Price Regulation Is Not the Answer for Broadband

By Randolph May and Joseph Kennedy

 

In a recent blog posting on the Benton Institute’s Digital Beat, Christopher Ali, the Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications at Penn State University, called for consideration of rate regulation for broadband providers. His main argument is that some households still have difficulty paying their Internet bill. That may be true for some in the short-term. However, the best way to ensure lower prices and greater innovation for the most consumers over the long-term remains continued promotion of increased competition with market-determined prices.

There is considerable evidence showing a steady pattern of increasingly faster speeds and lower prices per megabyte per second over the last few years. In other words, on average, consumers are paying less for more broadband capacity. Rate regulation almost certainly would reverse this.

Long periods of telecommunication history in the past were characterized by stagnant prices and low innovation because regulators treated the underlying transmission facilities as fixed assets that could only handle a limited amount of traffic. During this earlier monopolistic era, regulators aimed to guarantee providers a fixed rate of return on their investments and discouraged competition from new technologies.

As Ted Hearn points out in Policyband, Professor Ali does not acknowledge the large number of current market promotions reducing prices. Comcast, for example, is offering 300 Mbps for $40 a month and guaranteeing the price for five years. Mediacom is selling a broadband-mobile bundle, guaranteed for two years. Both are significantly lower than the $78 median monthly bill that Ali cites. It may be that the average user prefers to pay more for more capacity rather than lower fees for less bandwidth. However, federal programs and state universal service subsidies specifically target low-income consumers that may have difficulty paying their bills, along with offerings by individual providers targeting low-income consumers.

Professor Ali also does not mention the growing broadband competition from satellite constellations such as Elon Musk’s Starlink. It and other companies are aggressively targeting new customers with their high-speed broadband offerings, especially those in remote areas where fiber installation is extremely expensive. Price competition from satellites recently helped the National Telecommunications and Information Administration lower the overall cost of its Broadband, Equity, and Access Program by $21 billion. Much of these savings will be poured back into the BEAD program’s efforts to extend broadband to the remaining unserved locations in the country.

As Professor Ali points out, the public debate on price regulation has been more or less settled, at least for now. Over the last several decades, a number of markets thought to be natural monopolies, including those involving freight trains, airlines, electricity transmission, and Ma Bell-era communications facilities have faced fewer regulations and greater competition. Instead of low-risk regulators limiting new sources of competition and innovation, consumers now benefit from new market entrants offering new products and lower prices.

This is certainly not the time to renew efforts at rate regulation as the broadband marketplace becomes ever more competitive. 

EchoStar: Chutzpah in Communications Land

 A classic example used to explain the meaning of the Yiddish term "chutzpah" is the joke about a boy who murders his parents and then begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

 

EchoStar hasn't killed anyone. But its ploy to claim payments from the trust fund the FCC required EchoStar to establish as a condition of its approval of the transfer of EchoStar's spectrum licenses to AT&T and SpaceX certainly qualifies as one of the most egregious acts of chutzpah in Communications Land.

 

The background facts are well-known. When the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) approved EchoStar’s sale of its licenses on May 12, 2026, for tens of billions of dollars, it required EchoStar to set up a trust fund to help pay tower companies and others that helped construct EchoStar's 5G network. While EchoStar was required to build the network as a condition on its licenses, it refused to pay the vendor companies that actually did so.

 

EchoStar has now told a federal bankruptcy court that this fund can be used to pay a loan one EchoStar subsidiary supposedly made to another, a claim so large, according to the WTB, it threatens to "swallow the fund."

 

In a July 30, 2026, order, the WTB firmly rejected EchoStar's act of chutzpah: "We disagree, and clarify what should be obvious – that the fund cannot be used to pay companies that did not build the network. And to ensure that that the purpose of the fund is not perverted, we also modify the fund’s terms to explicitly exclude from payment any claims of EchoStar or its subsidiaries."

 

Never one to give up on a far-fetched gambit – especially one trying to "swallow a fund" meant for the benefit of others – EchoStar has now asked the full Commission, in an August 30 Application for Review, to reverse the Bureau's order. EchoStar contends that, because the agency's order establishing the trust does not explicitly limit the payouts to claims of third parties, it's entitled to take funds from the trust with one hand that it supplied with the other.

