A quick thought on stablecoin, Facebook nation, and government pushback

Just had a thought on creating a digital nation and admittedly I am still just fleshing out the idea so bear with me.

Crypto currencies still have a chance at succeeding, but the issue commenters and the public continue to overlook is that as currencies, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, and whatever the hell else is out there have no underlying political economies to support them. Currency valuations transmit to the world the value and/or level of economic output a nation has. Bitcoin, for example, is not a nation’s currency. If it were, it would give Zaire’s currency volatility a run for the money. With the advent of stablecoin, particularly Facebook’s expected issue of the digital coin in 2019, we could see the beginning of a truly digital political economy.

Stablecoin is defined as a cryptocurrency pegged to some reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or another crypto currency such as Ethereum. No matter the model, the goal is to provide users with some stability in the coin’s exchange price. Consumers and investors may like the convenience of not having to check Bitcoin’s price every time they want to buy a cup of coffee or make a currency exchange. Stablecoins, at least in theory, helps to avoid all that.

Facebook will reportedly first play in India’s remittance market. As we descendants of the Commonwealth are all to familiar with, the remittance process can be emotionally taxing when the lack of necessary middlemen are not in place to get money to our relatives in Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean.

The blockchain technology platform that Facebook’s stablecoin will use is expected to provide the transparency and peer-to-peer capabilities that ensure that monies are sent and received under a system of trust, verification, and lack of intermediaries.

But I can see Facebook and even Amazon going beyond playing a relatively minor role in a country’s payment system. Not only could Facebook or Amazon issue digital currencies in the next ten years, they could and should go all out in developing their own digital nations.

Facebook could finally add some meat to his currently weak mission of “connecting the world” by leveraging every business and consumer in his network to engage with each other commercially by using his stablecoin. Consumers subscribing to Facebook or Amazon could be assessed annual membership fees or be charged a “tax” substantially less than the average state or local sales tax in exchange for exclusive access to every merchant listed on either platform with the medium of exchange being a stablecoin.

As one of the largest companies in the world with a 2.5 billion people user base, Facebook, via commercial exchange on its platform, can generate the value necessary for traders in currency to express enough faith in the currency to trade in it drive up its value. Unlike current crypto currencies, a “Facecoin” could exhibit more organic and trustworthy movement because it would be backed by a company large enough to be a national economy.

As for local, state, and federal governments, they could be left a few decades from now with nothing left to regulate and tax but physical infrastructure. Would government be understanding and wish more and more taxpayers a fare thee well, or would government act like the pharaoh in the Old Testament, chasing the people with its tax chariots.

The ensuing issue may be the legal relationship between the old State and the new Digital State that online platforms like Facebook and Amazon will hopefully morph into and how best to treat citizens who have to spend time in both worlds.

Advertisements

A misinterpreted federalism narrative fuels more misinterpretation of net neutrality

A number of state legislatures are ramping up for their legislative sessions where they will pass bills addressing various matters from funding their governments to other state government operational issues to civil rights to fighting crime. I have been giving some thought to the sovereignty of states, to these so-called laboratories of democracy and I am starting to question just how sovereign states are? As I read between the four corners of the U.S. Constitution, I am at a point where I don’t believe states were meant to be sovereign. Instead, states are merely administrative lordships existing to better manage the population, manage the extraction of resources, and convert citizens into tax coin. The U.S. Constitution makes clear that the extent of their powers is set by the federal government, not the other way around, and the regulations of state powers, in my mind, eliminates any claims to sovereignty.

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is usually referred to when describing the extent of state sovereignty. It reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment reads like a “shifting screen”, where the federal government via legislation passed by the Congress or changes in how the administrative states interprets its rules, can determine the amount of power it will either delegate or take back. We have seen over the last 85 years how the federal government has used the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause to support laws and extend regulations into social and commercial relationships that on the surface seem confined to a particular state, bakery, or bedroom. With changes in presidential administrations or U.S. Supreme Court membership, we also expect to see changes in this shifting screen as public policy, regulations, or court rulings redefine federal and state powers.

