Explain to Shane

For several years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been working to modernize the use of key sections of spectrum airwaves — known as C-band — for commercial deployment. Through a series of auctions, the FCC sold the license rights to C-band airwaves to commercial 5G mobile telecommunications providers, unleashing a massive wave of private investment to enable 5G deployment. But the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently warned that using C-band for 5G could interfere with air safety, reigniting a multiyear battle that many believe FCC engineers have successfully put to rest. What does the FAA’s warning mean for the future of C-band and continued spectrum deployment in the wireless industry?On this episode, Shane sits down with former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly and Harold Feld of Public Knowledge to discuss why the FAA issued this warning, how legitimate its safety concerns are, and how the C-band auction winners have responded.

Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996 when the internet was just coming onto the horizon for commercial use, and there was a need to protect nascent platforms from liability for user-generated content. Often coined “the 26 words that created the internet,” Section 230 is widely credited for fostering the innovative ecosystem that created today’s successful social media firms. But a continued controversy over online content moderation has now made Section 230 a target for reform by both parties. How well has Section 230 served its original purpose, and would reforming it do more harm than good?On this episode, Shane is joined by former Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), who co-authored Section 230 with then-Rep. (now Senator) Ron Wyden (D-OR). Cox has a long history of public service as a former legal advisor in the Ronald Reagan White House, a member of Congress for 17 years, then as 28th Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He is now a member of NetChoice’s board of directors.Cox joins the podcast to discuss his intent in writing Section 230, the potential costs of reforming the law, and the intersection of Section 230 and private platforms’ First Amendment right of editorial control.  

With five bills introduced to the House Judiciary Committee in June of this year, Congress is moving swiftly to rein in what it sees as the market power and abusive business practices of “Big Tech” firms — namely Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. What is behind Congress’ push for new antitrust laws targeted at these companies, and how would these laws impact consumers? On this episode, Shane and AEI co-host Mark Jamison are joined by NetChoice Policy Counsel Jennifer Huddleston for a conversation on what Congress’ proposals would mean for the future of mergers and acquisitions in the tech industry, along with how these proposals would deprive consumers of services they enjoy thanks to Silicon Valley’s culture of “permissionless innovation.”

Under Chairwoman Lina Khan’s leadership, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is undergoing a number of process reforms that are poised to make the commission less democratic by allocating more power to the chair herself. If successful, what impact will these reforms have on the future of the commission — and on the laws it’s tasked with enforcing? In the second episode of a two-part discussion, Shane and AEI Nonresident Senior Fellow Mark Jamison continue a conversation with Bilal Sayyed on how Chairwoman Khan’s reforms will reshape long-standing policies around how the FTC is run, and on the challenges companies may face under the new FTC’s scrutiny. You can listen to part one of the discussion here.

Under Chairwoman Lina Khan’s leadership, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is undergoing a number of process reforms that are poised to make the commission less democratic by allocating more power to the chair herself. If successful, what impact will these reforms have on the future of the commission — and on the laws it’s tasked with enforcing? In the first episode of a two-part discussion, Shane and AEI Nonresident Senior Fellow Mark Jamison co-host a conversation with Bilal Sayyed, former director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning and a senior adjunct fellow at TechFreedom. Bilal shares his insights on how Chairwoman Khan’s reforms will reshape long-standing policies around how the FTC is run, and on the challenges companies may face under the new FTC’s scrutiny.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online intermediaries such as social media platforms from civil liability for content users post — and reply comments — but also allows them to moderate illegal, lewd, or otherwise  harmful content as they see fit. These dual protections afforded to internet-based companies by Section 230 have been credited for the innovation and growth of social media companies, but the law is often criticized across partisan lines. Does Section 230 invite too much content moderation, or too little? And how, if at all, should Section 230 be reformed?Over the past year, our American Enterprise Institute programming has offered a number of different voices on Section 230 reform — some for, some against, and some undecided. On this episode, Shane is joined by Neil Fried, to hear his argument for why Section 230 should be reformed.Neil is a former chief counsel for communications and technology to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He testified before the committee in June 2020 in favor of Section 230 reform. As the founder of DigitalFrontiers Advocacy, he advises clients on media, technology, and copyright law. His recent writings on Section 230 include “Why Section 230 Is Actually a Rule of Un-Civil Procedure,” “The Myth of Internet Exceptionalism,” and “Why Section 230 Isn't Really a Good Samaritan Provision.”

As countries impose new requirements on data collection and governance, the flow of consumer data between countries and business entities is more restricted than ever. For companies that need to comply with these new regulations, it can be challenging to build compliance tools around a patchwork of national laws without upending their fundamental business models. What does the regulatory landscape of today’s data governance world look like? And where, if at all, can regulators, trade experts, and multinational companies find common ground?On this episode, Shane is joined by Nigel Cory, associate director for trade policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Nigel discusses how different privacy regimes both in the US and across the globe complicate digital trade, and why there are more barriers to data flows today than ever before.

Today, technology companies are facing some of their largest security, supply chain, and regulatory threats ever. Members of Congress, the administration, and Federal Trade Commission are trying to require that firms allow anyone, anywhere to repair their consumer devices — at a high cost to product quality and individual security. Meanwhile, cyberattacks and data breaches are on the rise, and while trying to get next-generation 5G products off the ground, both software and hardware providers are facing massive semiconductor chip shortages. How are large tech companies navigating these challenges?On this episode, Shane is joined by John Godfrey, Samsung’s acting head of US public affairs and leader of their Washington, DC team. A broadband expert by trade, John is well-versed in a number of issues important to Samsung including “right to repair,” semiconductors, and 5G. John joins the podcast to discuss how Samsung views new regulatory initiatives on Capitol Hill, congressional funding for semiconductor production, and the growth of 5G wireless in the US and beyond.

The potential for a fragmented, decentralized global internet (or “splinternet”) is a concern on many levels. Two aspects of internet governance are at play here: the technical aspects of connectivity (or lack thereof), and content delivery — in essence, what material is permitted, censored, or filtered. As China, Russia, and authoritarian-leaning regimes advance top-down visions of the internet that reflect their national interests, will the internet fragment further? And what would moving away from the status quo of a free, open internet mean for global cybersecurity? To help make sense of these complex questions, Shane is joined by Nick Merrill, director of the Daylight Security Research Lab at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity. In addition to recent national news appearances, Nick’s work includes The Internet Atlas — a visual indicator of the global internet’s structural risks. He joins the podcast to discuss how individual countries’ internet governance decisions shape user experiences and the global cybersecurity landscape.

Efforts to legislate data protection (or “privacy”) have become a top priority in the US and Europe. But the real issue at hand is data governance — namely the collection, storage, and deletion of data that companies collect about customers. These companies, especially those whose mobile digital applications collect location data, contacts, and other personal information, now face a patchwork of potential legislation to regulate data access and retention. But what if engineers and corporate leaders could work together to limit data collection risks before their products come to market? And what if privacy protections could evolve to meet consumer preferences around information gathering and sharing by both companies and third-party vendors? Would there be more understanding of how the information is used and less concern over the security of the data retained by these companies?On this episode, Shane is joined by Nishant Bhajaria, Uber’s head of technical privacy and governance. Nishant’s upcoming book, Privacy Engineering (releasing in August), will offer a roadmap for company executives and engineers to equip their products with greater built-in privacy protections while increasing transparency and accountability for users. Nishant joins the podcast to share points of interest from his book and explain what industry leaders stand to gain from improved data governance.