August 2016

Some 911 Fees Go Unpaid by Phone Companies, Lawsuit Says

Local officials in several states have filed dozens of lawsuits saying phone companies, such as AT&T and Verizon, are doling out discounts to businesses at the expense of 911 emergency services.

Telecom operators are required by local laws to charge a 911 fee, typically about $1 for each phone line to support local 911 dispatch centers, including salaries, training and equipment for call takers. But with heated competition for business customers, phone companies have been undercutting one another by lowering those 911 fees for big businesses, resulting in less money for local authorities, the lawsuits allege. Officials in many of the affected counties arrived at the conclusion with help from Roger Schneider, an entrepreneur from Huntsville (AL), who stumbled across the issue 12 years ago. At that time, a representative from BellSouth, now part of AT&T, offered his small business such a discount without realizing that he was a member of the local 911 oversight board. Nationwide, local governments spent more than $3.1 billion on 911 services in 2014, while collecting $2.5 billion in 911 fees, leaving a $600 million funding shortfall, according to the most recent data from the Federal Communications Commission. Only a dozen states reported to the FCC that they collected enough fees to cover their 911 spending for the year, though not all states reported complete data.

Republicans see fresh chance to overhaul telecom law

Republicans believe they are finally close to overhauling a landmark law that has been a cornerstone of tech and telecom regulation for decades.

The effort to update the Communications Act, which gives the Federal Communications Commission its authority, has been years in the making and has powerful support. John Thune (R-SD), the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and veteran lawmakers on the House Commerce Committee are vowing to make changing the law a centerpiece of their 2017 agenda. Proponents of updating the law, first written in 1934 and last revised in 1996, say it's showing its age and is ill-suited to dealing with a world dominated by high-speed internet and mobile devices instead of phone service and traditional radio broadcasts.

Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day

An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles. With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations. But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy. Many think tanks also readily confer “nonresident scholar” status on lobbyists, former government officials and others who earn their primary living working for private clients, with few restrictions on such outside work. Largely free from disclosure requirements, the researchers’ work is often woven into elaborate corporate lobbying campaigns.

Over the many months that officials in Washington debated sweeping new regulations for internet providers, Jeffrey A. Eisenach, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, was hard to miss. He wrote op-ed pieces, including for The New York Times, that were critical of the rules. He filed formal comments with the Federal Communications Commission, where he also met privately with senior lawyers. He appeared before Congress and issued reports detailing how destructive the new rules would be. “Net neutrality would not improve consumer welfare or protect the public interest,” Eisenach testified in September 2014 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Intense advocacy by a think tank scholar is not notable in itself, but Eisenach, 58, a former aide at the Federal Trade Commission, has held another job: as a paid consultant for Verizon and its trade association.

How will the Internet change political advertising?

[Commentary] The Internet is rapidly transforming our political campaigns. But as social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter further entrench people into “echo chambers” where they hear more and more of the things they already agree with, is that a good thing? There are a number of reasons a shift toward online advertising will have a huge impact on how people consume political media:

  • It’s cheap and easy to implement. Anyone, in theory, has equal access to having a voice online.
  • There’s no limit to airtime on the Internet. A candidate’s reach is bounded only by the following they can build.
  • Companies such as Alphabet and Facebook can use data to let sophisticated advertisers target voters at a granular level. As a result, advertisers can tailor their messages to closely fit voters’ perspectives viewpoints, which theoretically will let candidates effectively mobilize specific populations to spend money or vote.

So far, the Federal Election Commission has refused to expand its scope to regulating online ads. Political action committees are required to disclose who’s behind the ads only if they were bought on websites. At the moment, free online media accounts — such as YouTube, Facebook or Instagram — are fairly unregulated territory. The result is a media environment in which consumers receive information that’s increasingly designed specifically for them — but they might not be able to tell where it’s coming from.

What the broadband home of the future may look like

The race to deliver the highest possible broadband speeds is on, with companies like Alphabet (Google Fiber), AT&T (GigaPower) and Comcast (Gigabit Internet) vying to deliver lightning fast Internet. But while most everyone agrees that the zippiest network speeds coupled with low latencies will ultimately provide a boon to consumers, it is not necessarily obvious how that future might play out, much less how soon we could get there?

To help every day folks imagine what’s possible, CableLabs, a non-profit innovation and R&D lab founded by leading companies in the cable industry, has released a short promotional film called “The Near Future,” to outline its vision through family vignettes. CEO Phil McKinney maintains it is about showing “what we believe the home of the future will look like that will require high-speed networks.” McKinney is talking network speeds of 1-gigabit-per-second, 3Gbps, and ultimately 10Gbps. CableLabs has been pushing a telecommunication standard called DOCSIS, shorthand for Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification. It's an approach for delivering fiber-like speeds over existing cable lines.