November 2014

The Internet's Future is Now

[Commentary] So 2014 will pass into history without the Federal Communications Commission stepping up to the plate to ensure an Open Internet. Think of the good history the Commission could have made for itself. Instead we got more delay and more uncertainty about whether Title II net neutrality will ever see the light of day. The hoped-for scenario now is that progress will come at the January 2015 FCC monthly meeting. Perhaps, even as you read this, the Commission is reworking its notably deficient and wildly unpopular proposal from earlier this year. There is no reason for this process -- if indeed this is the process now -- to take long. The agency is expert on every aspect of telecommunication law; it has been amassing a comprehensive Title I/Title II/Section 706 record for more than a dozen years; and there are no new arguments to be made that haven’t been made many times before. Time is not the friend of the Open Internet.

Obama's plan for network neutrality makes perfect sense

[Commentary] President Barack Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet under what is called “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.” The call for Title II was immediately misunderstood and widely criticized. “Why should we tie the Internet to something set up 80 years ago?” the skeptics ask. It turns out there are several good reasons, and they get to the heart of how the Internet helps our economy.

The most important issue is simply the cost and speed of the Internet connections that Internet Service Providers offer to their customers. This has nothing to do with so-called “paid prioritization,” the question of fast lanes versus slow lanes. For most Americans, basic cost and speed is much more important. And it is easier to understand what is at stake. Why turn to the Telecommunications Act of 1934 to regulate the Internet of tomorrow? Because large portions of it still apply. The economics of spanning sparsely populated areas with telecommunications networks haven’t changed much in the past 80 years, and neither have the challenges of too little competition.

[Brodwin is a cofounder and board member of American Sustainable Business Council]

Obama's Network Neutrality Plan Could Mean New Internet Fees

President Barack Obama thrilled liberals and Internet activists by calling for the "strongest possible" network neutrality regulations to ensure that all Internet traffic is treated equally. But his plan, which is still under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission, has raised a host of thorny regulatory questions unrelated to net neutrality, such as whether to impose government fees on Internet service.

The possibility of a new "Internet tax" is sure to enrage Republicans, who are already fiercely opposed to Obama's plan for stronger regulation of Internet service. "The net result is that every single American broadband customer will have to pay a new tax or taxes to access the Internet," FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai warned. "That translates into less broadband adoption, especially among the millions of families that still struggle to make ends meet in this lackluster economy." Technically, the FCC does not have the authority to "tax." But the agency already collects about $8 billion every year from phone companies for its Universal Service Fund. The companies pass those costs on to consumers in the form of monthly fees on their phone bills. So far, the FCC has rejected calls to expand the fees to other services, such as broadband. That could change under the president's net neutrality plan.

Speak Your Piece: Title II and You

[Commentary] Rural Americans should be pleased with President Obama’s recent call to preserve network neutrality. And the method he wants the Federal Communications Commission to use to protect open access to the Internet means additional safeguards for all consumers. The President explicitly compared telephone and broadband service, thus opening the door to a conversation I really want to have -- how to bring affordable, reliable broadband service to rural communities.

[Nov 20]

Welcome to the World of Title II Regulation

[Commentary] Occasionally a proponent of Title II regulation of Internet access will ask, in effect, what’s so bad about Title II? What follows is a cautionary tale about the absence of regulatory certainty in the world of Title II regulation; a world into which so many net neutrality proponents want to throw the Internet. I think this story speaks volumes about the kind of regulatory stability – so crucial to maintaining incentives to build world class Internet infrastructure – we can expect from the FCC in the years to come.

To fully understand how the Title II world undermines regulatory stability, enables regulatory capture and ultimately harms consumer welfare and innovation, let’s go back to 2010…

[Nov 20]

New Yorkers Get Worse Internet Service Than People in Bucharest

[Commentary] A recent study by New America’s Open Technology Institute provides more data about what the American broadband market looks from the customer perspective.

