Gov performance

[Commentary] No matter how valuable the Lifeline program is in theory, it’s wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. It allows the telecommunications carriers who profit from the program to verify eligibility for their participants — and too many are turning a blind eye. Lifeline was poorly structured and badly executed from the start. The goal of providing low-income Americans help regaining their economic footing with phone and broadband service is worthwhile and admirable — but that doesn’t mean that any plan doing that is worthy of unequivocal support.

Sidestepping the problems in this terribly run program is a disservice to all participants as well as those footing the bill, and will endanger the program’s existence if we allow it to continue. I’ll remain engaged on this issue and committed to serious changes. In the meantime, I encourage my party, as well as my friends from across the aisle, to join me in pushing for oversight and accountability regardless of its political convenience.

What is unsettling is that many of the changes we are currently making at the Federal Communications Commission have a one-sided benefit, and the impact on consumers, competition, and the public interest are mere afterthoughts. The FCC is a regulatory agency, with a charge that requires us to protect the public interest. This means we should strike and maintain the proper balance, when it comes to consumer and industry interests. Yet, when it comes to the future of our media landscape, the FCC majority is embarking on a path, toward a regulatory-free zone....

In just about every other context and every other Universal Service program, we have acted with haste, to remove existing barriers to entry. But when it comes to the Lifeline program, that provides millions the chance to maintain a dial tone or should be providing millions more the opportunity to afford broadband at home, we erect insurmountable barriers to entry for Lifeline providers wishing to do business.

[Commentary] By their silence, the Republicans at the Federal Communications Commission have joined in the president’s strategy to get into the head of every television station news editor and station manager in the country. If, because the FCC failed to make clear that the government can’t bully them, even one broadcaster thinks twice about a story and its effect on their license, then the Constitution has been abridged and the FCC is complicit.

By their inaction, the Republican FCC commissioners have already violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. That sacred document is clear: The government is not to suppress ideas and opinion. There is no ambiguity in the First Amendment. The commissioners owe it to the American public and the Constitution they swore to uphold to issue an immediate and clear statement that speech is a protected right, and that it has no role in the matter of broadcast licenses. While they’re at it, they should also issue an apology to the citizens of the United States that they took over two days to get around to telling America the truth.

[Tom Wheeler is the former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 2013-2017].

The House Communications Subcommittee plans to hold a Federal Communication Commission oversight hearing Oct 25. Democratic members of the committee on Oct. 12 called for a hearing at which the commissioners would pledge not to target news outlets over their coverage of the Administration—as President Donald Trump has urged—but a source said it was a routing hearing that had been in the works for several weeks as they tried to work out availabilities. The subcommittee postponed an earlier FCC oversight hearing, and this week referred a bill reauthorizing the agency and to the full committee with work still to do on it. Invites have gone out to all the commissioners and they have until noon Oct 13 to respond.

I will begin by suggesting that in order to properly determine and comment on the larger issue of how the world’s telecommunication regulators are adapting to the changing environment and technological explosion, it is critical to first recognize the differing levels of legal authority that respective governments bestow upon each regulatory agency. In other words, regulators can only regulate when they are authorized to do so.

In the United States, which has seen monumental technological advancements as the result of convergence and digitalization, we constantly struggle with these lines of authority. To act outside our bounds – however meritorious it may seem – can be harmful. It increases uncertainty and can paralyze entire industry segments for months or years with legal challenges and/or legislative responses, thereby depriving consumers of valuable services and opportunities in the meantime. This isn’t just my opinion, as there are numerous examples of Commission actions to highlight this.

As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, I have a special interest in the progress that was made in communications and technology policy during the Reagan Administration. It was an executive order signed by President Reagan that first made the Pentagon’s Global Positioning (GPS) system available for civilian use. FCC Chairmen who served during the Reagan Administration were incredible leaders and visionaries. Mark Fowler and Dennis Patrick each did a fantastic job leading the agency. They moved aggressively to eliminate unnecessary rules and implement President Reagan’s deregulatory philosophy. They set a high bar for those who came after them—and I strive for that bar every day.