Besides, how sovereign can a state be if, as spelled out in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, it is not allowed to enter into any treaties or alliances with other national governments? How sovereign can a state be if it cannot mint and issue its own coin? How sovereign can a state be if it cannot, without the consent of Congress, assess duties on imports and exports? How sovereign can a state be if it cannot even maintain troops and ships in time of peace?

In the net neutrality debate where a number of states, either through legislation or executive orders issued by their governors, states have made the assumption that promoting how an advanced communications network is to be managed is a power reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution. The internet, as an advanced communications network, is a platform responsible for moving an increased amount of commerce across state and international borders. As a channel for commerce, its regulation falls under the jurisdiction of the Congress, as determined by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. This alone, in my opinion, invalidates any attempts on the part of the states to use the net neutrality narrative to regulate the internet.

I would go one step further. Net neutrality is a management philosophy stemming from the business judgment of network managers and designers. It would not benefit a network manager to provide the public access to an interconnected global network of computers if that manager blocked its subscriber’s access to certain websites.

Nor would it make good business sense to degrade a subscriber’s experience by slowing down the speed of traffic from a subscriber’s chosen content provider. And given the level of competition between network providers, being transparent about prices and charges that a network manager’s subscribers face not only increases the level of faith subscribers have in a network, but also gives the network manager an edge over other competitors. She would be seen as being considerate to her subscriber’s consumer protection interest, a position a network manager can ill afford to ignore in these days of privacy violations.

Because of the interstate nature of the internet, the responsibility lies with the federal government to ensure the above net neutrality principles are met. State governments, as administrative lords over certain populations and territory, should focus on aligning their state advanced communications policy with national policy, including properly administering any national funds allocated for encouraging the deployment of advanced communications. To interpret “state sovereignty” as permission to go one’s way would disrupt the interstate nature of commerce and its regulation by a central government.

Rather than regurgitating the standard rhetoric of “states’ rights”, policymakers need to take a fresh look at federalism and adjust its meaning to the proper interpretation under the four corners of the Constitution.

There is nothing progressive about opposing zero-rated broadband service

When liberal organizations attacked zero-rated broadband access services offered by internet service providers, they may have lost some of their progressive bona fides.  Fortunately for them the 2016 general elections and the 2018 midterm elections did not make net neutrality in particular or broadband access in general a battleground issue.

Here in Georgia, broadband got nary a mention during the gubernatorial debates with both candidates, former Georgia state senator Stacey Abrams and Governor-elect Brian Kemp giving the nod to increasing consumer access to broadband services, especially for citizens living in rural areas.

I sense that Mr Kemp would have no problem with mobile wireless providers targeting rural consumers with their zero-rating plans.  Under zero rating, a wireless provider may choose not to apply data usage caps where a subscriber is accessing particular content, whether the content is provided by a third-party of by the wireless carrier itself.  For example, Verizon may decide not to reduce the amount of data available to me by the amount of time I choose to view a video on Facebook or on one of Verizon’s media properties.  In other words, my data cap would not take a hit.

I can see two primary benefits from such a non-pricing plan. First, for new subscribers being introduced to mobile web service, it provides the consumer with incentive to become familiar with more sources of content and services.  Second, the value of the carrier’s network increases as demand for its content and services increase.  While overall costs of operating the network may go up as more subscribers establish accounts, cost per subscriber should fall providing incentive for keep the price each subscriber pays flat.

Especially given the second benefit, the incentive to keep subscriber rates flat, I would think that progressives would promote zero rate pricing for broadband.  Progressives tend to position themselves as protectors of the middle class and if there is an issue that progressives should empathize with when it comes to the middle class are the increases in consumer prices the middle class encounters given wages that have been flat for decades.  One would also think that as the U.S. economy and educational system requires workers, producers, and students to have access to data via the internet that progressives would encourage consumers to jump on the opportunity to get on the internet at a lower cost.  Instead opponents of zero rating have been emphasizing the alleged negative impact zero rating has on competition between content providers.

