Court Rightly Sides with Wireless Provider in Dispute over Rights-of-Way

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico's June 28 order in NMSURF, Inc. v. State of New Mexico Department of Transportation provides yet another example of the necessity of Section 332(c) of the Communications Act and federal preemption of state and local government actions that obstruct construction and modification of wireless infrastructure. At issue in the case is a New Mexico agency's denial of wireless service provider NMSURF's application to construct two utility poles in rights-of-way regulated by the state. 

NMSURF filed its permit applications on November 24, 2020, but they were rejected by a letter from December 23 of that year. The New Mexico agency's short letter claimed that NMSURF was not a "public utility" eligible for free use of the right-of-way. A lawsuit followed, as NMSURF claimed that the denial of its applications violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), which requires that any denial "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."

According to the District Court: "Plaintiff alleges, and Defendant does not contest, that the Denial Letter contains no evidence in support of the assertion that Plaintiff is not eligible for the requested permits because it is "not a public utility rendering essential services subject to consumer-rate regulation by the Public Regulatory Commission.'" 

The District Court added: 

Defendant’s Denial Letter falls well short of providing any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, in support of its denial of Plaintiff’s permit applications. Defendant provides no criteria for its denial beyond conclusory statements relating to Plaintiff’s supposed status as a non-utility. Defendant has done nothing to rebut the evidence proffered by Plaintiff that it is in fact a proper utility within the statutory meaning and that it appropriately adhered to application procedures. The Denial Letter did not proffer any objections to Plaintiff’s plans or construction designs. In fact, it does not offer any concerns beyond the supposed status of Plaintiff as a non-utility... 

The Denial Letter states that Defendant has 'entered into rulemaking to promulgate a new telecom-broadband section to NMAC 17.4.2...' but Defendant provides no indication that any rules have actually been issued or what the substance of the purported new rules would be. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and concludes that Defendant's denial of Plaintiff’s permit applications violates the provisions of § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) in its failure to provide substantial evidence in its denials. 

In this case, wireless service provider NMSURF scored a decisive win with the court issuing a preliminary injunction against the New Mexico agency. The District Court's decision shows the importance of federal law's bar on actions by state and local governments that have the effect of prohibiting the offering of wireless services – including actions that lack any written explanation or evidence for the state or local government's refusal to allow construction or modification of wireless infrastructure. 

Hopefully, other state and local government agencies will learn from the New Mexico agency's mistake and avoid taking similar actions when reviewing wireless infrastructure permit applications. Also, keep in mind the needless expenses the state agency incurred when it didn't have a leg to stand on in court, and also the economic opportunity costs resulting from the seven months it took before NMSURF received vindication in court. 

Supreme Court Order Ends Legal Challenge to FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Orders

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in City of Portland v. FCC. Thus, the Court left undisturbed the August 2020 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld most of the Commission's 2018 Small Cell Order, Moratoria Order, and One Touch Make-Ready Order. The Small Cell and Moratoria Orders defined limits on local governments' permitting authority regarding wireless infrastructure siting for small cells. And the OTMR Order established limits on local governments' discretion regarding pole attachments involving wireless networks. Those orders effectively removed local regulatory obstacles to deploying advanced wireless networks, including 5G networks.  

The Supreme Court's order is important because it leaves standing important circuit court precedent recognizing the preemptive authority of the FCC prohibit certain actions by state and local governments that effectively prohibit the offering of wireless communications services. That authority comes from the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Court's order also leaves undisturbed the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Tenth Amendment-related anti-commandeering challenges to the Commission's rules regarding permitting fees, shot clocks for decisionmaking on permit applications, and moratoria on reviewing permit applications. The Ninth Circuit concluded (rightly) that the Commission's orders did not require state or local officials to take action to implement any federal regulatory scheme, but instead they secured a federal right to place and modify cell sites subject only to certain federal constraints. 

The Ninth Circuit's decision in City of Portland v. FCC was discussed in more detail in my September 2020 blog post. Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I also discuss the Ninth Circuit's decision as well as the Small Celland Moratoria Orders in our June 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper, "Wireless Infrastructure Reforms Rest on Solid Constitutional Foundations: Congress Should Preempt Local Obstacles to 5G Deployment." 

FCC Order Sets New Rules to Address Unlawful 911 Fee Diversion

States and local governments that impose fees and charges on consumers for 911 emergency communications should use those revenues for their designated purpose. But some states and local governments disregard the law and spend them for other purposes. On June 25, the FCC released an order to adopt rules intended to better address diversion of 911 fees by state and local authorities. The order implements the Don't Break Up the T-Band Act of 2020 (which is part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021), in which Congress directed the Commission to help address the problem of states and local governments spending revenues from 911 fees on things that are not related to 911. 

