July 2014

Five things Alabama law says about municipal high-speed Internet

Publicly owned high-speed Internet, cable and telephone service is an idea growing in popularity in Madison County, if recent forums, petitions and AL.Com polls are an indication.

City leaders are interested, too.

The Huntsville City Council recently approved Huntsville Utilities paying a consultant for advice on whether and how to proceed. One thing is certain: If local government is going to be involved, Alabama law Section 11-50B-1 will dictate how. It's the 2000 law governing public involvement in the market, and here are five things the law says:

The public has to ask for it in writing.
If cable TV is part of the deal, the public also has to vote for it.
The system must pay for itself.
Existing cable and satellite companies aren't forgotten.
Only customers served by the utility get the service.

Faster, cheaper, better broadband in Baltimore

[Commentary] There is a monopoly for fast Internet services in Baltimore City. As a consequence, we pay more for less in Baltimore because fast fiber optic technology -- often called fiber to the premises (FTTP) -- is not widely deployed to our homes and businesses like it is in every county surrounding the city and along much of the East Coast, and because Comcast does not operate in a competitive environment in the city.

Extending FTTP and allowing alternative Internet service providers the opportunity to compete in the city is why 14 communities in north Baltimore have partnered to create the Baltimore Broadband Campaign.

We want to demonstrate that, through the intelligent use of existing fiber infrastructure and the installation of new fiber where necessary, an economically viable, competitive FTTP-based broadband service is possible in the city. And it need not come from Comcast or Verizon.

Our campaign's first phase involves a grassroots crowdfunding effort through which we hope to convince providers that there is sufficient demand to warrant the deployment of a competitive, fiber-based broadband service in Baltimore. We hope our campaign will lead to a second phase where, in partnership with elected officials, there is a change toward more proactive public policy. Good public policy requires a clear vision, a rational plan and effective execution.

First, we believe that vision must include extending fiber to the premises with connectivity for all.
Second, the city owns approximately 3.9 million feet of underground conduit (the passages through which our utilities run), and some of these contain city-owned fiber. That conduit is valuable, but only if the city knows where it is and its condition.
Third, the city should establish "dig once policies," coordinating, if not requiring, fiber optic installation with other capital improvement projects such as road repaving or trenching for utility work.
Fourth, the city should convene and facilitate a monthly or quarterly broadband round table, involving existing service providers and fiber facility owners within the city, city personnel, interested citizens and other stakeholders.
Fifth, our state and federal officials are also critical in this effort.

[Spevak, Wilson and Gill are co-leaders of the Baltimore Broadband Campaign]

The Maine economy is missing a key ingredient: Fiber

Maine’s Internet service has consistently ranked among the worst in the country: Recent rankings place Maine at 49 out of 50.

Inadequate access not only hurts the quality of recreational Internet use but also affects schools and businesses, adding to the perception that Maine is a bad place for business.

But municipalities like Orono and Old Town wager tackling the challenge will bring long-term economic gains. Many in information technology see efforts by local governments and municipalities as key to improving access to the Internet and the economic gains it brings with it. Improving the quality of the Internet here may, in fact, be the best route to a bright future for Maine.

5 things that you need always-on broadband to accomplish

[Commentary] Broadband connections are supposed to be always-on -- unlike those days two decades back when you had to dial into a service and then hang up when you were done.

The introduction of always-on broadband helped pave the way for services like Napster and Skype and is one of the defining features of many aspects of modern life in first world countries.

Unfortunately, since April my broadband hasn’t been reliable, turning on and off ten to 20 times a day for periods of time that range from a minute to several hours. Given that this intermittent broadband seems to be a common enough problem, I’d like to offer ISPs and the Federal Communication Commission a list of five things I can’t actually do with a dodgy connection:

Using cloud office productivity software and writing tools
Managing my home
Calling a friend or source
Watching a movie
Playing music at a party

Both my job and quality of life depend on a reliable broadband connection, so it’s frustrating that I can’t seem to get one. I’m glad the FCC is looking at this as part of its Measuring Broadband reports, but I don’t know what the answer is here, in terms of what Time Warner Cable can do.

Latest cyber security bill riddled with Net neutrality loopholes

The latest cyber security information sharing bill being considered in the Senate strikes many as overly broad and in need of revision.

In fact, say some it's worded vaguely enough that it could be used by Internet service providers to sidestep network neutrality provisions in the name of public safety.

