Agenda

[Commentary] I’ve got bad news for everyone who is working overtime to protest Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s campaign to eliminate net neutrality: You are being tricked. Pai is running a kind of shell game, overreaching (“go ahead and run all the paid prioritization services you want, Comcast!”) so that we will focus our energies on the hard-to-pin-down concept of net neutrality—the principle of internet access fairness that he has vowed to eliminate.

Defenders of the Federal Communications Commission's current Open Internet rules are plotting out a legal challenge to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to repeal them. This would be the latest in a series of court battles over FCC net neutrality authority. Several groups including Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla and the Computer & Communications Industry Association expressed interest in a legal challenge, which may consume much of 2018.

[Commentary] The Republican majority at the Federal Communications Commission will soon repeal net neutrality. What does this mean in practice? In a sentence: slower and more expensive internet service. To democratize the internet, we need to do more than force private ISPs to abide by certain rules. We need to turn those ISPs into publicly owned utilities. We need to take internet service off the market, and transform it from a consumer good into a social right. Access to the internet is a necessity.

Reversing the 2015 [Title II] decision—this massive regulatory overreach—has my full support.

Much has been said and written over the course of the last week about the plan to restore Internet freedom. But much of the discussion has brought more heat than light. I’d like to cut through the hysteria and hot air and speak with you in plain terms about the plan. First, I’ll explain what it will do. Second, I’ll discuss why I’m advancing it. And third, I’ll respond to the main criticisms that have been leveled against it.

[Commentary] What the rollback of net neutrality rules actually mean for the US Internet ecosystem over the next several years? 1. Blatant Discrimination Against Particular Services Is Not That Likely; 2. Blatant Favoritism Of Particular Services Is Quite Likely; and 3. Different Tiers Of Services Based On Ability To Pay Is Overwhelmingly Likely. The result will not be blatant discrimination and censorship of the Internet (which most Americans will not tolerate). Nope.

Ensuring that we have the skilled workforce in place to deploy, maintain, and upgrade our nation’s communications infrastructure is one of the keys to ensuring that all Americans have access to advanced broadband networks. Importantly, the shift to 5G will require an enormous investment in both wired and wireless infrastructure. In fact, this transition could result in $275 billion in network investment, three million new jobs, and half a trillion dollars added to the GDP.  

[Commentary] No one should be surprised by the Justice Department’s attempt to block AT&T’s $85 billion bid to acquire Time Warner.