FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly probably will leave the FCC far sooner than anyone would have anticipated a few days ago. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-nixes-fcc-nominee-who-questioned-bid-to-regulate-social-media-11596556660. The President had nominated him for a second term with only one legislator in any way agitated. Republican Oklahoma Senator Inhofe held up a vote in light of Commissioner O’ Rielly’s support for a 5G competitor with plans on using radio spectrum near GPS frequencies, but sufficiently separated to avoid the potential for interference. See https://spacenews.com/inhofe-blocks-nomination-of-fcc-commissioner-over-ligado-order/.
The FCC established a 23 MHz “guardband” separating the proposed Ligado wireless service and GPS position location frequencies. That safeguard apparently was not enough for incumbent government and private users, absent some major cash inducement. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/millions-of-gps-devices-at-risk-from-fcc-approved-5g-network-military-says/.
Commissioner O’Reilly and I can agree to disagree on many issues, including his antipathy directed at the International Telecommunication Union; see e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/01/15/2015-world-radiocommunication-conference-troubling-direction. Nevertheless, I deplore his shabby treatment and the state of telecommunications planning in the United States. The Wall Street Journal and I uncharacteristically agree that “[i]n saner times few on the right [or left] would dispute . . . [the] points” he made.
Commissioner O’Reilly’s cardinal sin: expressing discomfort with an initiative by President Trump and the National Telecommunications Administration (part of the Commerce Department) to make the FCC a congressionally authorized regulator of Internet content. See https://www.ntia.gov/fcc-filing/2020/ntia-petition-rulemaking-clarify-provisions-section-230-communications-act. NTIA wants the FCC to interpret Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act as conferring direct jurisdiction to investigate whether Internet Service Providers and platform operators, such as Facebook, can lose a liability exemption for unmoderated content passing through their networks.
On a bipartisan basis, most people agree that Sec. 230 does not give the FCC any sort of jurisdiction. Even if it did have some hook, the Commission deems Internet access off limits, as a largely unregulated information service. Previously, few on the Right or Left would ignore the First Amendment value in depriving government of any role in adjudicating fairness and sanctioning debatable media bias. Could NTIA and the FCC find a way to sanction anti-conservative bias, but have no grounds to punish Fox for pro-conservative bias on its web site?
Commissioner O’Reilly has to walk on eggshells lest he upset the President and Executive Branch officials. Apparently, his appointment to an independent, regulatory agency, created by Congress, accords him little insulation from litmus tests and quick dismissal.
Sad.
The FCC established a 23 MHz “guardband” separating the proposed Ligado wireless service and GPS position location frequencies. That safeguard apparently was not enough for incumbent government and private users, absent some major cash inducement. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/millions-of-gps-devices-at-risk-from-fcc-approved-5g-network-military-says/.
Commissioner O’Reilly and I can agree to disagree on many issues, including his antipathy directed at the International Telecommunication Union; see e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/01/15/2015-world-radiocommunication-conference-troubling-direction. Nevertheless, I deplore his shabby treatment and the state of telecommunications planning in the United States. The Wall Street Journal and I uncharacteristically agree that “[i]n saner times few on the right [or left] would dispute . . . [the] points” he made.
Commissioner O’Reilly’s cardinal sin: expressing discomfort with an initiative by President Trump and the National Telecommunications Administration (part of the Commerce Department) to make the FCC a congressionally authorized regulator of Internet content. See https://www.ntia.gov/fcc-filing/2020/ntia-petition-rulemaking-clarify-provisions-section-230-communications-act. NTIA wants the FCC to interpret Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act as conferring direct jurisdiction to investigate whether Internet Service Providers and platform operators, such as Facebook, can lose a liability exemption for unmoderated content passing through their networks.
On a bipartisan basis, most people agree that Sec. 230 does not give the FCC any sort of jurisdiction. Even if it did have some hook, the Commission deems Internet access off limits, as a largely unregulated information service. Previously, few on the Right or Left would ignore the First Amendment value in depriving government of any role in adjudicating fairness and sanctioning debatable media bias. Could NTIA and the FCC find a way to sanction anti-conservative bias, but have no grounds to punish Fox for pro-conservative bias on its web site?
Commissioner O’Reilly has to walk on eggshells lest he upset the President and Executive Branch officials. Apparently, his appointment to an independent, regulatory agency, created by Congress, accords him little insulation from litmus tests and quick dismissal.
Sad.