The Reagan FCC eliminated the so-called Fairness Doctrine. This misnamed government dictate suppressed the discussion of controversial issues on our nation’s airwaves and was an affront to the First Amendment. The Reagan FCC also built the political foundation for auctioning licenses to spectrum—a free-market innovation blasted back then and widely accepted today. The Reagan FCC introduced “price cap” regulation, reducing government’s role in micromanaging profits and increasing consumer welfare. And the Reagan FCC set the stage for much of the innovation that we see today. In 1985, for example, it had the foresight to set aside what were generally thought to be “junk” airwaves for anybody to use—what we call “unlicensed” spectrum. And entrepreneurs put it to work. Thanks to the FCC’s vision, we now use unlicensed services every day, every time we access Wi-Fi or use Bluetooth or check a baby monitor. Consider this 1985 quote from Mark Fowler, President Reagan’s first FCC Chairman—a quote that applies today: “We want to eliminate, as much as we can, government regulation of the telecommunications marketplace so as to permit present players to provide new and innovative services to consumers and likewise permit new players to come in and compete.” That’s basically our approach today.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump was accused by a Republican senator of running the White House like a “reality show.” In the 48 hours that followed, this is how the president rebutted the characterization. He called out the offending senator for being short and sounding like “a fool.” He challenged his secretary of state to an I.Q. contest and insisted he would win. He celebrated the downfall of a critic who was suspended from her job. And his first wife and third wife waged a public war of words over who was really his first lady.

President Trump’s West Wing has always seemed to be the crossroads between cutthroat politics and television drama, presided over by a seasoned showman who has made a career of keeping the audience engaged and coming back for more. Obsessed by ratings and always on the hunt for new story lines, President Trump leaves the characters on edge, none of them ever really certain whether they might soon be voted off the island.

It is a pleasure to be here with my fellow regulators to discuss the amazing benefits and challenges presented by the new digital age. My goal today is to provide a picture of how this complex subject is being considered within the United States and what that may mean for my international counterparts.
Please forgive me for having the task of reminding everyone that I do not speak for the Trump Administration or the Federal Communications Commission as a whole. My views are just my own.

The FCC’s regulatory speed – and I am sure this isn’t a US specific issue – quite candidly cannot keep up with technological change or the demands of consumers. Simply put, our rather drawn-out pace is not well suited for the dynamic digital age. For this reason, I maintain that we must be very hesitant to regulate new, disruptive technologies. Instead, the presence of these innovative technologies should lead to reduced regulation of our traditional, more heavily regulated sectors.

Americans are increasingly confident in the news media and less so in President Donald Trump’s administration after a tumultuous year in US politics that tested the public’s trust in both institutions, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released Oct 3. The poll of more than 14,300 people found that the percentage of adults who said they had a “great deal” or “some” confidence in the press rose to 48 percent in September from 39 percent last November. Earlier in 2017, President Trump branded the entire industry as the “enemy of the American people.”

The percentage of those who said they had “hardly any” confidence in the press dropped to 45 percent from 51 percent over the same period. Confidence in Trump’s administration moved in the opposite direction. Reuters/Ipsos, which tracked confidence in major institutions every couple of months after the 2016 presidential election, found in late January that 52 percent of Americans had a “great deal” or “some” confidence in the new president’s executive branch. That dropped to 51 percent in the May survey and to 48 percent in the latest poll. Trump took office in January. In comparison, 57 percent of Americans expressed similar levels of confidence in former Democratic President Barack Obama’s outgoing administration in November.

[Commentary] The greatest concern today for our communications industry might simply be this: Are we prepared to learn from history? Do we want to break the pattern of the past and disrupt the political bargains of yesterday that have lessened free speech (for example, the fairness doctrine) and shielded incumbents from competitive entry (for example, the long-standing power of television broadcasters)? If so, the answer is to stop the intrusive government control that favors some companies over others. It is time to stop “mother may I” regulations.
[Babette Boliek is an associate professor of law and the associate dean of Faculty Research and Development at Pepperdine University School of Law]