Today's events https://www.benton.org/events
Zero hour nears for net neutrality rules
The Federal Communications Commission is moving forward with a plan to scrap net neutrality rules, defying a massive outcry from activists, Democrats and consumers. “I think what net neutrality repealed would actually mean is we once again have a free and open internet,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. “The government would not be regulating how anyone in the internet service providers, how anyone else in the internet economy manages their networks.” A handful of Republicans have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to Pai’s push. Most notably, Sen Susan Collins (R-Maine) has expressed support for keeping the net neutrality rules, warning that the FCC’s moves could be “anti-competitive” in a “way that limits consumers’ choices.” But overall, Pai’s plan has broad support among congressional Republicans, who appear unlikely to support any legislation keeping some form of net neutrality in place. The GOP has urged Democrats to collaborate on a legislative replacement to the rules, but Democrats don’t think that proposals Republicans have floated privately are substantive enough.
Poll: 83 percent of voters support keeping FCC's net neutrality rules
More than 80 percent of voters oppose the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to repeal its net neutrality rules, according to a new poll from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation. The survey presented respondents with detailed arguments from both supporters and opponents of the repeal plan, before asking them where they stood on the rules. It found that 83 percent overall favored keeping the FCC rules, including 75 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of independents. “A decision to repeal net neutrality would be tacking against strong headwinds of public opinion blowing in the opposite direction,” said Steven Kull, the director of the university program. Overall, 48 percent of all voters found the argument to repeal the rules convincing and 51 percent found it unconvincing. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans found the argument convincing, compared with 35 percent of Democrats. Three-quarters of all voters found the argument in favor of keeping the rules convincing, including 72 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats.
This poll gave Americans a detailed case for and against the FCC’s net neutrality plan.
On the eve of a pivotal vote that would deregulate the broadband industry, a fresh survey from the University of Maryland shows that large majorities of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — oppose the government's plan to repeal its network neutrality rules for Internet providers. The results paint the picture of an electorate that is largely at odds with the GOP-led Federal Communications Commission. The survey by the university's Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the People, a nonpartisan polling organization, concluded that 83 percent of Americans do not approve of the FCC proposal. Just 16 percent said they approved. Americans in the survey were far less likely to find the FCC's arguments for repeal persuasive, and far more likely to agree with arguments for keeping the regulations. While 48 percent said they found the government's case convincing, 75 percent said they found the contrasting arguments of consumer groups and tech companies convincing. About one in five Republicans said they were in favor of the FCC's proposal.
Net neutrality's repeal means fast lanes could be coming to the internet. Is that a good thing?
Paid prioritization involves a telecommunications company charging an additional fee to transport a video stream or other content at a higher speed through its network. The fee would most likely come from deals struck with websites such as Netflix willing to pay for a competitive advantage over an online rival. Or the fee could be charged to a company providing services that require reliably fast connections, such as self-driving vehicles or remote health monitoring of people with serious illnesses. But it’s possible consumers could be charged extra if, for example, they want to be able to stream the games of their favorite sports teams without worrying about balky video caused by network congestion. Supporters of fast lanes say they would encourage the development of innovative new services, as well as investments in expanding and improving wireless and fiber networks that would increase internet access and overall data speeds. “By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization — such as latency-sensitive telemedicine,” Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who is leading the push to repeal the net neutrality rules, said in a recent speech. But opponents warned that what they call toll lanes would alter the open nature of the internet, squeezing out start-ups and small companies that lack the money to pay for faster content delivery.
39 Senators Call on FCC Chairman Pai to Abandon 'Reckless' Plan to End Net Neutrality
More than three dozen senators joined Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-FL) on a letter turging Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai to abandon his plan to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rules in favor of giving internet providers the ability to freely block or slow down consumers’ access to the internet. “Your plan gives a broadband provider the ability to significantly alter their subscribers’ internet experience,” the lawmakers wrote. “Once adopted, this proposal will permit that provider to freely block, slow down or manipulate a consumer’s access to the internet as long as it discloses those practices – no matter how anti-consumer – somewhere within mounds of legalese in a new “net neutrality” policy. …It is a stunning regulatory overreach.”