For example, the Electronic Freedom Frontier, an internet freedom advocacy group, is concerned that zero rating will divert consumer eyeballs to large content providers such as Facebook that can afford to subsidize a broadband access provider’s lost revenue in exchange for more traffic being sent to the large content provider.  That the consumer may be incentivized to probe content or spend more time on broadband networks is of very little concern to EFF.  The potential threat to market entry by smaller or newer players appears to be more of their concern.

Given this stance by EFF, it is no wonder that the zero rating narrative, while bantered about inside the Washington, DC beltway, has no traction with the general public.  Politically it is a non-starter with a general public made up of consumers that are more concerned with getting bang for their dollars versus whether a content provider has the innovative or content creative capabilities to enter the content market.

For progressives, zero rating is another example of how the Left has strayed away from matters that mean the most to most Americans.

 

Atlanta should avoid the net neutrality debate. It’s not good for business

Internet Innovation Alliance co-founder Bruce Mehlman posted an article yesterday discussing the positive impact relaxed regulatory requirements can have on investment in and deployment of broadband networks. According to Mr. Mehlman, investment in broadband rose by $1.5 billion to $76.3 billion.  He contrasts this to the $3.2 billion decline in investment between 2015 and 2016.

What made the difference? According to Mr. Mehlman it was the decision last year by the Federal Communications Commission to repeal their 2015 open internet order, a decision that put into regulatory code a number of net neutrality principles.  The 2015 order treated broadband access providers as telephone companies by applying consumer and telephone network management rules that were based on communications law from the 1930s.  That approach, according to Mr. Mehlman, just can’t fly in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, Washington has been embroiled in a debate over how net neutrality principles should be applied.  There is a consensus among opponents to and proponents of net neutrality principles that consumers should be able to access web content of their choice; that content providers should not have their traffic speeds throttled by broadband access providers; and that broadband access providers should be transparent about the terms and conditions of their services.  Whether a rule by a regulatory agency is the best approach to ensuring these policy goals is an issue.

Getting to yes on net neutrality may be best brought about by an action of Congress.  Defining net neutrality in the law and laying out the components of its meaning will give content providers and broadband access providers definitive guideposts that help settle any conflicts in the future.  Without a congressional action, the industry and consumers run the risk of a back and forth regulatory battle driven by changes in political power, particularly when a new presidential administration takes over and a new chairman is appointed.  That type of uncertainty every four years is not good for consumers or business.

As more people and businesses move to Atlanta, regulatory certainty becomes an asset for the person who telecommutes; for the financial technology company that needs to maintain connection to its app subscribers; to the student who relies on distance learning to complete assignments.

Treating a broadband provider facing competition from three or four more broadband providers as if they were a monopoly local telephone company in 1934 won’t contribute to Atlanta’s continued growth.

Don’t expect a Trump-Democratic love fest over the AT&T-Time Warner merger

Last July, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal of a U.S. District Court-District of the District of Columbia finding that AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner Media would not hurt competition. The Justice Department, according to The Hill, believes the acquisition would harm competition where AT&T might not provide access to its newly acquired content by other competing content providers or video delivery networks.

Democrats today hinted that once they take-over the U.S. House, they would investigate the Trump administration’s opposition to the merger. Since the campaign for the presidency in 2016, Mr. Trump has verbalized his concern that a merger between the telecommunications giant and the media giant would be a bad thing because of the size of the new entity. In addition, Mr. Trump has expressed no love for CNN, the cable news network that would be one of the crown jewels on AT&T’s new portfolio.

As if any one needed a reminder of the no love lost between the Trump administration and the Atlanta-based news organization, one needed look no further than the spat between CNN’s Jim Acosta and President Trump during a press conference last week. Mr. Trump had no problem suspending Mr. Acosta’s access to the White House.

