Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard Anthony E
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2009 Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard Anthony E. Varona American University Washington College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Communications Law Commons Recommended Citation Varona, Anthony E. “Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard.” Administrative Law Review 61, no. 1 (2009): 1-136. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship & Research at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES TOWAm A BROADBAND PUBLIC INTEMST STANDAm Introduction ...................................................................................................3 I. The Broadcast Public Interest Standard ..........................................11 A. Statutorgr and Regulatav Founttations ......................................1 1 B. Defining ""Public Interest" in Broadcasting ............................... 12 1. 1930s Through 1960s-Proactive Regulation "to Promote and Realize the Vast Potentialities'kof Broadcasting .................,................................................ 14 a. Attempts at SpeeiGc Requirements: The ""Blue Book" and the 1960 Programming Statement ............... 16 b. More Specification, the Fairness Dacerine, and Noncommercial Broadcasting .......................................18 c. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v, FCC The Public's First Amendment Rights as Paramomt.,, ...................... 19 2. 1970s. and 1980s-The Taming ofRedLian by the Invisible Hand ,.....,,.,...,,. ... ........................................... 20 * Associate Professor of Law and Director, S.J.D. Program, herican Liniversiry Washington College of Law, The author expresses his appreciation to Dean Claudio Grossman for his generous support and encowagement, and to Professors C. Edwin Baker, Jane Baron, Angela J, Davis, Ellen P, Goodman, David Hornan, Mark C, Niles, Dawn C, Munziato, David Post, Jarnin Raskin, Catherine Sandovai, and Robert Tsai for invalmble feedback on earlier drafis of this Article, Thanks also to the participants of the Temple University School of Law Faculty Colloquium series and the Washington College of Law Junior Faculty Scholarship Workshop, who offered very helpful coments, to Dean Billie Jo Kaufman and the Pence Law Library faculty for expert research support, and to Andrew Paul Kawel, Andrew W. Guhr, and the staff of the Administrative Law Review for outstanding editing. Ty Bream, Carina Clark, Serwat Farooq, Nicholas Federic6, Soo Jin Kim, Karolina Lyznik, Christopher MacFarlane, and Diana Santos provided excellent research assistance. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1455404 3 . 1990s to Today: Continued Deregulation and a Modest Revival of Public Interest Regulation (Red Lion Roars Again) ........................................................................21 a . The Broadcast Public Interest Standard Survives (Tattered. but Still Alive) ..............................................23 C . Why Did the Broadcast Public Interest Standard Fall Skort? .....26 It. The Internet as Markelplace of Ideas ................................................28 A . Autonomy and the Internet ........................................................30 B . Speech and Democracy Online ..................................................34 I . Online Citizen Activism .......................................................39 a . The Democratization of Information and the Demise of Unidirectional Monoculture .........................39 b . Direct Democracy 2.0? ..................................................43 2 . E Plurihus Plzlrihu&~-Whither Deliberative Democracy Online? ................................................................................ -46 a . Access ......................................................................... 36 i Availability .. .............................................................49 11 . Cost ..........................................................................50 iii. Why Is Broadband Important? ................................51 C . Private Censorship .....................................................................53 1 . Censorship on Social Net-working and News Media Websites ............................................................................ 54 2 . Censorship in the Blogosphere ............................................56 3 . Censorship by Broadband Providers ....................................57 3 . The New Scarcity: Scarce Audience, Abundant "Spectmm" ..........................................................................58 5 . Valuable Dissent Can Be Impolite .......................................61 D . Online Exposure Diversity-The Diminishing Returns of Digital Autonomy .................................................................... 62 1. The Impoflance-and Scarcity-of IIeterogeneous Exchange Online .................................................................. 63 2 . Beyond Gatekeepers, Beyond Fences-Finding Truth in the Data Smog ................................................................. 67 E. Localism and Community Building Online ...............................73, I . Are Online Communities Undemining Local Communities on Terra Firma? ............................................. 74 I11 . Operationalizing a Broadband Public Interest Standard ...................77 A . Intensified Federal Efforts in Support of Broadband Universality ...............................................................................78 1. Assessing the Challenge ......................................................78 a . Existing Federal Efforts to Proliferate Internet Access-- Lack of Prioritization .....................................80 b . Mixed Results in Educational Connectivity Initiatives-Many Children Left Behind and Offline .......................................................................... -82 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1455404 c. What Else Is at Stake-Advantages of Household Internet Access Beyond Democratic Engagement ... .. .84 2. Increasing Direct Federal Subsidies for Broadband Deployment........... ................,. .......................................... 87 3. Financial, Technical, and Legislative Support for kfunicipal Broadband and Public-Private Initiatives to Build Out Broadband.. .. ... .. .. .... .. ... .. .I.. ... ... .... .. .... .. .. ..9 1 a, Cable Modem and DSL Duopoly ..................................92 b. Municipal Broadband Networks as an Emerging (but Underfunded) Third Option ................................... 93 c. Cable and Telephone Company Efforts to Thwart Public Networks ......................................... ... .................. 96 4. Supporting Demand-Side Digital Literacy Programs .. ... ... 100 5. More Federal Research Support, Better Data Collection, and Better Spectrum Management ..... .... ..... .,., 102 B, Content: Cultivating Digital Democracy ............................ '.... 104 1. Building Online Town Squares-Support for Public Fora on Local and State Government Websites .....+...........104 a. Causes of the Shortage of Public Deliberation Spaces Online .......................................................... 106 b. Parameters for Online Public Fora .............................. 108 2. Linking Public Broadcasting with Public Broadband- A New Corporation for Public Broadand ...................... 1 10 3. Network Neutralily ................................ .. ............... 1 14 a. Net Neuh.ality and Democracy Online ........................ 1 18 IV. Old Wine in a New (Digital) Bottle? Wow a Broadband Public Interest Standard Would Be More Effective than Its Broadcast Progenitor .... ....... .. ... ... .. ...... .... ... ... .. , . .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 1 A. Avoiding Content Regulation Quagmires .... .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... 12 1 B. Subsidies as a Constitutional Alternative to Regulation......... '124 6. Bridging Autonomy with Civic Republicanism ...................... 128 Conclusion .. .. 1 33 INTRODUCTION The emergence of the internet as a prominent communications medium was welcomed with excited declarations of the new technology's power to transform democracy and society. It was exalted as "the most transforming technological event since the capture of fire"' and "the most participatory form of mass speech yet deve~o~ed."~More recently, observers credited it with ushering in "the most profound change since the advent of literacy'" 1. Forum, What Are We Doing Online?, HARPER'S MAG., Aug. 1995, at 35, 36 (quoting John Perry Barlow). 2. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824,883 (E.D. Pa. 1996). 4 A DMINlSTRr3 TIVE LAw REHE cv [61:1 and "a new renaissan~e."~~ot since the dawn of broadcasting has a new technology generated such hopefkl predictions. Radio was touted as a "new miracle,""nd television was the "great radiance in the sky,"' expected to catalyze political engagement and enrich American democracy if put to good use. Like broadcasting before it, the Internet was expected to deliver a renewed and vibrant democratic culture to the nati~n.~