34 House Members Sign Letter to Chairman Pai to Protect Net Neutrality
We write to express our strong opposition to the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to abdicate its responsibility under law to uphold Title II of the Communications Act. Voting to undo Title Ii protection for broadband Internet will leave consumers vulnerable to exploitation by ISPs, hinder innovation and free expression, and allow for discrimination against marginalized communities and activists. For these reasons, we urge the commission to not vote for this proposed rule on December 14, 2017.
Reps McNerney and Dingell Blast Chairman Pai for Failure to Follow Through on Commitments
Reps Jerry McNerney (D-CA) and Debbie Dingell (D-MI) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai expressing their strong disappointment that the Chairman has failed to provide repeatedly requested documentation related to the alleged May 7 distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System. During the time of these alleged attacks, the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System experienced an outage, and the public was unable to file comments on the Chairman’s proposal to roll back net neutrality protections. In the letter, Reps McNerney and Dingell urge Chairman Pai to follow through on his commitments before holding a vote on his proposal to eliminate net neutrality protections. At the two FCC oversight hearings that were held in 2017 before the House Communications Subcommittee, Chairman Pai assured Reps McNerney and Dingell that he would produce documentation related to the alleged attacks. After not receiving the requested documentation, the members asked the Chairman about this information in a question for the record. To date, no response has been received. “Given your high regard for transparency, we would expect that you would have disclosed to us by now the requested documents or an explanation of technical or legal prohibitions for your refusal to do so,” Reps. McNerney and Dingell wrote in the letter. “…Transparency is important, even when it’s not convenient. We expect you to live up to your commitment to transparency. Many unanswered questions remain about the motive behind the alleged attacks, the response of the FCC, and whether the outage had a major impact on the ability of the American people to comment on the proceeding to eliminate net neutrality protections.” Reps McNerney and Dingell continued. “The Commission should be transparent about any potential issues with the factual record on a proceeding of this magnitude, and should not move forward with a vote until the American people know what happened,” Reps McNerney and Dingell concluded.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Thune Commends FCC's Internet Freedom Order
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) took to the Senate floor to praise the Federal Communications Commission'’s work and transparency while calling on supporters of an open internet to support bipartisan legislation. "As a result of Chairman Pai’s commitment to transparency, the public has the benefit of not only viewing the item, but also participating in the process. Despite attempts by those more interested in politicizing the issue and distracting from the debate, this item resulted in the most well-informed and exhaustive record of comments ever submitted at the FCC. The FCC is now well-positioned to move forward to ensure the internet is open and free....As I have stated repeatedly, and I will say again today, Congressional action is the only way to solve the endless back and forth on net neutrality rules that we’ve seen over the past several years. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and those who claim to support net neutrality rules, want to enshrine protections for consumers with the backing of the law, I call on you today to join me in discussing legislation to do just that....True supporters of an open internet should be demanding such legislative protections today – not posturing while waiting for years during protracted legal proceedings or waiting for the political winds to turn. It is time for Congress to settle this debate and I welcome discussion on ways to ensure a free and open internet for decades to come.”
Rep Doyle Says He Will Propose Using Congressional Review Act to Overturn Net Neutrality Rollback
House Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-PA) says he will propose using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's rollback of net neutrality rules if FCC Chairman Ajit Pai does not stand down. That is the legislative maneuver Republicans used to invalidate a number of Obama-era regs earlier in 2017. “The answer to monopolies has always been regulation and competition, and as much as some of the FCC Commissioners don’t want to acknowledge it, Net Neutrality and the regulation of ISPs under Title II are essential for providing real competition in the Broadband marketplace," said Ranking Member Doyle. Doyle said he and dozens of other legislators would be sending a letter Dec 13 urging the chairman not to repeal the regs, but that if the FCC does do so Dec. 14, as planned, he plans to introduce the CRA-based legislation.
Millions of People Post Comments on Federal Regulations. Many Are Fake.