Congressional Democrats have attacked the merger from the net neutrality angle. Democrats such as Senator Ed Markey have come out against the merger in part due to antitrust and consumer protection reasons. According to Senator Markey, telecommunications policy should ensure that, ” … those with the best ideas, not simply the best access, can share their content with the world.”

But given that net neutrality was not at the top of voters’ holiday shopping list last week, I don’t expect Democrats to approach the Trump administration with anything that looks like a temporary truce. According to analysisanalysis by Gizmodo, a sweep of 1,180 campaign websites saw very few office seekers trumpeting the call for a free and open internet. Real household issues, such as healthcare and the economy, were on the top of family priorities.

I’ve read analysis where it is expected that outgoing Republicans licking their wounds from their 2018 defeat will vote to approve the resolution that passed last May in the U.S. Senate to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom order. This order, passed in 2017 by the Commission, repealed a 2015 Commission order that implemented net neutrality rules. The argument is that outgoing GOP congressmen who probably leaned toward the open internet philosophy would want to appease their former constituents by supporting net neutrality rules. I don’t see that happening.

I expect that outgoing Republicans will pay attention to whatever housekeeping matters are on the agenda, including tomorrow’s testimony by Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell before the House financial services committee. Besides, why would a GOP former congressman want to relieve themselves of their conservative bona fides so early after an election. You just don’t relieve yourself so quickly of political capital that you will need for any future political endeavors.

Government’s role in regulating access to personal data

Yuval Noah Harari recent wrote an article for The Atlantic where he posed the question, “How do you regulate the ownership of data?” Professor Harari argues in the article that data is the most important asset today, moving ahead of land and machinery.  “Politics will be a struggle to control the data’s flow”, says Professor Harari.

Last spring saw the United States Congress’ struggle to at least map out a course through the turbulent waters of data privacy as members of the House of Representatives and Senate took the opportunity to grill Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about his company’s handling of personal data obtained from the social media giant by a consultancy.

Part of this struggle may be due in part to the popularity of social media network platforms. Facebook has climbed from a digital bulletin board developed in the early 2000s in an Ivy League college dorm room to a global subscribership of over two billion people.  Former president Barack Obama’s Twitter following is in the millions while the current president, Donald Trump, is not shy or slow to taking to Twitter to either connect with and inform his base of supporters or attack the traditional media for what he perceives as unfair coverage of his administration.

Professor Harari notes that users of social media network platforms have not reached the point where they are ready to stop feeding the “attention merchants.”  Speaking on the difficulty subscribers may have in exchanging personal data for “free” services, Professor Harari points out that:

“But it, later on, ordinary people decide to block the flow of data, they are likely to have trouble doing so, especially as they may have come to rely on the network to help them make decisions, and even for their health and physical survival.”

Professor Harari offered up one solution, nationalization of data, to stem the abuses that corporations may impart on addicted social media and internet consumers, but admits that just because an asset is in the hands of government doesn’t mean things will necessarily go well.  Hence the question, how should the ownership of data be regulated?

The question will require public policymakers and politicians go through the exercise of defining “personal data.”  Would personal data be any characteristic about you? Would it be about any marker, no matter how temporary or permanent, that can be attached to you?  Must the “data” be something that the consumer actually produced?

Politically, attention merchants would want a narrow reading of the definition of personal data.  A narrower reading of personal data means being able to obtain more information pursuant to fewer restrictions. While this outcome would be ideal for corporate entities in the business of brokering data, I don’t see Republicans, even with their mantra of promoting business, enthusiastically endorsing less restrictive collection of personal data given the public’s concern for privacy.