 

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's July 30 order, to ensure its intent in creating the trust fund is carried out, modifies the definition of a fund claim to exclude any claims on behalf of EchoStar or its subsidiaries or affiliates, or any assignee thereof. The Bureau's July 30 order explains what almost certainly was evident to all when the FCC required that the trust fund be established as a condition of its approval of the transfer of EchoStar's spectrum licenses:

 

"The purpose of requiring EchoStar to create the Fund was to ensure that some of the tens of billions of dollars EchoStar is receiving for its wireless licenses be used to pay those who built the 5G network that EchoStar promised and was required to build as a condition on holding those licenses. That purpose is not realized if EchoStar pays the money to itself (directly or indirectly), or uses it to pay other of its debts or those of its subsidiaries or affiliates."

 

In essence, EchoStar's main argument seems to be that the Administrative Procedure Act prevents the Bureau from clarifying its July 30 order to make crystal-clear, if need be, that the lack of an explicit limitation in the agency's original order creating the trust fund did not mean that EchoStar itself would be able to claim payments from the very trust it funded. I don't think the APA does any such thing.

 

If EchoStar's gambit succeeds, not only would the specific tower and other 5G infrastructure builders for whose benefit the trust fund was established be injured, but, as importantly, the prospect for future network build-outs will be diminished as a result of the lack of confidence that contracts will be honored and that the rule of law will prevail.  

 

I forget what happened to the orphan who, in a show of chutzpah, pleaded with the judge for mercy after killing his parents. But you don't need to be an expert in administrative law or in Yiddish to suspect that, in this instance, EchoStar's exercise of chutzpah in Communications Land will be to no avail.

Gene Simmons is Right: Pass the AMFA Now!

Gene Simmons, the co-founder and bass player for KISS, the iconic rock band, has a short but important op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal. The title, "EU and Big Radio Gun for Musical Artists," may be eye-popping in keeping with Gene Simmons' persona, but the message is on point.

 

The op-ed explains that the U.S. is one of the few developed countries in the world that allows AM and FM radio stations to play music without paying royalties to the songwriters and performers. In 2020, the European Court of Justice held that radio stations in EU countries had to begin paying American artists when they played their songs. According to Mr. Simmons, music artists are receiving nearly $300 million per year in royalties as compensation for playing their works. But now, the EU is threatening to cut off those payments under what it calls "material reciprocity." In the U.S., the radio broadcasters continue to refuse to pay royalties on the artists' copyrighted songs, so the Europeans say they may cease payments.

 

Mr. Simmons urges that Congress pass the American Music Fairness Act. The legislation would require the payment of performance royalties by large national radio station groups in the U.S., while requiring minimal royal payments from small local broadcasters. Free State Foundation scholars have been urging passage of the AMFA for years. It's not fair for American songwriters and performers not to be compensated for their copyrighted work – the product of their labor, which is their livelihood. That's the "fairness" aspect of the AMFA.

 

But in a very important sense it's also not very American either. The U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause gives Congress the power, "in order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," to grant artists the "exclusive Right" to their works. This exclusive right is intended to ensure that artists are compensated for their creative labors by securing copyrights. Indeed, Intellectual Property rights are the only "Rights" actually recognized in the Constitution of 1787.

 

So, in this year in which we are celebrating America's 250^th birthday, with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as foundational backdrops which undergird the success of the American experience, there should be even more urgency for Congress to pass, and for President Trump to sign, the American Music Fairness Act.

PRESS RELEASE: The Supreme Court Confirms Agency Commissioners May Be Fired at Will

 

Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision today in Trump v. Slaughter:

“The Supreme Court has now confirmed the handwriting on the wall. The president may fire, without cause, members of what were formerly known as ‘independent’ agencies, including FCC commissioners. The Court held, correctly in my view, that this power is dictated by the Constitution’s separation of powers scheme. 

