Jon Brodkin

Recently in Dallas (TX), a six-month-old baby boy named Brandon Alex died after the child's babysitter was unable to reach 911 from a T-Mobile phone. At the very same time, the Dallas 911 call center was overwhelmed by "a spike in calls" due to what has become known as "the ongoing T-Mobile ghost call issue," a Dallas city government announcement said. Police are reportedly investigating whether the 911 problem led to the death. Just days before Alex's death, a local man named Brian Cross died after it took 20 minutes for his husband, David Taffet, to reach 911. "Taffet called 911 and was disconnected. He called back and was put on hold," The Dallas Morning News reported. Paramedics arrived quickly after Taffet finally reached a 911 dispatcher, and Cross was taken to a hospital, but died within an hour.

New York City filed a lawsuit against Verizon. The city claims Verizon failed to complete a citywide fiber rollout by 2014 as required in its cable franchise agreement. Verizon disputes the city's allegations. The company says that it is not required to install fiber in front of each building. Meanwhile, nearly 1 million New York households do not have access to Verizon's fiber-based FiOS service.

Verizon says it has brought its network to 2.2 million NYC residences, while the city has an estimated 3.1 million households. The city government's complaint in the New York State Supreme Court seeks a declaration that Verizon is in breach of its obligations and an order to complete the project. The 2008 agreement, which gave Verizon a citywide cable television franchise, said Verizon must "pass all households" with its fiber-to-the-premises network by June 30, 2014. The agreement covered only cable television, but the fiber build-out also provided faster Internet speeds because the same fiber is used to deliver both services.

Republican Sens March 8 claimed that network neutrality rules are hurting broadband network investment and urged Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to overturn them. Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI) agreed that net neutrality rules harm Internet service provider investment and offered a lengthy analogy to explain why.

Sen Johnson said he wants to cut through the “rhetoric, slogans, and buzzwords,” before saying that enforcing net neutrality rules is like letting too many people use a bridge and ruin people’s lawns. Net neutrality rules, he said, also give adult content the same level of network access as remote medical services. The net neutrality rules passed in 2015 when the FCC was controlled by Democrats prevent fixed and mobile ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. Sen Johnson seems to be mostly concerned about an alleged inability of doctors and healthcare organizations to pay for priority over illegal and adult content. Net neutrality protections apply only to lawful Internet content, so the FCC rules do not prevent ISPs from blocking the illegal content that Sen Johnson is worried about.

Just a few weeks after escaping a network neutrality investigation into data cap exemptions, Verizon has decided to let its FiOS mobile video stream on its wireless network without counting against data caps. Customers who have Verizon FiOS TV at home and a Verizon Wireless smartphone plan can watch TV outside their homes without using up the data allotments on limited mobile plans.

Just two months ago, the Federal Communications Commission accused Verizon Wireless of violating net neutrality rules by letting its Go90 video service stream without counting against customers' data caps as the company charged other video providers for the same data cap exemptions (also known as "zero-rating"). But the FCC's new Republican leadership rescinded that claim and ended the investigation last month, giving carriers the green light to expand data cap exemptions. Verizon's Go90 mobile video service hasn't been a smashing success, and 155 employees were reportedly laid off as a result in January. But Verizon has 4.7 million FiOS TV subscribers, and the data cap exemptions might make them more likely to pay for Verizon's mobile service as well.

The Federal Communications Commission recently gave mobile carriers the green light to expand zero-rating, a method of favoring online content by exempting it from data caps. At the same time, carriers have been competing to offer the best unlimited data plans—and without data caps, there’s no need for zero-rating. But that doesn’t mean zero-rating and similar free data offers are over and done with, because many customers are still going to buy cheaper, limited data plans.

AT&T and Verizon seemed reluctant to make unlimited data plans widely available until they faced competitive pressure to do so. Those two carriers have created new sources of revenue by seeking payments from companies that want to bypass data caps in order to reach more customers. AT&T and Verizon have also made their own video services more attractive by exempting them from caps. You can expect that to continue despite the rise of unlimited data and possibly accelerate because the FCC’s new Republican leadership intends to allow both paid and unpaid data cap exemptions.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said his "light-touch" approach to regulation is already helping consumers in the form of unlimited smartphone data plans from major US carriers. And he predicted that getting rid of "utility-style regulation" over broadband providers will boost Internet access across the US.