The FCC's new rules lay some necessary groundwork in for the agency to more accurately ascertaining state and local governments' use of 911 fees and better ensuring their compliance. Among other things, the Commission's definition of "diversion" now includes "distribution of 911 fees to a political subdivision that obligates or expends such fees for a purpose or function other than those designated as acceptable by the Commission." In its order, the Commission offered the following sensible justification for this definition: 

We find that it is consistent with the intent of section 902 to hold states responsible for fee diversion by localities within their boundaries. Absent such a policy, states or taxing jurisdictions could have an incentive to avoid oversight or accountability for expenditures by political subdivisions. We also decline to require that local units report directly to the Commission, as NASNA requests. The NET 911 Act requires the Commission to report on the “status in each State” of the collection and distribution of 911 fees or charges and the agency’s annual 911 fee report questionnaire is consistent with this directive. We note that states may disclose limitations on their authority over local 911 fee collection or use in their responses to the fee report questionnaire and that these questionnaires are publicly available on the Commission’s website. We also note that the petition for determination process established by section 902 provides a mechanism for further consideration of this issue in the context of specific fact patterns. 

As indicated in the above quote, the Commission's order establishes a petition process for state and local governments to petition for determine that the use of 911 fees in specific instances are for 911-related purposes. 

Finally, as the order points out, the Commission has established the 911 Strike Force to explore further steps that can be taken to address 911 fee diversion. The 911 Strike Force will examine: 

(i) the effectiveness of any federal laws, including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary or jurisdictional constraints regarding how the federal government can most expeditiously end 911 fee diversion; (ii) whether criminal penalties would further prevent 911 fee diversion; and (iii) the impacts of 911 fee diversion. 

The 911 Strike Force will issue a report to Congress by September 23, 2021. And later this year the Commission will issue its 13th Annual Report on State 911 Fees and Charges. The 12th Annual report was the subject of my blog from December 2020. 

Independence Day 2021

Each Independence Day for the past fourteen years I've written a special message, and each one has been different. You can find all of them at the bottom of this one. But this year I have decided that what I said last year serves well for 2021 and perhaps future years too.

The Independence Day message below represents my view of a proper understanding of the American founding – and I expect it always will.

It's an understanding that does not ignore the reality of America's failures, but which asserts that the way forward to securing "a more perfect Union" should always be guided by America's ideals grounded in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of 1787, and the Bill of Rights.

So, immediately below is last year's message, without alteration.

*     *     *

 To be sure, every Independence Day ought to be an exercise in memory, and a recommitment to America's fundamental ideals that the Declaration of Independence proclaims to be self-evident Truths.

And to be sure as well, on the day of the Declaration's adoption on July 4, 1776, when the Founders signed the parchment proclaiming "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," many of those signing were slaveholders, including Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration's principal drafter.

So, of course, there was a glaring gap on that July day between the reality of life in America with regard to race and the ideal of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

This year, as we celebrate Independence Day, I suspect, in light of what has occurred in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, that many Americans will think somewhat more deeply about the meaning of the Declaration's affirmation that all men are created equal. It is undeniable that a part of our American story has been stained by racial oppression. But it is also undeniable that an important part of our story includes an ongoing struggle to overcome such oppression.

Both propositions are true. We can be ashamed of one, and proud of the other. And we can draw inspiration for coming together as Americans if we embrace the ideals expressed in the Declaration, notwithstanding the fact that its principal author held men in bondage in contravention of those ideals.

 

In today's rush to tear down statues and deface memorials, including those dedicated even to the memories of Jefferson and Lincoln, it is wrong not to recognize the difference between, mindlessly and at times lawlessly, seeking to "cancel" from our collective memory those parts of our American story that constitute grievous wrongs and those parts that ought to be unalterable guideposts.

So it is with the Declaration of Independence.

On October 16, 1854, Abraham Lincoln delivered a famous speech in Peoria, Illinois, arguing against the extension of slavery permitted by the Kansas–Nebraska Act passed by Congress earlier in the year. Lincoln was out of politics at the time, but many credit his Peoria anti-slavery speech with the beginning of his preparation for his subsequent presidential campaign.