As I have pointed out for years, it is highly likely that, even absent the Slaughter decision overruling Humphrey’s Executor, the president always has possessed the authority to dismiss FCC commissioners at will. This is because the Communications Act, unlike the FTC Act and other statutes, doesn’t contain at provision even purporting to limit the president’s dismissal discretion. Of course, pursuant to the Communications Act, the FCC still needs a quorum to operate, which means three confirmed commissioners."  

PRESS RELEASE: "Misusing 'Affordability' in Broadband Subsidies Is Wrong"

 

The following statement should be attributed to Free State Foundation President Randolph May regarding a proposed bill titled ‘‘Prioritizing Rural Broadband Affordability Act" introduced by Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) and Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.):

“This bill, which requires the Agriculture Department to consider ‘affordability’ of broadband service in determining whether an area is ‘unserved,’ is unnecessary, unworkable, and mischievous. The bill lacks a definition of ‘affordability,’ nor could one be formulated administratively that would be efficient and not invite waste of taxpayer dollars. More fundamentally, whether an area is unserved should not be linked to an ‘affordability’ determination. Concerns regarding ‘affordability’ properly should be addressed through provision of targeted support to low-income households.

Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive - Part II

On March 12, I posted a blog titled, "Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive." As I explained, in its petition Talkie asks the FCC to preempt Queen Anne's County in Maryland from enforcing what it claims are local zoning requirements that have the effect of prohibiting Talkie from attaching its communications equipment to a utility pole owned by Talkie. The county's purported justification for obstructing Talkie's proposed broadband service is that it would be delivered over multi-use (that is, comingled) facilities.

 

In my March 12 post, I concluded:

 

This is just one of many instances in which local cities and counties across the country implement onerous and often costly requirements, or engage in bureaucratic delay tactics, that prevent the timely deployment of new communications services and advanced broadband infrastructure. It's important that, when appropriate, the FCC grant meritorious preemption petitions. Talkie's petition looks like it may be just such a case.

 

While I hope that the Marylanders who might be served by Talkie proposed broadband service will not be denied that service because of improper actions by local officials, I'm also interested, of course, in the principle at stake in this particular preemption spat and other similar ones. That's why, in the above excerpt, I referred to "many instances" involving tactics similar to those confronted by Talkie in Maryland.

I'm pleased to see that INCOMPAS, representing a broad coalition of competitive communications providers and broadband builders, has submitted comments to the FCC supporting Talkie's preemption petition. INCOMPAS reports that its members "regularly

encounter discriminatory zoning requirements, excessive fees, sequential permitting processes, and de facto moratoria that significantly hinder broadband deployment."

 

INCOMPAS states that "the Commission has consistently preempted fees and requirements that disrupt deployment of advanced services over commingled facilities. The County’s opposition asks the Commission to retreat from that settled position, and INCOMPAS urges the Commission to decline to do so." Therefore, according to INCOMPAS, "the outcome of this proceeding will affect every INCOMPAS member deploying modern multi-use networks."

 

It is this potentially broader impact of the Commission's disposition of Talkie's preemption petition –aside from concern regarding the immediate impact on those residents who might benefit from having available Talkie's services – that prompted me to highlight Talkie's petition in the first place. Absent affirmative Commission action on Talkie's petition pursuant to Section 253 of the Communications Act, the ability to deliver broadband services over multi-use infrastructure could be put in jeopardy.

 

If that is the case, the full realization of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's much-needed "Build America" agenda, which is necessarily dependent on rapid deployment of broadband infrastructure, could be adversely impacted. It still looks to me like Talkie has presented a persuasive case that should be given close attention by the Commission in a timely fashion.

 

Using the BEAD Savings to Eliminate Mobile Dead Zones

Since being nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in July 2025, Arielle Roth has been doing an excellent job in reforming the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The $42.45 billion program is intended to subsidize broadband deployment to unserved and underserved areas.

For several years after Congress authorized the BEAD program, it languished under the Biden administration, encumbered by costly extraneous requirements that delayed development of the state plans that were required to be approved to distribute the funds in each state. Even before Administrator Roth assumed office, the Department of Commerce, under the leadership of Secretary Howard Lutnick, required changes to the Biden administration's BEAD rules. These critical Trump administration reforms, implemented by Administrator Roth, in short order led revisions in the state plans that produced substantial "Benefit of the Bargain" cost savings in the states' deployment proposals. This has resulted in a $21 billion surplus. The abandonment of the Biden administration's unreasonably presumptive preference for funding fiber-only deployments, regardless of cost, in favor of a more economically efficient rational technology-neutral approach, played a significant role in producing the surplus.