The Wall Street Journal has uncovered thousands of fraudulent comments on regulatory dockets at federal agencies, some using what appear to be stolen identities posted by computers programmed to pile comments onto the dockets. After sending surveys to nearly 1 million people—predominantly from the FCC docket—the Journal found a much wider problem than previously reported, including nearly 7,800 people who told the Journal comments posted on federal dockets in their names were fakes. The Journal found instances of fakes that favored antiregulation stances but also comments mirroring consumer-groups’ pro-regulation talking points, posted without permission of people whose names were on them. Such distortions, often unknown even to the agencies involved, cut against an important element of democracy, the public’s ability to participate in federal rule-making. The public-comment process, mandated by law, can influence outcomes of regulations affecting millions. It is a federal felony to knowingly make false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to a US agency.
The FCC's Democratic Commissioners on Net Neutrality Vote: 'We Have a Mess on our Hands'
In separate phone interviews conducted last week, The Verge spoke with Federal Communications Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel about this week’s vote, and what happens next. When asked, "The New York attorney general made it very clear that he feels like he’s being stonewalled. What do you attribute that to?" FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "It has been regular and customary practice for federal authorities to work hand in hand [with] their state counterparts to get to the bottom of problems like this. Our failure to cooperate with our colleagues at the state level feels unusual and to me does not seem right." Regarding the comments, Commissioner Clyburn was told, "The chairman’s response has been that this isn’t a popularity contest, and if you have a legitimate legal argument, then they’re listening to that. But in other cases they’re not just going to be counting up comments and responding to it on that front." Clyburn responded by saying, "I find that interesting. A 'legitimate legal argument,' in one of the most expensive ecosystems to file a legal claim ever. Just because I don’t have enough money to hire a lawyer to beat the pavement at the FCC does not mean that my traffic is not being throttled, that the terms and conditions that I thought I agreed on, that they are being realized. I find it perplexing that all of a sudden it boils down, when it comes to public comments and a position that you don’t agree with, that all of a sudden, from where I sit, you are delegitimizing the opinions of millions of people. I found that very contrary to the oath that I took eight-plus years ago, and I don’t think it is a very attractive posture for anyone who is a representative, who sits on the Federal Communications Commission in this country."
All the Ways the FCC’s Process for Killing Net Neutrality Has Been Really Shady
The docket where the Federal Communications Commission has solicited public input has been saturated with fraudulent comments in favor of repeal—from bots, Russian email addresses, stolen identities, and even dead people. There was also a cyberattack on the comment system, an incident currently under investigation by the Office of Government Affairs. Someone, or maybe several someones, really wants net neutrality gone, and has gone to great and shady lengths to push along its demise. The net neutrality repeal process has been so fraught, however, that it’s been hard to keep up with the running list of snafus and trickery. So here it is:
- In May, the names people who recently died were found to have commented posthumously in favor of the FCC’s plan to repeal the network neutrality rules.
- 444,938 of the comments came from Russian email addresses, and 1.74 million comments in total came from outside the U.S. Only 25 of those emails from outside the U.S. were in favor of keeping the net neutrality rules.
- Thousands of comments from stolen identities have plagued the FCC’s system, which New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office helped uncover with an investigation and an online tool with which people can check to see if a comment was submitted under their name.
- Many people’s names appeared thousands of times in the FCC’s net neutrality docket, and 94 percent of the comments appeared to be duplicates and were submitted multiple times.
- In May, the FCC said its comment system went down due to “deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic,” an attack often referred to as a DDoS attack, which the Government Accountability Office is now investigating. According to a letter from two members of Congress who called for the investigation, the FCC hasn’t “released any records or documentation that would allow for confirmation that an attack occurred.”
FCC's Clyburn Humorously Releases Own Version Net Neutrality Order
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn of the Federal Communications Commission is at least keeping her sense of humor as the FCC's planned vote on rolling back net neutrality rules approaches on Dec 14. On Dec 12, a day net neutrality activists and various Web sites are trying to demonstrate how the Web would look without net neutrality rules, Commissioner Clyburn was trying to show what the rule rollback would look like without the language that excises those rules. She released her own, one-page, edited draft of the the proposed rule rollback, with all the language excised except for select words in each graph that read: "After further review of the record we affirm the 2015 Open Internet Order."
