October 2017

Net neutrality debate fails to recognize middle ground

[Commentary] Those against the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rollback of network neutrality regulations fear that allowing Internet service providers to control internet speed based on ability-to-pay will lead to an internet tilted in favor of companies with deeper pockets, not necessarily better services. But according to the rollback’s supporters, the current net neutrality regulations put in place by the Obama administration are an egregious overstepping of power on the part of the federal government, and serve to stunt growth and innovation in the industry.

But both sides fail to realize there is a middle ground — one that benefits consumers, but still keeps control from being pushed too far in either direction. It does not have to be either the federal government in control or ISPs. It does not have to be one to the exclusion of the other. In fact, one could argue that a very workable compromise would be to move back to a regulatory regime — whether through FCC efforts, a narrowly focused legislative solution, or some combination of the two — in essence representing the original rules in the first Open Internet Order (no blocking, no throttling, etc.), but not including the current Title II classification.

[Doug Sicker is the Department head of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. He is also the previous chief technology officer at the Department of Commerce and the chief technology officer at the Federal Communications Commission.]

Three steps Congress could take to help resolve the net neutrality debate – without legislating a fix

[Commentary] Without legislating specific net neutrality rules, Congress could take three important steps to clear away irrelevant legal impediments and make the debate more productive for regulators and the public alike.
1) Separate classification from regulation: Congress could enact legislation that removed the distinction between “telecommunication” and “information” services. The economic case for whether and how a firm should be regulated has nothing to do with what service it provides.
2) Restore a focus on the ‘public interest’: The Federal Communications Commission made a mistake by treating net neutrality as a competition problem rather than as a tool to protect speech.
3) Restore the role of antitrust in telecommunications: Focusing the FCC on the public interest would be easier if the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division or the Federal Trade Commission could guard against internet service providers engaging in monopolistic practices. At present, the antitrust agencies may not have that authority.

[Timothy Brennan is currently professor public policy and economics at the University of Maryland. He was chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission during 2014.]

Rep Lieu demands to know if DHS will collect his social media history, too

Rep Ted Lieu (D-CA) is a naturalized American citizen, having emigrated from Taiwan as a young child. Earlier in Sept, under a new proposed policy, the Department of Homeland Security said it will begin collecting public social media information about immigrants—possibly also green card holders and naturalized citizens—and include them as part of their so-called "Alien File."

Because of this ambiguity, Rep Lieu—who is very active on Twitter—has a basic question in a Sept 29 letter for Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke: "Does your proposed rule apply to me?" Rep Lieu, who said he has lived in the United States for over four decades and who holds the rank of colonel in the United States Air Force Reserves, also raised concerns that if enacted, the rule will be ineffective. Why does he think this? Because DHS’ own inspector general report found in February 2017 that previous "social media screening" pilot programs "lack criteria for measuring performance to ensure they meet their objectives."

Congress: Protect the Communications Privacy of Americans

[Commentary] Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act illustrates the value of sunsets. Its termination date is December 31, 2017, unless reauthorized by Congress. Experience since its enactment by in 2008 shows that section 702 has created a hole in the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy big enough to house the Pentagon.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), has an opportunity to become the James Otis of digital privacy by sponsoring legislation to cure section 702’s constitutional defects revealed by experience by requiring judicial warrants based on probable cause to justify invading the communications privacy of Americans.

[Bruce Fein is a constitutional scholar]

FCC plan leaves rural America in internet slow lane

[Commentary] To get internet with adequate speed into more rural areas, you could offer incentives for companies to build lines in places where there would otherwise be too few customers, and you could offer subsidies to residents to make the customer base as large as possible. Or you could just change the definition of “adequate.” Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission is looking hard at the latter option, and that’s bad news for the thousands of Mainers living in parts of the state unserved by high-speed internet.

Maybe one day, wireless internet on par with fixed broadband will become a reality – but that day is not here yet. FCC rules now state that areas should have access to both wireless and fixed broadband internet, and that should not change. True high-speed internet is a necessity for an economy driven by the latest technology. The areas that lack it are already in trouble and are falling further behind, and that won’t stop unless the government does something more than change a definition.

Does Even Mark Zuckerberg Know What Facebook Is?

Mark Zuckerberg had just returned from paternity leave, and he wanted to talk about Facebook, democracy, and elections and to define what he felt his creation owed the world in exchange for its hegemony. A few weeks earlier, in early September, the company’s chief security officer had admitted that Facebook had sold $100,000 worth of ads on its platform to Russian-government-linked trolls who intended to influence the American political process. Now, in a statement broadcast live on Facebook on September 21 and subsequently posted to his profile page, Zuckerberg pledged to increase the resources of Facebook’s security and election-integrity teams and to work “proactively to strengthen the democratic process.”

There are real consequences to our inability to understand what Facebook is. Not even President-Pope-Viceroy Zuckerberg himself seemed prepared for the role Facebook has played in global politics this past year. In which case, how can we be assured that Facebook is really safeguarding democracy for us and that it’s not us who need to be safeguarding democracy against Facebook?

Will SpaceX become the world’s biggest telecoms provider? Probably.

[Commentary] By launching 11,943 satellites SpaceX will do to telecoms what WhatsApp/Facebook Messenger did to SMS and in doing so capture a $1tn+ business — and there’s fringe benefits for Tesla.

What SpaceX are actually seeking is to replace every broadband and communications provider on the planet, by cutting out the middle man of land-based networks that stand between you and the internet. In doing so they will be essentially competing with every communications provider in the world — a business valued at over a trillion dollars. Forget about poor communities in Africa for a second: this is a pitch to replace physical fibre/cable connections in modern industrialised economies But a few questions arise from this including the big one: mobile phones. Will the plan be to have mobile phones work directly with satellites overhead? Is that even possible? Or will there be a hybrid approach — provide broadband to physically static locations and work from there?

[Gavin Sheridan is the Founder and CEO of Vizlegal.]

Benton

Search

Benton

Daily Digest

Analysis