There are, however, reasons to think that the FCC's zero-rating decision was not responsible for the new unlimited data offerings. For one thing, selling unlimited data harms the business case for paid data cap exemptions. If carriers don't limit the amount of data mobile customers can use each month, there's no reason for online content providers to pay the carriers for zero-rating. While data caps are hated by customers, they create a scarcity that can be monetized by carriers as long as the FCC allows paid zero-rating. Secondly, there were already unlimited data plans before Pai became chairman. T-Mobile USA introduced its "T-Mobile One" unlimited plan in August 2016, while Democrat Tom Wheeler was still FCC chairman and the FCC was pursuing its net neutrality investigation into zero-rating. Sprint was already selling unlimited data and so was AT&T (although AT&T's unlimited data was only available to DirecTV and U-verse TV customers).

Google Fiber's new wireless Internet division is apparently ready to expand. The company's Webpass subsidiary says in a job listing that it is "searching for a General Manager to launch our Seattle market." The new GM will be "directly responsible for the growth of our local telecom network and revenue" and will oversee construction and installation schedules. Webpass, which offers up to 1Gbps upload and download speeds for $60 a month and without data caps, was purchased by Google Fiber in October 2016 and already sells wireless home Internet service in Boston, Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Oakland, and San Francisco. (Advertised speeds are anywhere from 100Mbps to 1Gbps, depending on location.) The plan would bring Google’s wireless option to Seattle’s dense urban center where creating a new physical fiber network can be expensive and impractical.

Republican Sens are reportedly preparing a legislative move to overturn privacy rules that require Internet service providers to protect their customers' online data. Sen Jeff Flake (R-AZ) confirmed that he plans to introduce a resolution that would roll back the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules via the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to eliminate agency rules with a simple majority vote. Sen Flake had a dozen co-sponsors on board as of last week, but he hasn't said when exactly he'll submit the resolution.

In the House, Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said last week she was speaking with colleagues in the Senate "daily" about how to best utilize the CRA to undo broadband privacy. The flurry of action comes shortly after industry lobby groups asked Congress to use the CRA to undo the privacy rules. The rules passed in October require home and mobile ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other third parties.

AT&T is bringing fiber-to-the-home Internet to five new metro areas this month, boosting its fiber total to 51 metro areas in the US. Milwaukee (WI) has AT&T Fiber now, and later in Feb the service will arrive in Columbia (SC), Jackson (MI), Knoxville (TN), and Shreveport (LA). AT&T Fiber is available to nearly four million homes and businesses (up from three million in November 2016), but there's still a lot of work left to put fiber in additional cities and expand deployment in those where it's already available. "By mid-2019 we plan to reach at least 12.5 million locations across 67 metro areas with our 100 percent fiber network," AT&T said. The company agreed to hit those numbers in exchange for getting its purchase of DirecTV approved in 2015.

The "Virginia Broadband Deployment Act" that would have made it far more difficult for municipalities to offer Internet service has been dramatically watered down after running into heavy opposition. Instead of preventing cities and towns from offering broadband, a new version of the bill passed by the Virginia House this week merely imposes new record-keeping requirements.

The original bill favored by cable lobbyists (and called the "Broadband death star bill" by one opponent) would have prohibited municipal broadband deployments except in very limited circumstances. If it had passed, localities wouldn't have been allowed to offer Internet service if an existing network already provided 10Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds to 90 percent of potential customers. The bill also would have made it difficult for localities to offer lower rates than private ISPs. Gov Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) in Jan promised to veto the bill if it was passed by the state legislature. The proposal also drew opposition from local governments, broadband advocacy groups, and companies such as Google and Netflix. The opposition was successful, as House Republicans replaced the bill with another called the "Virginia Wireless Services Act" and approved it Tuesday by a 72-24 vote. It has now gone to the Senate for consideration.