Net neutrality challenges the affordability of information

Last weekend, the State of California upped the ante in the net neutrality debate when Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 822, a bill that put into California law net neutrality requirements that were contained in the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order, a set of rules that were later repealed by the FCC in its 2017 Restore Internet Freedom Order.  Section 3101(a) and Section 3101(b) of SB 822 provide the core element of the legislation and reads as follows:

“3101. (a) It shall be unlawful for a fixed Internet service provider, insofar as the provider is engaged in providing fixed broadband Internet access service, to engage in any of the following activities:
(1) Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
(2) Impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
(3) Requiring consideration, monetary or otherwise, from an edge provider, including, but not limited to, in exchange for any of the following:
(A) Delivering Internet traffic to, and carrying Internet traffic from, the Internet service provider’s end users.
(B) Avoiding having the edge provider’s content, application, service, or nonharmful device blocked from reaching the Internet service provider’s end users.
(C) Avoiding having the edge provider’s content, application, service, or nonharmful device impaired or degraded.
(4) Engaging in paid prioritization.
(5) Engaging in zero-rating in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party.
(6) Zero-rating some Internet content, applications, services, or devices in a category of Internet content, applications, services, or devices, but not the entire category.
(7) (A) Unreasonably interfering with, or unreasonably disadvantaging, either an end user’s ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the end user’s choice, or an edge provider’s ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be a violation of this paragraph.
(B) Zero-rating Internet traffic in application-agnostic ways shall not be a violation of subparagraph (A) provided that no consideration, monetary or otherwise, is provided by any third party in exchange for the Internet service provider’s decision whether to zero-rate traffic.
(8) Failing to publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of those services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.
(9) Engaging in practices, including, but not limited to, agreements, with respect to, related to, or in connection with, ISP traffic exchange that have the purpose or effect of evading the prohibitions contained in this section and Section 3102. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit Internet service providers from entering into ISP traffic exchange agreements that do not evade the prohibitions contained in this section and Section 3102.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a mobile Internet service provider, insofar as the provider is engaged in providing mobile broadband Internet access service, to engage in any of the activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of subdivision (a).”

Political actors that favor the FCC’s implementation of net neutrality rules have managed in the past to endear their position to the public by describing efforts opposing the rules as a barrier to freedom of expression.  Net neutrality rules proponents argue that internet service providers have a financial incentive to use their positions as gateways to internet access to favor their content over that of edge providers.  Favoring ISP content may take the form of throttling data coming from a favored website or blocking a consumer’s access to their favorite website.

Net neutrality rules proponents would also argue that even if their access to a website was not blocked or data from their favorite website not slowed down, the receipt by an ISP of compensation in exchange for giving an edge provider higher priority of their traffic may mean that smaller content providers are put at a disadvantage compared to larger content providers with deeper pockets.

Opponents of putting net neutrality into an agency rule would agree that the principles of net neutrality should be adhered to.  However, as network operators, ISPs argue that they cannot afford to devalue their networks by frustrating consumer access to internet content.  The internet has grown in use and popularity as a result of the “network effect” where as more consumers use the internet, the demand for and supply of content and other services increases thus increasing the value of an operator’s network.  In the end, blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content would only work against the network operator.

Often overlooked in the net neutrality debate is the global nature of the internet.  Facebook users, for example, take for granted that most of the social network’s subscribers are not located in the United States and that we all access a network of interconnected computers located in multiple countries. The traffic you receive can come from a number of jurisdictions before landing on your computer.

Ironically, California leads the way in North America when it comes to internet traffic density.  According to data from Akami, California accounts for 5.1% of traffic flows in North America.  Statista.com reports that internet traffic in North America amounts to  1,411,021 terabytes a month. This means that California’s approximate share is 71,962 terabytes a month.

And the amount of internet traffic flowing is expected to continue increasing.  According to findings by Cisco, internet traffic is expected to increase by 278 exabytes a month by 2021.  As gateways for internet traffic, ISPs concerned about managing congested networks may want to employ a time honored method of congestion management: price, and this method of determining where resources flow is what is really being kept in check by SB 822.

