May 2017

: Public Forum on Access and Affordability

Voices for Internet Freedom Coalition
Wed, May 10, 2017
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM PDT
Los Angeles, CA
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/connected-communities-a-forum-with-fcc-comm...

According to recent studies, residents of Los Angeles still struggle to maintain affordable telephone and Internet access. For those with limited or no access to the Internet or telephone, cost is the major barrier.

On May 10, Voices for Internet Freedom, a coalition that organizes and advocates for the digital rights of people of color, will hold a community forum in Los Angeles with Commissioner Mignon Clyburn of the Federal Communications Commission. The forum will give a voice to LA area residents to speak to the challenges they face in connecting to communications services, and how these challenges impact their lives.

Read more about Connected Communities

Gigabit Opportunity Zones Bill Introduced

Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) has introduced a bill, the Gigabit Opportunity (or GO) Act, that she says would accelerate the deployment of high-speed broadband in low-income and rural communities. It would also add some Hill imprimatur to proposals already offered up by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. The bill would give tax breaks to companies for investing in gigabit-capable expansion into those communities, direct the FCC to release a framework that encourages states, counties and cities to voluntarily adopt streamlined broadband laws and be designated as a “Gigabit Opportunity Zone," and defer capital gains for upgrades and allow companies to expense the cost of creating those zones, as well as allow states to more easily issue tax-exempt bonds.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has launched two proceedings to make it easier to build out broadband, wireless and wired, and has proposed creating Gigabit Opportunity Zones providing such tax breaks and streamlined approvals for buildouts.

Statement of Chairman Pai on the Introduction of the Gigabit Opportunity Act

Introduced by Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), the Gigabit Opportunity (GO) Act is an important step toward closing the digital divide, and one that has my full support. Next-generation networks are increasingly critical to economic opportunity, job creation, and civic engagement. But too many parts of rural and urban America can’t attract the investment needed to deploy those networks. With targeted tax incentives and regulatory streamlining, the GO Act aims to remove the major barriers holding back Internet access in economically challenged areas.

I commend Sen Capito for her vision of extending digital opportunity to all Americans. The Federal Communications Commission shares that vision and stands ready to provide any necessary assistance to Congress as it considers this critical legislation.

Verizon Accuses Net Neutrality Advocates of Lying to Rile Base

Network neutrality is under threat and advocacy groups such as Free Press, Fight for the Future and others are pushing to save it. That's not how Verizon, one of the Internet Service Providers hoping for a reversal of Federal Communications Commission rules enabling net neutrality, sees it.

"You gotta understand, there are a lot of advocacy groups out there that fundraise on this issue," said Craig Sillman, executive VP-public policy and general counsel at Verizon. "So how do you fundraise? You stir people up with outrageous claims. Unfortunately, we live in a time where people have discovered that it doesn't matter what's true, you just say things to rile up the base."

President Trump's attack on open internet imperils democracy

[Commentary] No act of the recklessly authoritarian Trump Administration poses a greater threat to democratic discourse than the now-announced plan to gut network neutrality rules. With newspapers dying, radio syndicated, broadcast television commercialized beyond relevance, and cable television mired in scandal and dead-end punditry, the internet is the essential tool for the communication of ideas and the mobilization of those who choose to resist the autocratic impulses of President Trump and his crony-capitalist cabal.

“Chairman Pai’s plan to gut the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules will devastate black communities,” said Rashad Robinson, the executive director of Color of Change, the civil rights group that played a vital role in securing the FCC’s embrace of genuine net neutrality in 2015. “Net neutrality is essential to protecting our free and open internet, which has been crucial to today’s fights for civil rights and equality.”

What happens when ‘Net Neutrality’ becomes ‘Pay-To-Play’?

A Q&A with Sam Frank, the Executive Director of Blue Boost.

Network neutrality is like a public park that anyone can use. ‘Pay-To-Play’ is a private club that only rich members use. What happens to the internet when access isn't equal? How could this impact consumers, businesses and non-profits? How could this impact charities and non-profit groups? To find out, I interviewed Sam Frank, the Executive Director of Blue Boost. He led the Digital Operations and Data for the Women's March on Washington and understands the consequences of this proposed change. “The FCC announcement to roll back almost all regulatory protections for content providers and get rid of ‘Net Neutrality’ is a big deal," said Sam Frank. "Organizing the Women's March on Washington would have been much harder without Net Neutrality. We may not even have been able to afford it."

Net Neutrality Rules May Slow Innovation, but Uncertainty Will Be Worse

What will happen if the Federal Communications Commission successfully eliminates President Barack Obama’s network neutrality rules? Unfortunately, that seems like anyone’s guess, and such an uncertain environment could leave us with even less investment by Internet service providers and content providers alike—more than 800 tech startups wrote FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently, urging him not to kill the rules.

It’s plausible that we could end up with no regulations at all, at least for a time. The agency could try to enact new rules, which would likely be more business-friendly and allow certain things that weren’t allowed under Obama’s rules, like Internet fast lanes. Ultimately, Congress has the power to step in and clarify the situation with legislation that establishes some sort of yet-to-be determined protections for content providers. If recent history is any guide, however, it's a long shot that this Congress will come up with a compromise on net neutrality anytime soon.

The Free, Open Internet Is Under Threat, and It’s Too Boring for Anyone to Care

[Commentary] Among the many fragile regulatory frameworks being attacked with sledgehammers by the Trump Administration is “network neutrality,” a very important issue that will dictate how the internet evolves (or doesn’t) for years to come. The problem, though, is that net neutrality is very tough to sell as important to people, because it is one of the most boring topics in the world.

Net neutrality is a fight over whether your cable company gets to screw you. That’s the one sentence you need to remember. If you support net neutrality, you want to prevent cable companies from screwing over their customers by slowing down certain websites. If you support the Federal Communications Commission rolling back Title II regulations, you support the ability of cable companies to slow down the websites you love to visit.

Net neutrality's long strange trip: a tale of tubes, a dingo and James Harden

It began as an academic subject with a wonky name — network neutrality. But at its heart, the issue was simple: Internet service providers should treat all content equally. Within a few years, the phrase — shortened to the slightly less-wonky net neutrality — became a rallying cry for Silicon Valley technology companies, liberals and online free-speech advocates.

For broadband companies and free-market conservatives, net neutrality became code for a government meddling in the vibrant Internet economy. Now, after some bizarre pop culture moments, an embrace by a young senator on his way to the presidency, three major court rulings and more than 4 million public comments (and counting) to federal regulators, the term has become part of the online and political lexicon.

Internet giants, not broadband providers, are the top threat to consumers

[Commentary] If you are an advertiser, Web publisher, or developer, there is no real competitive choice. You have to use Google for search advertising and Facebook for social advertising if you want to reach the global Internet audience. And if you're a global seller of goods and services, you have to sell wholesale through Amazon, because it offers access to several times more online buyers than any other online retailer. Some will object and say these cloud network providers (CNPs) are not Internet network providers, in part because they are network neutrality allies.

But like Internet service providers, these CNPs lease or own vast networks of fiber and undersea cable connections between their data centers, encryption proxy networks, and video distribution nodes in most every country in the world. In sum, the big four ISPs are not uniquely powerful Internet networks. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Internet giants are vastly more powerful in nearly every dimension.

[Scott Cleland is president of Precursor LLC and chairman of NetCompetition]

Benton

Search