Administrator Roth is now considering how the $21 billion in savings attributable to the "Benefit of the Bargain" process should be used to best serve the American people.

Along with me, my Free State Foundation colleague Andrew Long has played a key role in advocating reforms to the BEAD program during the Biden administration years, most of which have been adopted by Secretary Lutnick and Administrator Roth. Now, in a recent FSF Perspectives, Mr. Long recites some of the acceptable uses that should be considered for expenditure of the BEAD surplus, including, for example, establishing a reserve fund to ensure the deployment job would be finished, enhancing public safety, and improving the permitting process.

Here I want to call attention to another suggestion deserving serious consideration – T-Mobile's proposal to allow states to use a portion of the BEAD surplus to "End Mobile Dead Zones." T-Mobile proposes that no more than $8 billion should be used to close remaining rural dead zones. According to John Saw, T-Mobile's President and CTO, T-Mobile's analysis shows that, with the capped $8 billion, about 6,000 more mobile macro sites could extend 5G coverage to roughly 99% of Americans, including key rural roads. Using a portion of the BEAD funds this way, to support a national mobile infrastructure program, would alleviate the need for a new USF 5G fund. And by extending 5G coverage to rural locations still lacking it, public safety would be enhanced by eliminating remaining mobile connectivity gaps.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer returning a significant portion of the $21 billion in cost savings to the U. S. Treasury for the benefit of America's taxpayers. Regardless of whether or not that's in the cards, T-Mobile's proposal to use no more than $8 billion of the surplus to build out mobile macro sites to close remaining rural dead zones is certainly worthy of serious consideration. 

Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive

An item in today's Law360 Telecommunications newsletter, "Md. Gov't Agencies Oppose Talkie's FCC Preemption Bid,"caught my attention. [A subscription is required to access Law360.] The report involves a petition filed with the Federal Communications Commission by Talkie Communications, Inc., in January 2026, asking the agency to preempt Queen Anne's County in Maryland from enforcing what it claims are local zoning requirements that have the effect of prohibiting Talkie from attaching its communications equipment to a utility pole owned by Talkie.

According to Talkie, the county's bureaucratic permitting roadblocks are preventing it from providing voice, data, and cable services to Maryland residents and businesses. In recent years, Talkie has made significant investments to deploy its broadband services, including high-speed Internet services, in order to expand its competitive footprint.

 

Like many of the disputes between wireless and wireline communications providers and local authorities, there is a lot of back-and-forth, with assertions and counter-assertions. I haven't taken the time to independently investigate the facts of this dispute. But after reviewing Talkie's preemption petition, it looks to me like Talkie has presented a good prima facie case.

 

This is just one of many, many instances in which local cities and counties across the country implement onerous and often costly requirements, or engage in bureaucratic delay tactics, that prevent the timely deployment of new communications services and advanced broadband infrastructure. It's important that, when appropriate, the FCC grant meritorious preemption petitions. Talkie's petition looks like it may be just such a case.

 

The proper exercise of the Commission's preemption authority in a timely fashion is crucial to the full realization of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's important, much-needed "Build America" agenda.

 

The Proposed Railway Safety Act Is Highly Problematic

Yesterday's lead editorial in the Washington Post, "Legislators Think They're Making Trains Safer. They're Not," is spot on. It explains why it would be wrong for Congress to adopt the highly problematic Railway Safey Act as it now stands. And it shows how seemingly well-intentioned "feel good" regulatory measures not only may not resolve the issues they supposedly are intended to address, but rather actually may depress overall consumer welfare and suppress economic efficiencies.

 

The Railway Safety Act was first introduced in 2023 after the East Palestine, Ohio, train accident that led to chemicals being vented and burned. Not surprisingly, there was serious environmental damage due to the escaping chemicals. Perhaps it is also not surprising that legislators felt compelled to react by "doing something."