“Cost of Connectivity” documents the actual high-speed Internet packages available in 24 cities around the world, giving you a glimpse about what, for example, a 25 Mbps connection costs if you live in Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong, or Kansas City. And the results are not very pretty. With information on more than 2,000 home and mobile broadband options in 24 cities scattered across North America, Europe, and Asia, “Cost of Connectivity” shows where the fastest speeds are available, the best deals you can find for less than $40, and what you might expect to pay, on average, for a given speed tier in each of the cities surveyed. Some of the contrasts are stark. In Seoul, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, and Bucharest, $40 a month will buy blazing-fast gigabit service -- while in Los Angeles or New York, a Time Warner Cable customer would the same price for just 15 Mbps. Meanwhile, 3 GB of data costs at least $30 in the United States, but for roughly less than $10 you can get 6 GB in Copenhagen or Bucharest.

[Kehl is a policy researcher the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute]

Settlement in Apple Case Over E-Books Is Approved

A federal judge approved a settlement in which Apple could begin paying $400 million to as many as 23 million consumers related to charges that it violated antitrust law by conspiring with publishers to raise e-book prices and thwart efforts by Amazon. In the hearing, Judge Denise L. Cote of Federal District Court in Manhattan approved an unusual settlement reached this summer in which Apple agreed to pay $400 million to consumers in cash and e-book credits, and $50 million to lawyers. Those figures could still change, however, if an appeals court overturns a 2013 verdict in the case, in which Apple was found to have conspired with five major publishers to fix the price of e-books. The court, which will hear Apple’s challenge on Dec. 15, is not expected to change its previous ruling. In the event the court overturns the verdict and returns the case to Judge Cote, Apple would pay $50 million to consumers and $20 million to the lawyers. [Nov 21]

Why Mark Cuban opposes network neutrality: ‘I want there to be fast lanes’

A Q&A with Mark Cuban.

He has become one of the loudest voices against new so-called network neutrality regulations that's not coming from a telecom company's executive suite. Cuban's biggest worry: that those rules, even if well-intentioned, could end up killing innovation. The idea that the federal government should apply firm and fast "neutrality" rules to the Internet is, arguably, quickly becoming conventional wisdom. And there's nothing that Cuban dislikes more than untested conventional wisdom. We owe it to the Internet, he argues, to ask the hard questions now. "The promise of the Internet is not reruns of 'Shark Tank' or any movie or TV show," he argued. "It's that it's a platform for creativity and innovation."

Seattle councillors to vote on funding Internet access at homeless camps

The Seattle City Council was expected to vote on a measure that would fund Internet access at the city's homeless camps. Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant wants a portion of a proposed $100,000 in the upcoming city budget that has been earmarked to improve conditions at homeless camps to include access to Internet, including possible wireless availability. Sawant said Internet access will allow homeless individuals to look for jobs, communicate and keep up with news and current events. "We are no longer looking at Internet as a luxury. We have to make sure we provide humane services for everybody," she said.

T-Mobile Agrees To Improve Disclosures for Consumers Using Mobile Speed Tests

The Federal Communications Commission announced that T-Mobile US has agreed to take steps to ensure that customers who run mobile speed tests on the carrier’s network will receive accurate information about the speed of their broadband Internet connection, even when they are subject to speed reductions pursuant to their data plans.

As part of the agreement, T-Mobile will send text messages to customers that will enable them to more easily get accurate speed information, place direct links to accurate speed tests on customer handsets, and revamp its website disclosures to provide clearer information about the speeds customers actually experience. The FCC and T-Mobile have agreed that T-Mobile will begin implementing the agreement immediately and will fully implement it within 60 days.

Specifically, T-Mobile will take the following steps to ensure that consumers have clear and accurate information about the speed of their broadband connections:

Provide a button on customer smartphones linking to a speed test that will show actual reduced speeds;
Modify the text messages it currently sends to customers once they hit their monthly high-speed data allotment to make it clear that certain speed tests may show network speeds, rather than their reduced speed. The modified texts also will provide more information about the speeds that will be available after customers exceed their data cap; and
Modify its website disclosures to better explain T-Mobile’s policies regarding speed test applications and where consumers can get accurate speed information

Benton

Search