Jon Brodkin

Cities and towns in Maine that want to provide their own broadband service just helped defeat a proposed law that would have made it impossible to build taxpayer-funded networks.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Nate Wadsworth, a Hiram Republican, would have imposed stringent conditions that critics say would make it all but impossible for Maine towns and cities to build their own high-speed networks when cable and telephone companies decline to provide upgraded service. Municipal officials and one ISP that has partnered with a city for a municipal project objected to the bill in a hearing. The next day, a legislative technology committee voted 12-0 against the bill, effectively killing it.

SpaceX said its planned constellation of 4,425 broadband satellites will launch from the Falcon 9 rocket beginning in 2019 and continue launching in phases until reaching full capacity in 2024. SpaceX gave the Senate Commerce Committee an update on its satellite plans during a broadband infrastructure hearing. Satellite Internet access traditionally suffers from high latency, relatively slow speeds, and strict data caps. But as we reported in November, SpaceX says it intends to solve these problems with custom-designed satellites launched into low-Earth orbits.

No major Internet service provider has done more to prevent implementation of network neutrality rules in the US than Verizon. After years of fighting the rules in courts of law and public opinion, Verizon is about to get what it wants as the Federal Communications Commission—now led by a former Verizon lawyer—prepares to eliminate the rules and the legal authority that allows them to be enforced.

But Verizon's general counsel, Craig Silliman, wants you to believe that Verizon never opposed net neutrality rules, even though it sued the FCC to eliminate them. He's also making the claim that the FCC isn't even talking about eliminating the net neutrality rules, even though FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to do exactly that.

Canada is taking a much stronger stand against data cap exemptions than the United States. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission's new Republican leadership signaled that it won't enforce network neutrality rules against zero-rating, the practice of favoring certain Internet content by exempting it from customers' data caps. The FCC made that clear when it rescinded a determination that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality rules by letting their own video services stream without counting against customers' data caps while charging other video providers for the same data cap exemptions.

Canada is also taking a case-by-case approach to zero-rating instead of banning it outright. But April 20, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ordered changes to one carrier's zero-rating program and announced that it will enforce stricter guidelines for determining whether zero-rating programs are discriminatory. Zero-rating "generally gives an unfair advantage or disadvantage to certain content providers and consumers," CRTC said in an announcement. The group said that it is "strengthen[ing] its commitment to net neutrality," and it also published detailed guidelines and its decision against Videotron, a telecom whose "Unlimited Music" program exempts certain online music providers from data caps of subscribers with certain mobile data plans.

Google Fiber and other Internet service providers that want to build new networks might get good news from the Federal Communications Commission, which is considering rules that would speed up the process of attaching wires to utility poles. Current FCC rules allow for up to a five-month waiting period before new ISPs can install wires on utility poles that already hold the wires of incumbent providers. This is a problem for Internet users, who often don't have any choice of high-speed providers. The new FCC proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could shave a couple of months off the maximum waiting periods. The rules wouldn't eliminate all the problems that recently caused Google Fiber to cut its staff and pause fiber operations in 11 cities while it pursues wireless networking technology. But Google Fiber said the initial FCC proposal is a good step.

A Federal Communications Commission plan to eliminate price caps in much of the business broadband market uses a new test for determining whether customers benefit from competition. Even if a business that needs broadband has only one choice today, the FCC would consider the local market competitive if there's a second broadband provider within a half mile. The proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will hurt small business customers of ISPs, according to a federal office that advocates on behalf of small businesses. But at least for now, the FCC plans to move ahead with a final vote at its meeting on April 20.

You may be thinking, "There are no price caps for broadband in the US!" That's true for the home Internet service market, but the FCC imposes price regulation on certain types of business broadband. So-called Business Data Services (BDS) provided by traditional phone companies like AT&T and Verizon use dedicated links to deliver "secure, reliable, and low-delay transmission service for moving voice, data, and video traffic" at speeds of up to 45Mbps upstream and downstream, the FCC's deregulation proposal says. Pai's definition of "sufficient competition" has drawn fire. The plan would treat an entire county as competitive "if 50 percent of the locations with BDS demand in that county are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider." A county would also be considered competitive if 75 percent of Census blocks in the county have a cable provider.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai reportedly wants to get rid of the FCC's network neutrality rules and replace them with "voluntary" commitments from ISPs. The theory goes something like this: as long as ISPs commit to protecting net neutrality in their terms of service, the FCC can eliminate its rules while the Federal Trade Commission would punish ISPs that fail to comply with their net neutrality promises.

Under ideal circumstances, this could prevent ISPs from committing egregious violations of net neutrality principles. But "voluntary" isn't just a euphemism—ISPs would only be bound by net neutrality requirements as long as they promise to follow them. Even if all ISPs put the promise into their terms of service agreements, it's not clear what would stop them from removing the promise later. If any new ISPs enter the market, it's also unclear what would compel them to make the same promises. And those aren’t the only problems that would make net neutrality enforcement more difficult under Pai's proposal.

While the US government is giving Internet service providers free rein to track their customers’ Internet usage for purposes of serving personalized advertisements, some Internet users are determined to fill their browsing history with junk so ISPs can’t discover their real browsing habits. Scripts and browser extensions might be able to fill your Web history with random searches and site visits. But will this actually fool an ISP that scans your Web traffic and shares it with advertising networks?

Legislation approved by the Minnesota House and Senate the week of March 27 would prevent Internet service providers from collecting personal information without written approval from customers. The quick action came in response to the US House and Senate voting to eliminate nationwide rules that would have forced ISPs to get consent from Americans before using or selling Web browsing history and app usage history for advertising purposes.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on Congress' decision to kill the Federal Communications Commission privacy rules. While there wouldn't be any rules for ISPs at the national level, states could try to implement some form of the FCC rules for their own residents. ISPs might conceivably change their practices nationwide if enough states do so, or customers in some states could have fewer privacy protections than customers in other states. As on climate change, immigration and a host of other issues, some state legislatures may prove to be a counterweight to Washington by enacting new regulations to increase consumers’ privacy rights.

On March 23 the Senate voted to eliminate privacy rules that would have forced Internet service providers to get your consent before selling Web browsing history and app usage history to advertisers. Within a week, the House of Representatives could follow suit, and the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission in 2016 would be eliminated by Congress.

So what has changed for Internet users? In one sense, nothing changed this week, because the requirement to obtain customer consent before sharing or selling data is not scheduled to take effect until at least December 4, 2017. ISPs didn’t have to follow the rules yesterday or the day before, and they won’t ever have to follow them if the rules are eliminated. But the Senate vote is nonetheless one big step toward a major victory for ISPs, one that would give them legal certainty if they continue to make aggressive moves into the advertising market.