The wording of the bill -- like with so many of its predecessors that went down to defeat -- is being carefully scrutinized for possible side effects, including being used as a backdoor way for ISPs to undermine net neutrality. For example, throttling Netflix could be classified as a countermeasure as long as a good excuse could be found.

A letter jointly authored by a number of civil liberties groups and sent to the bill's sponsors, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), outlines a number of ways the bill could be abused.

In addition to worries that the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) could lead to a militarization of the cyber security program, the letter also expresses concerns about how provisions in the bill "could be construed to modify or alter any Open Internet rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Net neutrality is a complex topic and policy on this matter should not be set by cyber security legislation."

Talking Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity touches so much of our lives now that we need a rich and continuing dialogue that includes the broadest possible set of stakeholders. In an overall strategic context, I think that we need to continue to work on how we can flip the economics of cyberspace; specifically, how we can change our overall approach to cybersecurity to more directly address economic and human behavioral factors.

For example, we need to figure out how to use economic incentives to create a market for systems that are secure by default and that increase cost of conducting malicious activities in cyberspace. In the end, what makes cybersecurity hard is the non-technical aspects of it. As a result, cybersecurity requires a holistic approach that takes into account human behaviors and economics, as well as the technical factors.

[Daniel is the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator]

EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google

When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual.

You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.

Stark evidence of this fact, the result of a European court ruling that individuals had the right to remove material about themselves from search engine results, arrived in the Guardian's inbox in the form of an automated notification that six Guardian articles have been scrubbed from search results.

The Guardian has no form of appeal against parts of its journalism being made all but impossible for most of Europe's 368 million to find. The strange aspect of the ruling is all the content is still there: if you click the links in this article, you can read all the "disappeared" stories on this site. No one has suggested the stories weren't true, fair or accurate. But still they are made hard for anyone to find.

Courts issued over 3,500 wiretaps last year

Federal and state courts allowed more than 3,500 wiretaps in 2013, the highest number in recent years. Federal judges authorized 1,476 wiretaps, and state judges authorized 2,100 in 2013 -- up 9 percent and 3 percent, respectively, from 2012 -- according to the US court system’s annual Wiretap Report.

The vast majority of the wiretaps -- 97 percent -- were for “portable devices,” such as cellphones. While 41 of the more than 3,500 wiretaps intercepted encrypted communications in 2013, law enforcement agencies were able to decipher all but nine, the report said. Wiretaps lasted on average 40 days in 2013, one day longer than the average in 2012, according to the report.

What does the Facebook experiment teach us?

[Commentary] I’m intrigued by the reaction that has unfolded around the Facebook “emotion contagion” study.

As others have pointed out, the practice of A/B testing content is quite common. And Facebook has a long history of experimenting on how it can influence people’s attitudes and practices, even in the realm of research.

But why is it that this study has sparked a firestorm?

Facebook is not alone in algorithmically predicting what content you wish to see. An entire industry has emerged to produce crappy click bait content to manipulate emotions under the banner of “news.” Somehow, shrugging our shoulders and saying that we promoted content because it was popular is acceptable because those actors don’t voice that their intention is to manipulate your emotions so that you keep viewing their reporting and advertisements. And it’s also acceptable to manipulate people for advertising because that’s just business.

But when researchers admit that they’re trying to learn if they can manipulate people’s emotions, they’re shunned. What this suggests is that the practice is acceptable, but admitting the intention and being transparent about the process is not.

[boyd is Researcher, Harvard Berkman Center]

Amazon Resisting FTC on Policy Change for In-App Purchases

Amazon.com is bucking a request from the Federal Trade Commission that it tighten its policies for purchases made by children while using mobile applications.

In a letter to the FTC, Amazon said it was prepared to "defend our approach in court," rather than agree to fines and additional record keeping and disclosure requirements over the next 20 years, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

According to the documents, Amazon is facing a potential lawsuit by the FTC, which wants the Seattle retailer to accept terms similar to those that Apple previously agreed to regarding so-called in-app purchases. )

"When customers told us their kids had made purchases they didn't want, we refunded those purchases," said Andrew DeVore, an Amazon associate general counsel. He said Amazon's app store included "prominent notice of in-app purchasing, effective parental controls and real-time notice of every in-app purchase."

The FTC said Amazon would need to make the notices more prominent, require passwords for all in-app purchases and make refunds simpler and easier.

Benton

Search