Upcoming policy issue

The Benton Foundation unequivocally opposes any proposals from the Federal Communications Commission that would allow the FCC to shirk its responsibilities to meet its Congressionally-mandated mission. The FCC is supposed to ensure:

The Coalition for Local Internet Choice and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors asked for my view of the Federal Communications Commission’s pending order, proposing to cap the fees that state and local governments may charge for small-cell attachments. According to the FCC’s draft order, these price‐caps will save the industry $2 billion in costs to operate in metropolitan areas—which will translate into $2.5 billion in new wireless investment, primarily in rural areas. Here are my concerns:

In my previous post, I highlighted four reasons why the U.S needs a unified policy framework for an open Internet ecosystem: 1) lack of competition/incentive and the ability to discriminate; 2) collection of and control over personal data; 3) lack of transparency; and 4) inadequacy of current laws and enforcement. Many of these problems can be addressed with targeted legislative and regulatory interventions.

[Analysis] In a new article for the Georgetown Law Technology Review, I seek to jumpstart a conversation about how to shape an Internet ecosystem that will serve the public interest. First, let me lay out the rationale for a new, unified policy framework for an open Internet: 1) Lack of Competition/Incentive and Ability to Discriminate, 2) Collection of and Control over Personal Data, 3) Lack of Transparency, and 4) Inadequacy of Current Laws and Enforcement.

Based on a thorough review of the record, I have serious concerns about the Sinclair/Tribune transaction. The evidence we’ve received suggests that certain station divestitures that have been proposed to the FCC would allow Sinclair to control those stations in practice, even if not in name, in violation of the law. When the FCC confronts disputed issues like these, the Communications Act does not allow it to approve a transaction. Instead, the law requires the FCC to designate the transaction for a hearing in order to get to the bottom of those disputed issues.

Aldo Soledad relies on his phone's data plan to take care of his internet needs. When it comes to living without home internet, he isn't alone. Millions of Americans are without broadband, either because of a lack of access or because they can't afford it.

Connecticut has been building its digital infrastructure to get more households online. Those efforts rely on federal funding to help the state address these gaps, particularly in places with limited access to affordable high-speed internet. But a federal program reducing monthly internet bills and providing device subsidies for lower-income households will sunset at the end of April if Congress does not renew funding.

The projected end of the federal government's ACP (Affordable Connectivity Program) will leave many low–income households looking for affordable internet options. Nearly 23 million people nationwide rely on the $30 subsidy ($75 for tribal land) to defray the cost of internet service or secure internet service for free.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said, "Broadband is now an essential service. Essential services, the ones we count on in every aspect of modern life, have some basic oversight. So let's be clear about what we are doing today. This agency, the nation's leading communications authority, believes every consumer deserves Internet access that is fast, open and fair.

On April 25, the Federal Communications Commission will vote to reinstate the net neutrality rules and resume real regulatory oversight over broadband. It is critical that the text of this reinstated regulatory framework does not inadvertently undermine its own objectives in regards to broadband affordability.