Friday, November 15, 2019
Headlines Daily Digest
House Subcommittee Advances 9 Bills
Don't Miss:
State Leaders, Experts Sort Through Federal Broadband Bills
News From the Hill
News From the FCC
Broadband/Internet
Wireless
Platforms
Security
Elections
Journalism
Policymakers
Stories From Abroad
Sample Category
The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology advanced nine bills in a markup session Nov 14. Eight of the bills moved with little controversey:
- H.R. 4229, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act or the Broadband DATA Act, which requires the FCC to put out new rules on collecting more granular broadband availability data and verify its accuracy, something the FCC is already in the process of doing under pressure from Congress and others.
- H.R. 4227, the Mapping Accuracy Promotion Services Act (MAPS Act), which would make it illegal for carriers to submit inaccurate data on broadband availability.
- H.R. 5000, the Studying How to Harness Airwave Resources Efficiently Act of 2019 (SHARE Act), which requires the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, which oversees federal spectrum, to consult with the FCC on a spectrum-sharing program and test bed.
- H.R. 4998, the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, which requires the FCC to create and maintain a list of "communications equipment and services that pose an unacceptable risk to national security and prohibits the use of funds made available by FCC programs to purchase, rent, lease, or otherwise obtain such equipment and services." It also creates a program for helping smaller providers pay for removing and replacing suspect tech and services from their networks.
- H.R. 4461, the Network Security Information Sharing Act of 2019, which would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, NTIA, and FCC, to create a program for sharing supply chain security risk information with communications service providers and suppliers.
- H.R. 2881, the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2019, which would direct the President to develop a "Secure Next Generation Mobile Communications Strategy” in consultation with the heads of FCC, NTIA, and Department of Homeland Security, as well as the DNI and Secretary of Defense.
- H.R. 4500, the Promoting United States Wireless Leadership Act of 2019, which directs NTIA to "encourage participation by trusted American companies and other stakeholders in standards-setting bodies, and to offer technical assistance to stakeholders that do elect to participate, in the course of developing standards for 5G networks and future generations of communications networks."
- H. Res. 575, "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all stakeholders in the deployment of 5G communications infrastructure should carefully consider and adhere to the recommendations adopted at the Prague 5G security conferences known as "the Prague Proposals." Those include that laws on connectivity are guided by equity and that influence from foreign entities must be taken into account.
There was a little more friction on the last bill on the day's agenda, H.R. 5035, the "Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019." The bill requires cable, internet, and phone providers to list a single advertised price inclusive of all fees, government and company-imposed alike. Only taxes that vary by locality could be charged separately. The bill will be the subject of more debate as it moves to the full Commerce Committee.
The House Small Business Committee took its turn at running Big Tech through another Hill gauntlet at a hearing titled "A Fair Playing Field? Investigating Big Tech’s Impact on Small Business." Committee Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) started the hearing by praising Amazon and Google for agreeing to send witnesses, and pointing to the two empty chairs for no-shows Facebook and Apple. To the latter, she said, their absence not only impeded Congress' mission but "speaks volumes about the companies' commitment to transparency and their very own customers," adding ominously: "You reap what you sow." As to the issue of Big Tech's impact on small business, she said that while tech platforms can be beneficial, Big Tech's grip on the daily lives and the competitive landscape is "astounding and also concerning." She pointed out that Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Amazon are worth a collective 4.3 trillion dollars.
The Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order aimed at strengthening the Lifeline’s program’s enrollment, recertification, and reimbursement processes so that Universal Service Fund dollars are directed only toward qualifying low-income consumers. Specifically, these reforms include:
- Prohibiting participating carriers from paying commissions to employees or sales agents based on the number of consumers who apply for or are enrolled in the Lifeline program with that carrier.
- Requiring participating carriers’ employees or sales agents involved in enrollment to register with the program administrator, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).
- Codifying a rule that strengthens prohibitions barring Lifeline providers from claiming “subscribers” that are deceased.
- Taking additional steps to better identify duplicate subscribers, prevent reimbursement for fictitious subscribers, and better target carrier audits to identify potential FCC rule violations.
- Increasing transparency by posting aggregate subscribership data, including data broken out at the county level, on USAC’s website.
- Increasing transparency with states by directing USAC to share information regarding suspicious activity with state officials.
The Order also restores the traditional and lawful role of the states in designating carriers to participate in the Lifeline program, furthering their important role in monitoring and enforcing carrier activities.
A Further Notice seeks comment on additional measures to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, including ways to ensure the accuracy of carriers’ claims that subscribers are using their Lifeline service on an ongoing basis and whether providers’ practice of providing free cell phones during in-person Lifeline enrollment events encourages ineligible applicants to attempt to enroll in the program. The Further Notice also seeks comment on appropriate program goals and metrics for a modernized Lifeline program.
Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks do not support the Order. Commissioner Rosenworcel said, "This program has made it possible for low-income consumers to reach out in crisis; seek employment; secure healthcare; and interact with local, state, and federal government. But in the last few years the Federal Communications Commission has failed to recognize that Lifeline is about opportunity. That’s regrettable because in its place this agency has consistently offered cruelty, harming a program whose primary purpose is to lend a hand and help. To be clear, this means cruelty to as many as 2 million elderly Americans who rely on this program for basic connectivity. It means cruelty to the roughly 1.3 million veterans who have served our country and rely on Lifeline service to stay in touch. It means cruelty to those recovering from disaster, like the half a million residents of Puerto Rico who are still rebuilding their lives and communities in the wake of Hurricane Maria and rely on this program to communicate. It means cruelty to the more than 20,000 women, men and children across the country who call a domestic violence hotline every day because many of the organizations behind those hotlines depend on Lifeline to help protect those who call from future harm. And it means cruelty to the 650,000 homeless youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and may rely on discounted access to wireless service to stay safe."
Commissioner Starks said, "I am deeply troubled by many toxic questions asked by the FNPRM. It seeks comments on whether the Commission should “ask Lifeline applicants whether they would be able to afford their Lifeline-supported service without the Lifeline discount,” and asserts that some consumers may be willing to 'purchase some level of broadband service even in the absence of a Lifeline benefit' because they 'may value broadband access so highly.' It goes on to ask questions about a fee in exchange for receiving a handset or device in-person at enrollment, and about program integrity recommendations as it relates to usage requirements. To the best of my research, I don’t believe we’ve ever probed elderly Medicare recipients on how much they actually value their medical services; nor should we probe vulnerable, Lifeline recipients on how much they value their connectivity."
In recent weeks, members of the U.S. Congress have announced a number of broadband-related bills that aim to ensure that local communities have a better chance of delivering high-speed Internet to their residents. But would these acts, if passed, lead to meaningful results? Government Technology spoke to a number of leaders and experts about the implications of three particular pieces of legislation. Their differing opinions highlight the great complexity of the broadband issue.
Victory over telecom industry gives Connecticut towns a way to provide their own faster, cheaper internet service
The telecommunications industry lost and consumers won in a Connecticut Superior Court decision that gives cities and towns the right to use existing utility infrastructure within their borders to create municipal networks that deliver cheap, fast internet service to homes and businesses. Perhaps the greatest benefit to consumers in the decision in a suit by towns against the telecommunications industry and state utility regulators is its potential to develop a means of delivering fast, efficient internet services to underserved towns in the state’s rural northern corners and in parts of large cities like Hartford. Judge Richard Shortall concluded that, under state law, cities and towns have the right to create internet networks by stringing their own cables on the poles and through the underground conduit that distribute cable television, telephone and electric service within their borders. The towns were opposed in the case by Frontier, United Illuminating, the wireless and cable television industries, and the state Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.
More than $300 million has been funneled to New Mexico in recent years to boost broadband access for schools, hospitals and other institutions, but many rural areas remain unserved, a report says. Legislative analysts outlined their findings in the report for state lawmakers, saying New Mexico lags when it comes to high-speed internet and efforts to address access are disjointed and scattered across multiple agencies. Boosting broadband has been a longstanding challenge for New Mexico. Federal and state officials are hosting workshops in Truth or Consequences and Albuquerque to bring civil leaders and experts together. Federal officials point to census figures that show almost 30% of New Mexico residents have no internet subscription of any type while 55% of residents have a subscription such as fiber, cable or DSL at home. That means nearly half the homes in New Mexico don’t currently benefit from a high-speed broadband connection. Legislative analysts looked at how New Mexico compares to other states and territories and found it trails all but Mississippi and Puerto Rico in household broadband penetration. Two of New Mexico’s neighbors — Utah and Colorado — rank in the top five most connected states while Arizona ranked 14th.
A partnership between the telecommunications company and technology company NEC is looking at whether the fiber-optic networks coursing through cities can be used to glean real-world intelligence. Vehicle counts, traffic slow-downs and other pieces of data central to traffic management may one day be gleaned from a city’s fiber-optic communications network.
AT&T, the latest to retire old mostly-unlimited plans, did so only 20 months after the June 2018 introduction of its previous offers. The new ones – announced days before the Federal Trade Commission fined AT&T $60 million for not disclosing speed limits on plans sold five years ago as unlimited – require factoring in the same three variables as the other nationwide carriers’ unlimited-ish deals. First comes the threshold at which your data speeds may slow if the network gets congested – aka “deprioritization.” How much less priority? AT&T users have reported sub-3G speeds, down to 1 Mbps. That should be the most important factor, since it directly affects your ability to do much online on your phone – as in, it limits your use of “unlimited” data. Then there’s how much data you can share with nearby devices via your phone’s mobile-hotspot function. Last comes the top resolution of video streamed over the cellular connection. All four carriers limit that to a DVD’s 480p standard-definition resolution on cheaper plans, which you may not notice on a smaller screen.
Here’s what AT&T now touts, with prices reflecting automatic-payment and paperless-billing discounts:
- Unlimited Starter, from $65 for one line to $140 for four: no priority data, no mobile hotspot, SD streaming;
- Unlimited Extra, $75 for one line or $160 for four: 50 GB priority data, 15 GB mobile hotspot, SD streaming;
- Unlimited Elite, $85 for one line or $200 for four, available “in the coming weeks”: 100 GB priority data, 30 GB mobile hotspot, HD streaming, free HBO.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) — we welcome your comments.
© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2019. Redistribution of this email publication — both internally and externally — is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org
The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society All Rights Reserved © 2019