In Peoria, Lincoln grounded his argument against the extension of slavery, and later in arguing for its abolition, squarely on the words of the Declaration:

"[N]o man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent. I say this is the leading principle – the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says:

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'

I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of masters and slaves is, PRO TANTO, a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent; but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself. Allow ALL the governed an equal voice in the government, and that, and that only is self-government." [Capitalization in the original]

Invoking the Declaration's equality precept over and over again, Lincoln pleaded: "Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policies, which harmonize with it."

Frederick Douglass was the principal speaker at the dedication on April 14, 1876, of the memorial, now known as the Emancipation Memorial, in Lincoln Park, in Washington, DC. A plaque on the monument, which was funded by donations from emancipated slaves, reads: "Freedom's Memorial in grateful memory of Abraham Lincoln."

In his dedication oration, Douglass readily acknowledged Lincoln's complexities, including many of his statements that displayed a racial bias. But he also acknowledged this about Lincoln:

"Though the union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood."

And this from Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech delivered on August 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, is worth remembering:

"When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was the promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Fourth of July is a time to celebrate the Declaration of Independence and the self-evident Truths "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That these words were written by a flawed man – and who among us is not? – does not mean that they nevertheless should not inspire us today, as Lincoln put it, to be touched by "the better angels of our nature."

Best wishes for a safe, healthy, joyous, and meaningful Independence Day!

My previous Independence Day messages are here: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020

Nielsen: Viewership of Streaming Video Has Surpassed That of Broadcast Television

In a June 11 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Streaming Continues to Redefine the Video Landscape: It's Past Time to Eliminate Legacy Regulations," I made the case that the video distribution power center has shifted from traditional, facilities-based providers to those that lead in the online space.

Both streaming platforms, such as Roku and Amazon Fire TV, and streaming services, led by Netflix and Amazon Prime but including Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, and numerous others, enjoy user totals that far exceed those of traditional, facilities-based multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).

As a consequence, outdated rules premised upon marketplace assumptions that in 2021 absolutely do not apply only impede competition.

Just-released data from Nielsen underscores the degree to which streaming is revolutionizing how consumers access video: more people now view streamed content than watch broadcast television.

This, without question, is a watershed moment.

For more from Free State Foundation scholars on the pressing need to deregulate further the video distribution marketplace, please click here, here, here, and here.

FSF President Randolph May Interviewed by Law360

Be sure to check out Law360's interview with Free State President Randolph May that was published on June 18. Titled "For FSF's Randy May, Free Market Advocacy Is A Life's Work," the interview is occasioned by the 15th anniversary of the Free State Foundation, and it gives readers a glimpse of FSF President May's years of upstanding work in communications policy.

Our thanks goes to Law360 for publishing the interview. 

FSF President Randolph May Moderates Federalist Society Teleforum on Broadband Featuring Commissioner Carr

On June 15, Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May moderated a teleforum hosted by The Federalist Society featuring FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Their conversation touched on a wide range of topics, including broadband infrastructure, legislative and regulatory efforts to close remaining digital divides, and Commissioner Carr's thought-provoking proposal to require that Big Tech companies contribute their fair share to government broadband subsidy programs.

Audio versions of "Closing the Digital Divide: The Future of Broadband Access" are available here.

MEDIA ADVISORY: A BRIDGEAct Too Far

 Regarding the introduction today by Senators Michael Bennet, Angus King, and Rob Portman of the BRIDGE Act, the following statement may be attributed to Free State Foundation President Randolph May:

“While I am sympathetic to ongoing efforts in Congress to find proper solutions that further broadband deployment and adoption in order to bridge remaining digital divides, I’m troubled by several aspects of the BRIDGEAct introduced by Senators Michael Bennet, Angus King, and Rob Portman. For example, by requiring the adoption of a specific low-income option and prohibiting rate caps, the law, in effect, would be engaging in a form of rate regulation that is ill-suited to the capital-intensive, technologically-dynamic broadband Internet marketplace. Also very troubling is the pronounced tilt favoring local government communications networks over private networks constructed and operated with private capital. The proposal would actually preempt approximately twenty state laws that presently either prohibit or otherwise restrict such local government-run networks. States have adopted these laws in order to protect state taxpayers from having to subsidize the often financially unsuccessful muni networks and to prevent them from disadvantaging private sector competitors by virtue of the exercise of their control over rights-of-ways, permitting processes, and fees charged.

With these concerns in mind, I surprised that Senator Portman is a co-sponsor of the bill. Indeed, based on his record and the history of his years of public service, I’m hopeful he might reconsider his support of the legislation in its current form."    