Net Neutrality Protests Move Online, Yet Big Tech Is Quiet
Protests to preserve network neutrality, or rules that ensure equal access to the internet, migrated online on Dec 12, with numerous online companies posting calls on their sites for action to stop a vote later this week. Reddit, Etsy and Kickstarter were among the sites warning that the proposal at the Federal Communications Commission to roll back so-called net neutrality rules would fundamentally change the way the internet is experienced. But the online protests also highlighted how the biggest tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, have taken a back seat in the debate about protecting net neutrality. For the most part, the large tech companies did not engage in the protest on Dec 12. In the past, the companies have played a leading role in supporting the rules. Harold Feld, a senior vice president at Public Knowledge, said the biggest tech companies were less vocal because they were facing more regulatory battles than in past years. Social media sites have been criticized for allowing foreign actors to interfere in the presidential election of 2016. The biggest tech companies also face complaints from some lawmakers that they have become too large and powerful. “First, the major tech companies are very aware that Washington has turned hostile,” Feld said. “In this environment, the big tech companies try to keep a low profile and play defense rather than take positions that draw attention. “So with the dangers of standing up in D.C. greater, their existential concerns about net neutrality reduced because of their own massive size and a desire not to spook investors, it is unsurprising that Silicon Valley giants have melted into the background and have preferred to work through their trade associations,” he said.
The FCC is Ignoring 50,000 Consumer Complaints as it Moves Forward to Repeal Net Neutrality
[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s record is missing key evidence: over 50,000 Net Neutrality consumer complaints submitted to the FCC between 2015 and 2017. National Hispanic Media Coalition commissioned an expert report analyzing these documents and outlining why the documents represent key evidence that the FCC must incorporate as part of its official record. In the draft Order released on November 22 (the day before Thanksgiving), the FCC included a denial of NHMC’s Motion requesting that (1) the FCC incorporate the Net Neutrality consumer complaints and related documents as part of the record, and (2) that the FCC set a new comment cycle to allowing stakeholders adequate time to analyze and comment on the evidence disclosed by the FCC. The FCC went further than just denying the Motion, and also stated that they would not consider the documents in the proceeding. To be clear, the documents that NHMC obtained as part of the FOIA request show consumers experiencing harms remedied through Title II protections. Yet, the FCC staunchly refuses to consider its own evidence, which it has had in its possession all along, as it moves to repeal the rules that protect American consumers from experiencing further harms. I am troubled, and you should be too by the great lengths to which the FCC has gone to exclude these documents as part of the official Net Neutrality record. But in many ways this is not surprising — as the expert report shows, the Net Neutrality consumer complaints and related documents reveal a narrative that runs contrary to the FCC’s proposal to reclassify broadband as an information service. Instead of ignoring this relevant evidence, the FCC must incorporate and consider it before it moves forward on December 14th to repeal Net Neutrality. Anything less flies in the face of the law and consumers who looked to the FCC to protect their access to an open Internet. [Carmen Scurato is vice president, policy & general counsel for the National Hispanic Media Coalition]
5 ISPs tell the FCC a story of Net Neutrality Woe ...
On Thursday, December 7th, five internet service providers alleged to Chairman Pai that the current legal framework for Open Internet rules had curtailed their investment and harmed their operations. While the presentations are rife with vague statements and outright errors, there is one thing notably absent from all of them: dollar signs, deployment data, and any other quantifiable metric demonstrating the supposed impact of Title II. None of the five providers that spoke with the Chairman last Thursday reported a single figure measuring the amount by which their investments or deployments had declined. One might have supposed they’d be eager to offer such data, especially to a Chairman who so often congratulates himself on his alleged fondness for rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and on his rumored demand for real economic proof. But the filings are silent on the subject. Perhaps this is because there is no quantifiable harm from Title II, only the anecdotes that these carriers provide when called upon by the Chairman.
