innovation and Reinvigorating Widespread Access to Viable Electromagnetic Spectrum, leaves the matter up to the FCC.