U.S. House Committee Passes "Dig Once" Reform to Boost Fiber Buildout

As reported by John Eggerton at Multichannel News, on June 10, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee favorably reported the National Dig Once Act out of committee as part of the INVEST America Act. The Dig Once Act, writes Eggerton, "would require that the plastic conduit that houses fiber optic cable be included in the construction of any road being built with federal funds in areas without broadband," with broadband providers receiving notice of opportunity to use those conduits. The idea behind the bill is to expedite fiber deployment and reduce the time end expense of multiple excavations.

Leaving aside the other parts of the INVEST America Act, the policy contained in the Dig Once Act is sensible way to promote broadband access to unserved Americans. Hopefully, the 117th Congress will see fit to pass "dig once" reform as a way to promote real infrastructure in the United States. For more on the "dig once" legislation's sponsorship and history, see John Eggerton's report.

Federal Court Bars Enforcement of New York's Price Controls on Broadband Internet Services

On June 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction barring New York State Attorney General Letitia James from enforcing that state's new law imposing rate controls on broadband Internet access services.  

In a May 5 blog post, I called attention to the legal challenge to the New York law that was filed by broadband Internet service providers in New York Telecommunications Association v. James. The case was assigned to Senior Judge Denis Hurley. Although provided in the context of a motion for preliminary relief and substantial likelihood of success on the merits standard, Senior Judge Hurley's ruling rightly recognized that New York's law is federally preempted -- on conflict preemption as well as field preemption grounds:

Putting it all together, the ABA conflicts with the implied preemptive effect of both the FCC's 2018 Order and the Communications Act. The ABA's common carrier obligations directly contravenes the FCC’s determination that broadband internet "investment," "innovation," and "availab[ility]" best obtains in a regulatory environment free of threat of common-carrier treatment, including its attendant rate regulation… the ABA thereby stands as an obstacle to the FCC's accomplishment and execution of its full purposes and objectives and is conflict-preempted. 

…

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits based on field preemption. The ABA is not a "purely intrastate affordable-pricing scheme," nor is it reasonable to read its statutory text in that manner: It covers providers with "the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints."… The ABA’s plain terms apply (absent an exemption) to the telecommunications provider transmitting this interstate communication. In other words, the ABA is not confined to intrastate communications services. 

Free State Foundation scholars may have more to say about this well-reasoned decision by the Eastern District of New York. Stay tuned. 

Federalist Society Webinar Panel Weighs in on the Biden Broadband Infrastructure Plan

On May 25, the Federalist Society held a webinar on the Biden Administration's broadband infrastructure plan. David Redl moderated the webinar's panel, which included Prof. Christopher Yoo -- a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors, Kate O'Connor, and Tony Clark. The panelists offered their views on matters such as subsidies for unserved areas, subsidy preferences government-owned networks, rate regulation, and wireless infrastructure siting policy. An audio version of the webinar panel also is available on the Federalist Society's website for streaming or download. 

In recent publications, FSF scholars have critiqued the Biden Administration's broadband infrastructure plan and offered alternatives. For example, on June 2, FSF President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long published a Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper titled "Biden Broadband Plan: Transparency and Accuracy Required for Sound Policy." Additionally, on June 8, FSF President May and I published a Perspectives paper that touches on important reform opportunities that the Biden Plan overlooks. That paper is titled "Wireless Infrastructure Reforms Rest on Solid Constitutional Foundations: Congress Should Preempt Local Obstacles to 5G Deployment."

Ohio AG Sues To Declare Google Search A Public Utility

 In light of rising concerns about the Cancel Culture, and specifically various actions by the #BigTech social media sites, there have been increasing calls for regulation of Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the like as common carriers. In other words, imposing regulation akin to traditional public utilities which, generally, are subject to nondiscrimination obligations.

For example, Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested the idea in a concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute. I wrote about Justice Thomas's opinion here in Part 3 of my "Thinking Clearly About Speaking Freely" series.

Now comes the Ohio Attorney General suing in an Ohio state court to have Google's search engine declared a utility-style common carrier subject to common carrier obligations.

While I'm concerned about many of the actions taken by the dominant social media platforms, I'm reluctant, at least at this point, to support moves to treat them as common carriers. As I explained recently here, they don't all hold themselves out indiscriminately to serve all comers in the way that traditional public utilities do, and they don't all necessarily exercise the same degree of marketplace dominance. These are the two most prominent indicia of common carriage at common law.  Moreover, common carrier regulation, more often than not, has been applied in a way that discourages investment and innovation, even when, in theory, the common carrier regime incorporates "reasonableness" standards that allow for some flexibility.

And aside from all that, with regard to the Ohio AG's action, I worry about a patchwork of state regimes imposing different regulatory requirements on what truly are national and international business operations.

