Jon Brodkin

The Federal Communications Commission has decided not to appeal a court decision that allows states to impose laws restricting the growth of municipal broadband. The FCC in February 2015 voted to block laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories, but the states convinced a federal appeals court to keep the laws in place. The FCC could have asked for another appeals court review or gone to the Supreme Court but will instead let the matter drop.

"The FCC will not seek further review of the [US Court of Appeals for the] Sixth Circuit's decision on municipal broadband after determining that doing so would not be the best use of Commission resources," an FCC spokesperson said. The cities that were seeking to expand municipal broadband networks—Chattanooga (TN) and Wilson (NC)—were also involved in the case. The cities have not yet said whether they will appeal. The FCC relied on a novel legal argument in the case. Congress authorizes the FCC to promote competition in local telecommunications markets and to remove barriers that prevent infrastructure investment, and the FCC said that this authority allows it to preempt the state laws. But Congress never specifically authorized the FCC to preempt state laws, a fact that judges cited in overturning the FCC decision.

The new $70-per-month "unlimited data" plans announced by T-Mobile USA in August came with some big limits. Mobile hotspot speeds were to be throttled to 128kbps unless customers paid more, and online video resolution reduced to 480p unless customers paid extra to unlock high-definition video. But after a wave of criticism from those who think T-Mobile is violating network neutrality and others who think the new deal just isn't that good, the carrier announced some changes. It's a mixed bag, though, as there is apparently no way to permanently enable high-definition video, and T-Mobile is killing an option that would have let customers buy high-speed hotspot data in 5GB increments.

The standard T-Mobile One unlimited plan will now provide tethering speeds of up to 512kbps instead of just 128kbps. (T-Mobile's announcement calls 512kbps "3G" speed, though in reality T-Mobile's 3G network technology is quite a bit faster.) Half a megabit per second will be fast enough to let customers "use their mobile hotspot to check e-mail, share files, check the news or watch their favorite YouTube videos," T-Mobile said. Video resolution will still be limited on the standard T-Mobile One plan. But T-Mobile is making it cheaper to unlock unlimited high-speed hotspot usage and high-definition video for customers who want both features every month. Originally, T-Mobile said it would charge $15 for each 5GB of high-speed mobile hotspot usage, and another $25 a month for HD video. But today's announcement includes a "T-Mobile One Plus" plan that unlocks both high-definition video and unlimited 4G LTE mobile hotspot usage for an extra $25 a month ($95 total).

When Comcast brought its gigabit download cable service to Chicago (IL) recently, there was plenty of confusion about the price. Comcast initially said it would cost $140 a month, even though a $70 monthly price is available in other cities where Comcast has to compete against Google Fiber. But after we published a story on August 19, a Comcast spokesperson said the $70 offer was available in Chicago after all, contrary to what the company had said earlier that day. But there’s a difference between Comcast telling the media that a great deal is available and customers actually being able to sign up for it.

Comcast said that customers interested in the offer should sign up at xfinity.com/gig. But when you follow the links, the only pricing listed is $300 a month for 2Gbps fiber Internet and $140 a month for 1Gbps download speeds (with 35Mbps uploads). Talking to actual Comcast employees on the phone hasn’t gotten some customers any closer to the $70 gigabit deal. Some customers have been told the offer doesn't exist, while others have been told it simply isn't available in their area.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) accused T-Mobile USA of violating network neutrality principles with a new "unlimited" data plan that throttles video.

The group is weighing whether to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, and EFF is evaluating a similar offering from Sprint. T-Mobile's $70-per-month unlimited data plan limits video to about 480p resolution and requires customers to pay an extra $25 per month for high-definition video. Going forward, this will be the only plan offered to new T-Mobile customers, though existing subscribers can keep their current prices and data allotments. "From what we've read thus far it seems like T-Mobile's new plan to charge its customers extra to not throttle video runs directly afoul of the principle of net neutrality," said EFF Senior Staff Technologist Jeremy Gillula. The FCC's net neutrality rules include a ban on throttling. But there's a difference between violating "the principle of net neutrality" and violating the FCC's specific rules, which have exceptions to the throttling ban and allow for case-by-case judgments.

The Federal Communications Commission has lost in an attempt to preempt state laws that restrict the growth of municipal broadband networks.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states that opposed the FCC’s rules. "The FCC order essentially serves to re-allocate decision-making power between the states and their municipalities," the judges wrote. "This is shown by the fact that no federal statute or FCC regulation requires the municipalities to expand or otherwise to act in contravention of the preempted state statutory provisions. This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation. The FCC relies upon Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed." The decision was essentially unanimous, with judges John Rogers, Joseph Hood, and Helene White all voting to reverse the FCC's order. Jude White concurred in part and dissented in part, writing a separate opinion to address a few issues not covered in the majority opinion.