But, as the Post editorial explains, the bill that the Trump administration is now endorsing is not the proper response. Without addressing any rail safety issues that are rationally related to the causes of the train derailment, the bill would add costly unrelated mandates that, as the Post puts it, "would drive costs higher and slow innovation." Several of the proposed new regulatory mandates, such as requiring the use of certified mechanics and government-directed train crew sizes, respond to union demands. In the meantime, Norfolk Southern already has addressed all four recommendations made to it by NTSB's after-accident report, while federal government has yet to implement any of the ten recommendations made to it.

 

There are lessons here that go beyond getting any proposed rail safety legislation right, although that is obviously important. Of utmost importance, as the Post says, "[r]egualtion should be based on evidence, especially when it could be costly." And it's important for the government not to issue new mandates that are not related in a rational way to addressing the issues supposedly at hand.

 

And, finally, as the editorial points out, by several measures, "including the rates of derailments and employee injuries, 2025 was the safest year on record." It makes sense for the Trump administration to reconsider its support for the Railway Safety Act as it now stands.

Arielle Roth's Spirited Defense of Free Speech

 On February 25, in an address at the Media Institute, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth delivered a spirited defense of free speech. Such a defense is always welcome at any time. But now, while America is in the midst of celebrating our 250^th birthday, and while, at the same time, there are threats to free speech around the globe, Administrator Roth's address is especially welcome.

 

To provide a framework for her remarks, Ms. Roth began this way:

"In the 250 years since our founding, technology has repeatedly transformed speech—from the printing press to radio, from the telegraph to the telephone, and from the television to the global internet. 

Every major advancement in communications technology has shifted who holds power over speech. In our current age, that increasingly means that whoever controls communications technology controls the boundaries of free expression. Today, that struggle plays out not only at the edge of the network but deep in the infrastructure layers—in spectrum policy, standards bodies, satellite governance, AI systems, and network architecture. 

That is also why communications policy—especially international communications policy—is now a central battleground for free speech."

And then this:

"The internet is the most powerful engine of free expression ever created. It amplifies individual voices, dismantles gatekeepers, enables journalists to expose corruption, and helps dissidents organize. 

That is no accident. The internet is what it is today because it was built in America under American legal traditions, powered by American ingenuity, and protected by the First Amendment. It rests on principles of openness, decentralization, and a private sector-led model that resists control by any single government or treaty regime."

Having set the stage, the remainder of Ms. Roth's address, with impressive clarity, details some of the threats to free speech from around the world – including from friendly nations that, at times, perversely, justify suppressing speech their governments disfavor in the name of promoting other values or supposed "truths." And she also explains why protection of free speech depends on freedom from government intervention in the various layers or "stacks" of the Internet's architecture.

There's a rich discussion of threats arising from some countries wishing to change the governance model of the ITU in ways that would give the international organization more authority to control speech in individual nations. And a look ahead at technological developments, and policy disputes, in the satellite and wireless areas that will be crucial to maintaining the U.S. global leadership.

I will say no more here, except that it's well worth your time to read Administrator Roth's address in its entirety.

Senate Hearing Should Consider Replacing the Public Interest Standard

By Randolph May

On December 17, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is holding an FCC oversight hearing. Conducted properly, oversight hearings can be valuable tools in assisting legislators, and the public too, in understanding an agency's work – what an agency is doing, and why. And, sometimes, an oversight hearing can lead to the subsequent introduction of legislation to reform the agency's enabling statute.

That should be the case regarding the Communications Act – specifically legislation replacing the public interest standard.

But it's a good bet that some Democrats on the committee, perhaps all of them, will use most of their allotted time to lambaste FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, especially regarding his remarks in "l'affaire Jimmy Kimmel." Without rehearsing all the details here, you'll recall that Chairman Carr issued what was reasonably taken to be a threat that, unless Kimmel's show was taken off the air, the broadcast station owners airing it would suffer adverse consequences. After all, by virtue of the licenses the FCC issues requiring that broadcasters operate consistent with the "public interest," the agency exercises substantial power over their operations. And if broadcasters wish to transfer or assign their licenses to another entity, the FCC first must find the transaction is in the "public interest."