SB 822 prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for the handing off of edge provider traffic.  It is ironic that proponents of these rules on the one hand support the notion of regulating broadband providers like telephone companies, but prohibit the very practice telephone companies have used to recover a portion of their network costs. As internet traffic increases along with the costs for delivering traffic, would proponents prefer ISPs increase the prices the end use consumer pays while providing edge providers with free content? If this is the case, then net neutrality proponents in California, many of whom are unwittingly support keeping edge provider costs low, may find accessing information on the internet less affordable.

 

State resources either Abrams or Kemp can use to drive rural broadband in Georgia.

At first blush, the stances of the two candidates for Georgia on the issue of broadband deployment are pretty much standard fare.  Citing her responses to a questionnaire by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce Democratic Party candidate Stacey Abrams describes broadband an essential business service.  To boost the economy of rural Georgia, Ms. Abrams mentions her support for the Georgia Department of Transportation’s efforts to expand broadband along the state’s rights-of-way.

Ms. Abrams is referring to the Georgia Department of Transportation’s Georgia Interstate and Wireless Broadband Deployment P3 Project.  The primary goal of GDOT’s broadband project is statewide expansion of GDOT’s NaviGAtor traffic management system.  GDOT considers NaviGAtor as a first step toward bringing broadband to more of the state’s citizens.  GDOT states that by recycling its assets i.e. state rights-of-way, GDOT can accomplish the mission without any additional tax revenues. Once private partners are on board, the project is slated to take 25 years to design construct, and deploy the fiber optic cable and small cell network along 1,300 miles of state rights-of-way.

Republican Party candidate Brian Kemp echoes Ms. Abrams sentiments about broadband being a game changer for rural Georgia.  While not citing GDOT’s NaviGAtor, Mr. Kemp cites similar benefits offered by the state’s program including eliminating fees for use of state rights-of-way; exploring tax incentives for tech companies and entrepreneurs  committed to expanding high-speed internet access in rural Georgia, and incentivizing public/private partnerships with the use of low interest loans.

Rural broadband deployment has moved further to the front of the national policy agenda line.  Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai, himself a native of rural Kansas, has been touting closing the rural digital divide since joining the FCC.

Georgia, according to the website BroadbandNow, is America’s 20th most connected state, but has some work to do when it comes to increasing the availability of alternatives for 1.4 million residents who have access to only one wired provider. Approximately 870,000 Georgia residents do not have access to a wired connection with at least 25 megabits per second download speeds.

Georgia has already taken steps to help bring more broadband networks to its citizens. In addition to GDOT’s NaviGAtor traffic management system, the state’s Department of Community Affairs is required to develop the Georgia Broadband Deployment Initiative,  a program that provides for funding for the purpose of delivering broadband to unserved areas.  Money is to be spent on capital expenses and expenses directly related to the purchase or lease of property or to communications services or facilities. Through the funding of qualified political subdivisions i.e. cities, counties, etc., Georgia hopes to promote trade, commerce, investment, and employment opportunities.

An additional state resource that Georgia can use to close its rural broadband divide is the OneGeorgia Authority.  OneGeorgia, with the use of two funds, provides financing for rural areas committed to developing their economies.  By law, Georgia’s governor serves as OneGeorgia’s chairman, putting either Ms. Abrams or Mr. Kemp in a power position to drive rural Georgia’s broadband deployment in particular and the state’s economic growth overall.

 

 

FCC to vote on a 5G order designed to deploy more broadband

On 26 September 2018, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on an order that members of the Commission believe will help pave the way for deployment of the small cell technology that supports 5G technology.

5G refers to a next generation wireless technology that promises to deliver wireless communications at faster speeds with increased data capacity.  Writing for TechTarget.com, Margaret Rouse describes 5G as a technology that could provide data traffic speeds of 20 gigabits per second while enabling increases in the amount of data transmitted due to more available bandwidth and advanced antenna technology.