The latest Federal Communications Commission statistics show that Americans still have little choice of high-speed broadband providers.

On the surface, the numbers appear to show that the broadband market has gotten slightly less competitive since 2013. But what has really happened is the FCC is collecting more granular data that better illustrates the lack of choice for most Americans. Things are probably getting a little better as providers boost speeds and new entrants like Google Fiber and municipal ISPs offer service. But the FCC's improved statistical analysis shows how far there is to go. The FCC's latest Internet Access Services report was released just recently and contains data through June 30, 2015. At the FCC's 25Mbps download/3Mbps upload broadband standard, there are no ISPs at all in 30 percent of developed census blocks and only one offering service that fast in 48 percent of the blocks. About 55 percent of census blocks have no 100Mbps/10Mbps providers, and only about 10 percent have multiple options at that speed.

Wow, a cable company, is the latest Internet service provider to announce gigabit Internet plans. By the end of 2016, Wow promises to offer gigabit speeds to "thousands of residential and business customers" in Huntsville (AL), Auburn (AL), Evansville (IN), Knoxville (TN), and Grosse Pointe Shores (MI).

Wow will offer symmetrical gigabit using fiber-to-the-home in Grosse Point, but the other cities may end up with cable. Using newer DOCSIS technology, Wow can offer gigabit download speeds over cable. But cable upload speeds will be just 50Mbps. A spokesperson declined to provide specific launch dates and prices, saying, "As we turn up each market later this year we will be announcing our very competitive pricing." Pricing may have to be as low as $70 a month for gigabit service to be competitive against Google Fiber and AT&T. Google hasn't turned on service in any of Wow's announced markets, but it has plans for Huntsville. AT&T also plans to launch gigabit Internet in Huntsville by the end of 2016.

Google Fiber was planning to install fiber lines in San Jose (CA) starting in July, but has delayed the project while it considers a wireless alternative. Google Fiber recently announced plans to purchase Webpass, a company that uses point-to-point wireless technology to offer speeds up to 1Gbps, the same as Google's fiber-to-the-home network. San Jose may not be the only city where Google Fiber re-thinks current plans as a result of its newfound wireless capabilities. The Webpass purchase is expected to be completed this summer.

"Google Fiber is already up and running in seven other major cities, outside California, but a source familiar with the project says the company is putting additional fiber locations on the back burner to reassess the technology and explore a cheaper alternative—wireless service that does not require expensive, capital-intensive and time-consuming installation of fiber cables under the ground," the Mercury News reported. "The source said Google is now focusing more on aerial installation." Google Fiber has been talking with San Jose city officials about a deployment for more than two years. Webpass's wireless technology is better suited to multi-unit residential buildings than single-family homes. But it could speed Google Fiber deployment, which has also stalled in other cities where Google must negotiate access to utility poles owned by the incumbent ISPs against which it's trying to compete. The Webpass network relies on antennas and receivers placed on top of high buildings.

Aug 4, Verizon faced complaints from customers and government officials about maintenance of its copper network in areas of New Jersey. Hearings were held by the NJ state Board of Public Utilities (BPU) on Verizon service in rural parts of South Jersey, where the company hasn't upgraded its networks to fiber. About 200 "frustrated residents" attended and nearly 80 signed up to speak, airing their complaints for hours.

Theresa Duffy-Diamond of Cedarville (NJ) owns three businesses but complained that she has trouble running them because of how hard it is to make phone calls. She played a voicemail that she received—it contained "nothing but crackling sounds." 63-year-old John Dowling of Estell Manor, who suffers from a chronic lung disease and needs frequent medical attention, reported not being able to make phone calls from his landline when it rains. When he complains to Verizon, "four days later they would come out on a sunny day and say the lines are all clear," he said. A coalition of municipal and county governments asked the state to hold an evidentiary hearing to further investigate Verizon's copper maintenance. Cumberland County Counsel Ted Baker recently provided the BPU with more than 80 pages of complaints from residents.

The Washington state attorney general's $100 million lawsuit against Comcast uses a sales script and transcripts of chats with customers to make the case that Comcast deceived subscribers when marketing what the state calls "near-worthless" service plans. Since January 2011, Comcast made $73 million selling Service Protection Plans (SPP) for up to $5 a month to 500,000 customers in Washington. But the service plans were sold to customers under false pretenses, with Comcast describing the plans as being far more comprehensive and useful than they were, Attorney General Bob Ferguson alleged.

One of Ferguson's key pieces of evidence is a sales script that Comcast used until June 2016. (Comcast recently made changes to address the attorney general's complaints.) Though Comcast service plans had various limitations and purportedly "covered" certain services that were actually available for free, the "sales scripts did not include any reference to limitations on the SPP's coverage," the AG's lawsuit said. "Nor did Comcast's training manuals teach its employees to disclose the limitations to Washington consumers."