No, the FTC CANNOT Have A Ban On All ISP Blocking.
Since most folks won’t plow through 5500 words of legal analysis, I’ve gotten some requests to specifically address the claims by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and others that the Federal Trade Commission can address blocking as easily as the FCC and prevent any Internet service provider from blocking any content or application. My short answer is: “No. The FTC CANNOT have a 'no blocking' rule like the FCC has today." The FTC may stop an ISP from blocking content or services when it can prove that the blocking violates the antitrust laws, or that the blocking violates the ISP’s published terms of service, or if the ISP blocking causes (or is likely to cause) substantial harm to consumers and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. And, as I covered extensively in my previous post, proving these things can be hard. In contrast to the FTC, the FCC has very broad authority over telecommunications services but virtually no authority over other stuff — like information services. As I explain below, this makes it literally impossible for the FTC to simply prohibit blocking (let alone prohibit “fast lanes” or “slow lanes”) as the FCC does. To the contrary, under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC cannot prevent a broadband carrier from blocking any website, application or service it chooses unless it can prove that this blocking (a) causes (or is likely to cause) “substantial injury” to consumers, (b) there is no other way the consumer could reasonably avoid the harm, and (c) there are no countervailing consumer benefits. While Section 5(n) does allow the FTC to consider “established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such policy considerations may not serve as the primary basis” for a finding of unfairness. So even if we assume that there is an “established public policy” against blocking, that alone does not allow the FTC to stop a broadband provider from blocking content or applications. And all this, of course, assumes the FTC even has authority to deal with broadband carriers reclassified as information services, which remains up in the air at the moment pending the Ninth Circuit resolution of the en banc rehearing of FTC v. AT&T Mobility. [Harold Feld]
Slowing down the Presses: The Relationship Between Net Neutrality and Local News
An open internet provides a bedrock on which local news providers can build stable, accessible, and independent structures. Net Neutrality will not solve the problems facing local news. Doing so will require hard work and ingenuity from journalists, community members, entrepreneurs, and local governments. But net neutrality gives those actors the space to try and solve these problems. In a world without net neutrality, that space will shrink.
Eliminating net neutrality would hurt rural America
[Commentary] A forthcoming decision by the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate network neutrality will instantly undermine a decade's worth of public investment in rural broadband — at the exact moment rural America is ready to realize the economic potential of the digital age. If the FCC ends net neutrality, it will further harm competition in rural areas. Even worse, incumbent ISPs could create a situation in which, if rural businesses want access to larger markets at a reasonable price, they must switch from their local, independent ISP. In effect, incumbents could eliminate the incentive for independent ISPs to operate at all. Competition, which is a hallmark of our economy, would be crushed. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have called for more broadband infrastructure investment, more entrepreneurship and a free market. But the FCC’s prospective repeal would have the opposite effects. It would stymie rural America just as it is poised to realize the economic promise of a connected world. [Matt Dunne is the founder of Center for Rural Innovation. He is also a former director of AmeriCorps VISTA and former head of Community Affairs for Google]
FCC Plan to Kill Net Neutrality Rules Could Hurt Students
Video plays a growing role in the education of students who turn to videoconferencing, streaming lectures, and other forms of high-tech distance learning to complete or extend their educations. But the looming end of net neutrality could make life harder, or at least more expensive, for such students. The broadband industry downplays the possibility of fast lanes. But education providers already face uneven treatment on many mobile services. For example, AT&T allows users to watch streams from DirecTV Now that don’t count against their data caps. But watching lecture videos does count against those caps. Net neutrality advocates worry that situation will only get worse if the FCC repeals its rules. "Killing net neutrality will throw us back to the Dark Ages," says Mike Caulfield, director of blended and networked learning at Washington State University. "And the people that is likely to hurt most are actually rural populations that don’t have face-to-face access to things like nursing programs."