At the time of Chairman Carr's remarks regarding Jimmy Kimmel, I said that, regardless of whether they rose to an actual violation of the First Amendment, and despite what I considered to be Kimmel's factually inaccurate and insensitive monologue regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, I didn't like what appeared to be Carr's threats directed at the broadcasters. I stand by that.

But when the Democrats and those on the Left get in high dudgeon railing at Carr at the hearing or otherwise, the theatre is a bit too contrived. For over the long history of the FCC, it's been Democrats in Congress, and those sitting on the FCC, who have been most persistent and insistent in wielding the FCC's public interest authority to dictate or influence broadcast content. I recited some of the historical evidence here. And, significantly, it was a Democrat-controlled FCC that employed the "Fairness Doctrine," with its requirement that broadcasters present balanced coverage of issues of public importance, as a content regulation sword. Most notably, the Fairness Doctrine was invoked, successfully, to silence conservative broadcasters. See Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC – which now is ripe for history's constitutional dustbin.

 

Moreover, with the current focus on the FCC's "news distortion" rule – a prohibition grounded in the FCC's public interest authority – it's worth recalling the April 2018 letter to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai signed by twelve Senate Democrats. That letter urged the FCC to consider sanctioning Sinclair Broadcasting Group, including revoking its broadcast licenses and preventing it from acquiring others, allegedly on the basis that Sinclair stations engaged in "news distortion" inconsistent with its public interest obligations. (Some of the twelve Senators who signed that April 2018 letter likely will participate in the December 17 oversight hearing.)

Nevertheless, my purpose today is not to tote up a scorecard demonstrating that one side of the aisle or the other, either political or philosophical, has abused the public interest standard more than the other side. That's backward-looking and likely counterproductive. Rather, consistent with the legislative purpose of an oversight hearing, I want to suggest – as I have many times previously –a more productive way forward.

The Commerce Committee Senators, led by their able, reformist-minded Chairman Ted Cruz, should use the oversight hearing, at least in part, to begin a serious discussion about replacing the FCC's public interest standard, upon which the agency's program content regulation, including its news distortion rule, is grounded. It should be replaced with some form of consumer welfare standard more attuned to the current competitive environment and technological dynamism of the marketplace. To the extent there are special considerations, such as maintaining the availability of communications relating to public health and public safety, or universal service, they can be delineated and dealt with discretely.

As I recounted recently in this recent FSF Perspectives, The Public Interest Standard: The Historical Legislative Context, "for almost two decades now, Free State Foundation scholars have been advocating that any meaningful updating of the Communications Act must include replacement of the public interest standard with one oriented towards a proper assessment of consumer welfare and marketplace competition." You can find links to that advocacy in that paper. And throughout the FCC's website you can find numerous papers each year documenting the dramatic changes, driven by relentless technological innovation, that have occurred in the media and telecommunications marketplace in the last several decades.

The long and short of it is that these conspicuous marketplace changes have rendered obsolete the original anti-monopoly and "scarcity" rationale that was the principal impetus for inclusion of the public standard in the Communications Act of 1934, which itself merely incorporated the standard from even earlier legislation.

The public interest standard, malleable and ambiguous as it is, has been a ready means for expanding the FCC's authority in the hands of those commissioners who wish to use it for that purpose. And, more particularly, for those who wish to use it in this way, it has been the means by which the agency has restricted speech, or preferred some speech over other speech, by regulating program content or threatening to do so. All under the claim of furthering the "public interest."

As far back as 2001, I argued in a law review article that the public interest standard is so indeterminate that it constitutes an unconstitutionally unintelligible delegation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court has yet to agree, but I suspect that Chairman Cruz might be sympathetic to the argument. Justice Felix Frankfurter, a New Deal acolyte, proved my point over six decades earlier in the landmark FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. (1940) case when he declared that the public interest standard "is as concrete as the complicated factors for judgment in such a field of delegated authority permit."

Read Justice Frankfurter's elucidation again. I challenge you to tell me what it means.

In other words, the public interest standard is standardless. And this means it is inconsistent with the rule of law and invites abuse. The Senate Commerce Committee should begin to consider replacing it with some form of consumer welfare standard fit for the Digital Age.