No doubt the Ohio lawsuit bears close watching.

Rep. Butterfield Reintroduces Legislation to Eliminate "Eligible Telecommunications Carrier" Requirement for Universal Service Fund Recipients

On June 7, FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced that over 2.3 million households had enrolled in the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB) since its launch on May 12.

As I detailed in a December 2020 post to the Free State Foundation's blog, Congress appropriated $3.2 billion to fund the EBB, an FCC-administered program providing eligible households with discounts on monthly high-speed Internet access service and connected devices. By design, however, the EBB is limited in scope: it will end six months after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency or when the money runs out, whichever comes first.

In a February 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I argued that the EBB potentially might serve as a model for future Lifeline funding. One major reason why: Congress made explicit that a provider need not be designated as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) in order to participate.

The EBB currently includes more than 1,000 providers, ETCs and non-ETCs alike. Those in the latter group had to jump through additional hoops, but in the Report and Order establishing the EBB, the Commission, to its credit, did adopt processes to ensure that non-ETCs "that … submitted complete applications by the priority application deadline will know prior to the start date of the EBB Program if they are eligible to participate." That mitigated the possibility that, at least in this specific instance, ETCs might enjoy an unfair advantage over their non-ETC rivals.

On May 20, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D NC) reintroduced the Expanding Opportunities for Broadband Deployment Act. In "The ETC Requirement for Accessing Broadband Funds Should Be Eliminated," a June 2020 Perspectives, I applauded the 2020 iteration of this legislation, which would have eliminated altogether the statutory requirement that a provider be designated as an ETC by a state regulatory agency or the FCC prior to participating in Universal Service Fund programs. (The text of the 2021 version, H.R. 3376, is not yet available.)

Passage of H.R. 3376 would benefit consumers by expanding the pool of providers that participate in subsidy programs like the $20.4 billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund and the $9 billion 5G for Rural America Fund.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Key Aspects of FCC's Order on Cable LFA Limits

On May 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld most of the FCC's 2019 order that adopted reforms on cable infrastructure and local franchising authorities (LFAs). The Commission's order hold LFAs accountable to the law and helps to ensure that cable operators' investment in broadband Internet services are not thwarted by locally-imposed restrictions and costs.  

Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act recognizes that LFAs may require cable TV service operators to obtain franchises, but the law subjects LFAs to limits. For example, Section 622(b) limits the amount that LFAs can require cable operators to pay in order to receive franchises to 5% of their cable service gross revenues during any 12-month period. Yet some LFAs have imposed financially costly in-kind obligations on cable operators and effectively exceeded the 5% cap. The Sixth Circuit upheld the FCC's determination in its 2019 order that in-kind contributions count toward the 5% cap.

 

Additionally, Section 624(b) provides LFAs "may not ... establish requirements for video programming or other information services." But some LFAs have imposed costs that appear to go beyond the statute's limits, potentially draining cable operator investment in their broadband Internet networks. And uncertainty existed as to whether LFAs could leverage their cable franchising authority to regulate cable broadband Internet services. Importantly, the Sixth Circuit upheld the Commission's "mixed use" rule -- which clarifies that LFA's may not use their cable franchising authority to regulate non-cable services. The 2019 order determined that that the City of Eugene was prohibited from imposing fees on cable operator revenues from their broadband Internet access services. The Sixth Circuit upheld this determination.

 

Although not every aspect of the FCC's 2019 order was upheld, on the whole the Sixth Circuit's decision in City of Eugene v. FCC appears sensible. In December 2018, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I filed reply comments with the FCC regarding cable infrastructure and LFAs. And for more, see my July 2019 blog post on this topic.  

FSF President Randolph May Addresses Big Tech's Responsibility to Support Universal Service

A May 24 op-ed by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr titled "Ending Big Tech's Free Ride" makes the sensible suggestion that Big Tech online platforms that generate the most broadband Internet traffic ought to be responsible for contributing to the Universal Service Fund. Below are tweets by Free State Foundation President Randolph May that respond to Commissioner Carr's proposal:

Long-time observers know that the reason @Facebook @Google and other #BigTech firms don't presently pay is rooted in arcane legacy definitional regulatory constructs that may no longer make sense, 25 years later, in today's Internet ecosystem.

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) May 25, 2021

But, like #Section230, reflexively treating #BigTech as "infants" needing protection now, 25 years after the #TelecomAct, is, well, infantile. So the @BrendanCarrFCC proposal deserves serious consideration. The law can be changed while protecting the proverbial "next Google."

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) May 25, 2021