Expect Fewer Great Startups if the FCC Kills Net Neutrality
[Commentary] I was lucky enough to see up close the excitement of fired-up startup founders building things that never existed before. I got inspired enough to leave behind a great job with healthcare and put my savings into building my dream. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s short-sighted plan will crush that dream for future would-be founders. Congressional Republicans say they love entrepreneurship, free speech, free markets, and innovation. Yet they are standing by in silent assent as Pai’s vote draws close, ignoring the pleas of the citizens and entrepreneurs they claim to care about. They are the only ones that can still stop Pai, and they ought to be loudly denouncing Pai’s plan and defending startups and small businesses. [Ryan Singel is a media and strategy fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School and the CEO/cofounder of Contextly]
Could municipal broadband provide another way online if net neutrality rules go away?
A Q&A with Christopher Mitchell, director of Community Broadband Networks for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Comcast Vows to Behave Without Net-Neutrality Rules. Not All Are Convinced.
A trade group of broadband providers including AT&T and Comcast pledged recently to not block or slow web traffic and otherwise avoid “unfair discrimination against lawful traffic online,” according to a statement. The group, Broadband for America, also represents companies including the largest wireless carrier Verizon. Comcast changed the language about its web practices that is posted on a corporate page in late April, as Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai was announcing his intention to gut the Obama-era rules. The companies don’t need to offer fast lanes because networks are delivering all types of data so quickly that even users who wait in line behind others suffer only a negligible delay, said Roger Entner, an analyst with Recon Analytics LLC. Paid prioritization would amount to “somebody paying money for nothing,” Entner said. Still, web companies express apprehension about broadband providers’ plans. “They want to sell special capability and have people pay for it. And those who can’t pay for it will lack the same access,” said Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. “There will be innumerable ways to do that, sometimes shrouded, sometimes defended as technically efficient.” Members of Black’s Washington-based trade group include Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com, Dish Network and online ride hailing service Uber Technologies Inc. Black mocked pledges of good behavior. "‘Oh, we’re not going to do anything!’" Black said. “Then why did you make it the most unbelievably high priority -- millions in lobbying, millions in PR campaigns?" Several analysts said they expect few changes before Chairman Pai’s rules relaxation has been tested in court. A challenge is all but inevitable, and it’s not certain federal courts will accept the Republicans overturning a rule passed less than three years ago by Democrats. "I’d be surprised if they did anything until a court rules," said Blair Levin, a former FCC official under Democrats. “They haven’t told Wall Street how they could make money, and usually companies are not shy about that.”
Net Neutrality: A Case Study With JetBlue and Amazon
If you have taken a flight recently on JetBlue Airways, you might have noticed something that looks a lot like a network neutrality boogeyman: prioritization of Amazon’s videos over other services, such as Netflix or HBO, on the airline’s in-flight Wi-Fi network. It actually isn’t a violation of net neutrality, which requires all web traffic to be treated equally. But it helps explain why some fear lifting such rules will harm the internet, and why others aren’t worried at all. Net neutrality has never applied to in-flight Wi-Fi. The FCC specifically exempted businesses such as airlines, coffee shops and hotels because they simply offer internet access to their customers as a perk. JetBlue is among the first U.S. airlines to use a new satellite service that delivers real high-speed internet on airplanes. Speeds are similar to what one might get with a strong LTE connection on a smartphone in a city. Amazon optimizes its videos on JetBlue flights so it doesn’t use up so much bandwidth. Typically, that means subtly reducing the picture quality so it is less data-intensive. It also modified its video stream to better handle the time it takes for the signals to traverse the satellites that carry the traffic. This sort of optimization is similar to what T-Mobile US Inc. did with all video on its wireless network. Videos stream at a lower picture quality—which is difficult to notice on a small smartphone screen—but they don’t count against a customer’s data limit.