“In addition to improvements in speed, capacity and latency, 5G offers network management features, among them network slicing, which allows mobile operators to create multiple virtual networks within a single physical 5G network. This capability will enable wireless network connections to support specific uses or business cases and could be sold on an as-a-service basis.” — Margaret Rouse

Unlike current 4G Long Term Evolution wireless technology that relies on the deployment of large cell towers, 5G depends on the deployment of small cell antenna sites that are placed on utility poles or rooftops.  5G is designed to operate in frequencies between 30 GHz and 300 GHz allowing for greater data capacity but over shorter distances.

Commissioner Brendan Carr has been given credit for driving the development and release of this order.  Mr. Carr has been traveling the United States advocating for streamlined regulations that in turn would facilitate deployment of 5G technology.  Mr. Carr sees local and state regulations for cell tower and other facility siting as an issue and is making the argument that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 can be leveraged to make local and state regulations less adverse to 5G deployment.

Under Section 253 of the Communications Act, the Commission may preempt any local or state statute or regulation that prohibits an entity from providing intrastate or interstate telecommunications services. States and localities can regulate telecom companies in order to preserve universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, and manage public rights-of-way.  Section 332(c)(7) maintains a state or local government’s authority over decisions regarding placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities.

Mr. Carr argues that the order will generate $2 billion in cost savings for the wireless industry while generating an additional $2.4 billion in wireless investment.  Actual deployment is still nascent with expectations as to what 5G can do versus what it is actually doing.  Phones using 5G standards, according to Ms. Rouse’s article, are expected in 2019.  Cities are still constructing their blueprints for reconciling their smart city concepts and the “internet of things” with 5G expectations.  It may not be until 2030 that 5G becomes commonplace.

 

NAFTA negotiations provides Trump an opportunity to force Congress’ hand on net neutrality and privacy legislation

The North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect 1 January 1994, a full two years before President Bill Clinton would sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and almost a decade before law school professor Tim Wu would pen the essay that set the concept of net neutrality into motion. It doesn’t come to me as a surprise that issues such as equal treatment of data over networks or the privacy of subscriber data were not huge ones back then.

From the early 1980s through the mid-1990s, the policy priorities included universal service and promoting competition in local markets while increasing telephone subscribership among low income, black, and Hispanic communities. Talking about the internet in the mid-1990s was synonymous to Natasha Romanova whispering to Steve Rogers about the existence of The Winter Soldier, something that may be real, but we just don’t know.

But by 1995, the whispers were becoming clearer to industry and Congress that the internet and high-speed broadband access to an increasingly global inter-network of computers provided investment opportunities for capital while increasing the speed and efficiency in moving the most important resource: information.

Over the last fifteen years, American telecommunications markets have had to contend with the back and forth threats of an additional regulatory overlay in the form of net neutrality rules. Attempts to codify net neutrality, the principle that broadband access providers should be transparent about their management practices while not discriminating against non-affiliated traffic, and allowing subscribers to access content of their choice, has become very politicized over the past three years. In 2015, a Democrat-led Federal Communications Commission passed net neutrality rules that were repealed two years later by the current Republican-led Commission.

And while Democrats in the U.S. Senate were able to persuade enough Republicans to pass a resolution to repeal the Commission’s transparency rules and replace them with the 2015 rules, the likelihood of passage of the resolution by the U.S. House is impossible because it is currently controlled by the GOP.

The political reality is that subscriber concerns about accessing content of their choice as well as maintaining the privacy of the data that they buy and sell is important to maintaining the internet and broadband as attractive communications tools. The Trump administration has an opportunity to head off an international net neutrality debate by including language that encapsulates net neutrality principles while reiterating the importance of protecting privacy on both sides of the border with Canada and Mexico.

An additional benefit of putting privacy and net neutrality language in Chapter 13 is that it will force Congress’ hand during the ratification process. It would be inconsistent for the United States to approve language in a treaty that incorporates privacy protections and net neutrality principles for international data trade while not recognizing those principles in its national laws. This level of certainty in American and international law will provide a great benefit for investors.