You’re reading the Benton Foundation’s Weekly Round-up, a recap of the biggest (or most overlooked) telecommunications stories of the week. The round-up is delivered via e-mail each Friday; to get your own copy, subscribe at www.benton.org/user/register
Robbie's Round-Up for the Week of August 22-26, 2016
[Commentary] It’s increasingly dawning on people that they don’t really own a lot of the goods they buy, not in a world where software is infiltrating everything and can be modified at the whim of the seller. So it’s a breath of fresh air when the government steps in and tells a manufacturer it should allow, even encourage, customers to modify devices that most of us use in our homes and businesses: Wi-Fi routers that let us do our computing and communications without being tethered to a wire. That just happened in a case at the Federal Communications Commission, and it’s a very, very good thing.
If ever we needed the ability to modify a device by changing the software it shipped with, it’s this one. Many if not most routers are grossly insecure. Installing third-party operating software (sometimes called firmware) is sometimes the only way to plug gaping security holes. Moreover, changing the firmware can radically improve a router’s overall capabilities, such as creating community networks in places Big Telecom is slow to serve, and ensuring local communications in disasters.
[Gillmor teaches digital media literacy at Arizona State University]
AT&T filed its response to a July 27 Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) issued by the Federal Communications Commission for alleged violations of the lowest corresponding price (LCP) requirements of the E-rate program. These rules say that in order to participate in the E-rate program, a carrier must charge a participating school, library or consortium no higher than the lowest price that it charges to any similarly situated non-residential customer for similar services. To be clear, AT&T wholeheartedly supports the E-rate goals of providing schools and libraries with affordable broadband and telecommunications services. The FCC’s arguments, however, that AT&T applied the LCP rule incorrectly are factually wrong, they deviate from the FCC’s own rules and existing precedent, and they continue the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s troubling pattern of “rulemaking through enforcement.” The facts of the case aptly demonstrate that no actual FCC rules were violated.
© 1994-2026 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.
