
Upcoming events https://www.benton.org/events
Digital Inclusion and Equity: Why Now
[Commentary] Why are we talking about digital inclusion and equity now in a way that is different from, say, eight years ago? The obvious answer – very different presidential administrations – only touches the surface. Consumers are adopting digital tools like never before and, in some segments of the U.S., we’ve reached a “tech abundance” threshold that is driving a bottom-up interest in digital inclusion in many communities. Tech abundance doesn’t mean that everyone in society has adopted digital tools. Rather, it means that enoughpeople have them – usually about a third of the population – to spark a change in how society thinks about the consequences of new technology. Community-driven digital inclusion won’t single-handedly reverse the tide of mistrust in institutions and information sources, but it can help. And the public far outpace government officials in interest in digital inclusion resources. Three-quarters (76%) of adult Americans said libraries should definitely have programs or services to educate people on online privacy and security, far greater than the 45% figure registered when local government officials answered the same question. Digital inclusion is emerging as a community need and has the potential to be part of the antidote for widespread distrust in information. But digital inclusion is not a priority everywhere. Some cities have active digital inclusion efforts, while other cities may have interest in it, but have yet to take action. There are digital inclusion models emerging that knit together city funding, community non-profits, anchor institutions such as libraries, and public-private partnerships. Communities late to the game, with the right resources and guidance, have a chance to make tech abundance and digital inclusion a reality for all. [John B. Horrigan is Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, with a focus on technology adoption, digital inclusion, and evaluating the outcomes and impacts of programs designed to promote communications technology adoption and use.]
Critics of Chairman Pai's Sec. 706 Broadband Deployment Review Create #MobileOnly Challenge
The Federal Communications Commission's decision to review what qualifies as high-speed broadband has drawn a crowd of critics armed with smartphones and other devices. Almost a dozen groups including Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) have launched the #MobileOnly challenge. Between Jan. 1 and Jan. 31, participants will spend an entire day only accessing the internet via a mobile device. The idea is to demonstrate that mobile has various limitations that make it not a sufficient substitute for wired broadband.
Chairman Pai's Response to Members of Congress Regarding Affordable Internet Access to High-Cost Rural Areas
Motherboard and VICE Are Building a Community Internet Network (Vice)
Killing Net Neutrality Has Brought On a New Call for Public Broadband
The Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality move gives fresh air to the arguments from municipal broadband proponents that city-run systems are the best way to ensure an affordable and free internet. Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has studied the systems that have popped up all over the country. He said that these systems have far greater incentive to maintain net neutrality and that local control has some benefits people may not immediately consider. “One of the things that we’ve seen with a hundred examples of municipal broadband is not only do people get the benefit of non-discriminatory access, they typically pay less, they have better access, and if something does go wrong, they get much better customer service,” he said. The political peril in pursuing public broadband, noted David Segal, head of Demand Progress, which advocates for an open internet, comes with the potential of giving unwarranted credibility to the arguments made by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, that states, cities, and the Federal Trade Commission are best poised to regulated the situation. That’s not at all the case, Segal argued, and public broadband is a good thing in itself, but shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for net neutrality.
The Secret Savior of Net Neutrality?
The fight for municipal broadband has been a quiet drama unfolding across dozens of cities nationwide in recent years. In addition to Colorado, around 20 states have legislation on the books curtailing the construction of city-owned broadband networks, which threaten the dominance of corporate Internet service providers. But a growing number of communities like Fort Collins (CO) are pushing back against these laws. Their attempts could take on added urgency because of efforts at the federal level to rework how the internet is governed. The FCC voted to abolish its hard-line rules protecting network neutrality. The changes could help the internet’s corporate overlords get richer and stifle the ability of smaller internet companies to compete. But municipal networks, which operate without a profit motive and generally champion equitable service, could serve as a countermeasure to the growing corporate takeover of the internet. Ultimately, city-owned ISPs may be the only neutral networks we have left.
Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False
A core Republican talking point during the network neutrality battle was that, in 2015, President Barack Obama led a government takeover of the internet, and President Obama illegally bullied the independent Federal Communications Commission into adopting the rules. But, internal FCC documents, revealed using a Freedom of Information Act request, show that the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General—acting on orders from Congressional Republicans—investigated the claim that President Obama interfered with the FCC’s net neutrality process and found it was nonsense. This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet, then, was wholly refuted by an independent investigation and its findings were not made public prior to Dec 14’s vote. After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: “We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process.” What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn’t true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet.
