Upcoming policy issue

Senate Republicans are trying to lock down a time for a roll call vote for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s reconfirmation.

“I want to get it done as soon as we can,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD). “I don’t want to push this to the end of the year. I think the [Senate Majority] leader shares that view.” He didn’t rule out a September vote, saying it depends on “how quickly we’re able to dispose of some of the things we have to deal with that are immediate to see if there’s a window there to do it.” Without a vote, Chairman Pai would have to leave the commission at the end of 2017. Chairman Pai likely has all the GOP votes he needs, but Democrats “are going to make it difficult,” Chairman Thune predicted. “They wanted to drag this out or they would have let him go [by voice vote] before the August break when we approved the other package of [nominees]. They intend, I think at least, to use some time to talk about it.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), a frequent Pai critic, said he welcomes the chance: “It’s definitely an opportunity to talk about those issues, and I intend to pursue them.”

One priority for Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) is reauthorizing the Federal Communications Commission, which hasn’t happened since 1990.

His bipartisan bill to do so stalled on the Senate floor last Congress, and while he’s said he wants to revive the effort, don’t expect action for months. “That probably doesn’t happen this year,” said Chairman Thune citing plenty of other priorities to tackle first. What could go into the eventual package? Chairman Thune mentioned that “transparency and accountability” provisions and some pieces of his FCC Process Reform Act might make it in, although he said some parts are “too controversial and wouldn’t be included” this time around. He’s also in no rush to craft legislation overhauling the FCC’s Lifeline program, but “if there’s an FCC reauthorization, that might be the window to do that.”

The House Commerce Committee had mentioned FCC reauthorization as a priority for September. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), ranking Democrat on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said he hadn't heard anything on that front. "We've got a lot to do and not much time," he said.

Federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense (DoD), don’t face normal marketplace pressures to economize their use of spectrum. While the potential societal gains of reallocating federal spectrum for commercial use are likely in the hundreds of billions of dollars, attempts at addressing this problem have met many roadblocks. Today, I’m offering another idea for consideration: the option of allowing agencies to free up some of their spectrum holdings in exchange for budgetary relief. While I still believe the imposition of Agency Spectrum Fees is the best course of action, this new proposal represents a compromise between differing carrot and stick approaches. And it is particularly timely today, as many of these federal agencies face increasing budgetary pressure. I suggest that federal agencies be permitted to use their spectrum holdings to offset the annual budgetary caps and sub caps. This would mean that, in achieving its respective budget limits, a federal agency could substitute the market value – as determined by an average of Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimates – of their surrendered spectrum to offset other cuts or even expand its spending options. It amounts to a spectrum-for-cash swap.

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.

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.

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.

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.