Netflix Is In The Power Position Now In The War For Net Neutrality
[Commentary] When Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is done, the Internet service providers will once again be free to throttle traffic from competitors, and sites or services they don’t like, or charge services like Netflix a “toll” for the privilege of being delivered to customers at the full speed the customers are paying for. It seems to me, though, that the power dynamic has shifted, and that Netflix actually holds all the cards now—at least in areas with more than one ISP to choose from. Netflix is not a customer of the ISP. It doesn’t owe the ISP anything. The customers of Netflix are paying for a service, and the ISP—as far as I can tell—has no right to intentionally impede or infringe on the delivery of that service. Let’s say they do, though—because they probably will. Does Netflix need to pay the extortion? No. Not really. Netflix is in the power position. If Comcast (or some other ISP) wants to try and extort money from Netflix, Netflix could flip it around and just block its service from using that ISP. The ISP is just a pipeline to the internet, so as long as it’s a relatively fast and relatively reliable connection, there’s no reason to be loyal to a specific ISP. If I were a Comcast customer and Netflix pulled its service from working over the Comcast network, I would be an AT&T customer by the next day—or vice versa. I focused on Netflix because Netflix is a very popular service and there is already precedent for ISPs extorting “tolls” from Netflix for the privilege of delivering the service the customers already paid for, but this logic applies to major sites in general. What if Google decides to be an AT&T exclusive, or Facebook chooses to only work with Comcast? [Tony Bradley is the Senior Manager of Content Marketing for Alert Logic.]
Why the FCC Should Prevent ISPs from Micromanaging Our Lives
[Commentary] Network neutrality prevents broadband Internet service providers from micromanaging our lives online. Constraining the networks this way enables and even empowers Internet users to be active and productive human beings rather than passive consumers. Unfortunately, the network neutrality debate is so polarized that neither side sees the full picture. Net Neutrality is a reflection of how society answers three fundamental political questions: Who decides what you do? Who decides who you communicate, transact, and collaborate with? Who decides how you should live your life? In reality, network neutrality in general, and the 2015 Open Internet Order in particular, aim to prevent Broadband Internet service providers from micromanaging what we do online. As we extend Internet-connected sensors to other infrastructures—transportation and electricity—and into other spaces—cities, workplaces, and homes—society will need to grapple with how to govern intelligence and intelligence-enabled control. Frankly, if we can't get network neutrality for the Internet, it’s hard to imagine we’ll get it for the other, high-stakes intelligence-enabled control systems we're building. [Brett Frischmann, Evan Selinger]
FCC chairman says social media platforms lack transparency in how they restrict conservative content
Sens Heinrich, Heller Introduce Bipartisan Legislation To Increase High-Speed Internet Access In Indian Country
Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, and Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced the Tribal Connect Act of 2017 to improve broadband connectivity in Indian Country. The bill would increase access to the Federal Communications Commission's schools and libraries universal service support program, known as E-rate, that provides discounts to assist public schools and libraries obtain high-speed internet access and telecommunications at affordable rates. While most of the nation’s public libraries have received E-rate support, only an estimated 15 percent of Tribal libraries have received critical E-rate funds. The Tribal Connect Act would invest $100 million for broadband access in Indian Country by establishing a Tribal E-rate pilot program and would amend current E-rate eligibility requirements to allow more Tribal libraries to apply for the program.
Frontier sticks broadband consumers with $2 Internet Infrastructure Surcharge
Frontier users have found an unwelcome present in their latest bill as the company has added a $2-a-month Internet Infrastructure Surcharge: "Beginning with this bill, customers not on an Internet Service term agreement, price protection plan or subject to other exclusions will be assessed a $1.99 per month Internet Infrastructure surcharge. The Internet Infrastructure surcharge is not a tax or governmental charge." Frontier says the surcharge has been implemented to defray some local network maintenance costs. The service provider added that "the Internet Infrastructure surcharge will apply to customers on a price protection plan on their renewal date."
FCC and National Cancer Institute Champion Critical Role of Broadband in Rural Cancer Care
The Federal Communications Commission’s Connect2Health Task Force (C2HFCC) today announced that the FCC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have joined forces, signing a memorandum of understanding that will focus on how increasing broadband access and adoption in rural areas can improve the lives of rural cancer patients. As an inaugural project under the memorandum of understanding, the agencies have convened a public-private collaboration to help bridge the broadband health connectivity gap in Appalachia, taking another concrete step toward closing the digital divide. The project—titled L.A.U.N.C.H. (Linking & Amplifying User-Centered Networks through Connected Health): A Demonstration of Broadband-Enabled Health for Rural Populations in Appalachia—will target areas that face the dual challenge of higher cancer mortality rates and lower levels of broadband access. The initial geographic focus is planned for rural Kentucky.
FCC and NCI Champion Critical Role of Broadband in Rural Cancer Care
The Federal Communications Commission’s Connect2Health Task Force (C2HFCC) announced that the FCC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have joined forces, signing a memorandum of understanding that will focus on how increasing broadband access and adoption in rural areas can improve the lives of rural cancer patients. As an inaugural project under the memorandum of understanding, the agencies have convened a public-private collaboration to help bridge the broadband health connectivity gap in Appalachia, taking another concrete step toward closing the digital divide. The project—titled L.A.U.N.C.H. (Linking & Amplifying User-Centered Networks through Connected Health): A Demonstration of Broadband-Enabled Health for Rural Populations in Appalachia—will target areas that face the dual challenge of higher cancer mortality rates and lower levels of broadband access.
‘Fake News,’ Trump’s Obsession, Is Now a Cudgel for Strongmen
President Donald Trump routinely invokes the phrase “fake news” as a rhetorical tool to undermine opponents, rally his political base and try to discredit a mainstream American media that is aggressively investigating his presidency. But he isn’t the only leader enamored with the phrase. Following Trump’s example, many of the world’s autocrats and dictators are taking a shine to it, too. Around the world, authoritarians, populists and other political leaders have seized on the phrase “fake news” — and the legitimacy conferred upon it by an American president — as a tool for attacking their critics and, in some cases, deliberately undermining the institutions of democracy. In countries where press freedom is restricted or under considerable threat — including Russia, China, Turkey, Libya, Poland, Hungary, Thailand, Somalia and others — political leaders have invoked “fake news” as justification for beating back media scrutiny.
CNN's Acosta: I was warned not to ask President Trump questions at bill signing
CNN reporter Jim Acosta said that the White House warned him not to ask President Donald Trump a question during a bill signing event, claiming that press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggested his access at future events could be revoked if he did. Acosta's claim comes a day after he clashed with Sanders about media accuracy during a press briefing. “In the moments before I asked the president the question in the Roosevelt Room as he was signing the National Defense Authorization bill, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, pulled me aside — this was prior to me asking that question of the president. And she warned me that if I asked the president a question at this pool spray, as we call them, that she could not promise that I would be allowed into a pool spray again,” said Acosta.
President Trump Signs Federal Ban on Kaspersky Lab Software
President Donald Trump signed into law on Dec 12 legislation that bans the use of Kaspersky Lab within the US government, capping a months-long effort to purge the Moscow-based antivirus firm from federal agencies amid concerns it was vulnerable to Kremlin influence. The ban, included as part of a broader defense policy spending bill that Trump signed, reinforces a directive issued by the Trump administration in September that civilian agencies remove Kaspersky Lab software within 90 days. The law applies to both civilian and military networks. “The case against Kaspersky is well-documented and deeply concerning. This law is long overdue,” said Sen Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who led calls in Congress to scrub the software from government computers. She added that the company’s software represented a “grave risk” to U.S. national security.
What You Should Know About the FCC's New TV Standard
There are things that the FCC is doing beyond ruining your internet that are worth discussing. One of those things is the recent passage of a measure to allow the voluntary rollout of ATSC 3.0, a television transmission standard that could bring both higher-resolution broadcasts and more interactivity to the boob tube. In many ways, this is as big a deal as net neutrality, because the shift is so dramatic—in many ways for good, in other ways that we should discuss before we buy in.
MMTC President and CEO Kim Keenan Resigns
2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a 'made-up story' (Politifact)
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.
(c)Benton Foundation 2017. 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
Benton experts make knowledge and analysis accessible to include more people in communications policymaking.
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org