Next Up on Net Neutrality
House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) announced plans to introduce a net neutrality bill soon. “Everybody is for a free and open internet, and that is what we want to preserve," Chairman Blackburn said in a video released on her Twitter page the same day as the FCC vote. "You can look for legislation next week where Congress will do its job. We will codify the need for no blocking, no throttling and making certain that we preserve that free and open internet.” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) are among those who have also signaled an interest in developing legislation of some kind to enshrine the rules into law. Most Republican supporters of net neutrality legislation are looking to codify a standard that's weaker than the now-overturned rules.
The Effects of Ending Net Neutrality
[Commentary] Who really thinks that allowing the large telecom corporations more control over what Americans see and read is a good thing? Giving monopolies more power will make it harder for new companies to enter the marketplace and limit the pace of innovation. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and the end of network neutrality exemplify everything that is currently wrong with Washington. Vested interests corrupt the policy process, lie to the American people and make decisions that further concentrate wealth and power in the hands of an elite few, with bleak consequences for the American people and our economy. Taking a clear stand against this may at the very least increase the chance that the inevitable next such outrage can be stopped. [Barret McCormick is a professor of political science at Marquette University]
Does Twitter's New Hate Policy Have a Trump Exception?
Twitter announced new and stricter rules banning bigoted content and hate groups from its platform. It also said it would begin enforcing its anti-hate and violence rules more stringently than it has in the past. But “context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior,” warns Twitter, and they have included two big exceptions in the new policy. First, their ban on advocating violence against civilians does not apply to “military or government entities.” Second, they may moderate their own rules if “the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.” It’s not hard to figure out the famous Twitter user who might be most helped by those two loopholes. These rules aren’t just an insurance policy for the company—they’ve already been used to shield the president from suspension. In September, when President Donald Trump warned in a tweet that “Little Rocket Man ... won’t be around much longer,” the company said that the threatening tweets didn’t violate its guidelines because they were “newsworthy.” Now the company has slapped on another policy, and President Trump—and other government and military leaders—will get the same monopoly on violence on Twitter that they already enjoy out in the world.
Sharing the News in a Polarized Congress
Political divides in the American news landscape do not end with Americans’ preferences for different news sources; rather, they extend to how members of the U.S. Congress communicate with constituents in the digital age. Between January 2015 and July 2017, nearly half (48%) of the links to national news outlets that members of Congress shared on Facebook were to outlets predominantly linked to by members of just one party, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis. What’s more, 5% of these news links pointed to outlets that were exclusively linked to by members of one political party. The study also finds that Democratic members of Congress became more likely to share stories from national news outlets once President Donald Trump took office in January 2017. Prior to the November 2016 presidential election, 8% of all Facebook posts made by Democrats linked to national news, a proportion that doubled to 16% after Trump’s inauguration. By contrast, the share of congressional Republican posts linking to national news stories remained about the same before and after the inauguration (9% vs. 8%). The new analysis finds some evidence that the ways that Facebook audiences interact with congressional posts containing news links may be modestly reinforcing the ideological divide. Specifically, the Facebook audience re-shared news stories from outlets that fell on the most liberal or conservative ends of a “sharing score” 21% to 22% more often than when the link came from a news source that fell in the middle.
It’s Official: North Korea Is Behind WannaCry
[Commentary] The US publicly attributes the massive “WannaCry” cyberattack to North Korea. The attack spread indiscriminately across the world in May. It encrypted and rendered useless hundreds of thousands of computers in hospitals, schools, businesses and homes. While victims received ransom demands, paying did not unlock their computers. It was cowardly, costly and careless. The attack was widespread and cost billions, and North Korea is directly responsible. We do not make this allegation lightly. It is based on evidence. We are not alone with our findings, either. Other governments and private companies agree. The United Kingdom attributes the attack to North Korea, and Microsoft traced the attack to cyber affiliates of the North Korean government. North Korea continues to threaten America, Europe and the rest of the world—and not just with its nuclear aspirations. It is increasingly using cyberattacks to fund its reckless behavior and cause disruption across the world. President Trump has already pulled many levers of pressure to address North Korea’s unacceptable nuclear and missile developments, and we will continue to use our maximum pressure strategy to curb Pyongyang’s ability to mount attacks, cyber or otherwise. [Bossert is assistant to the President for homeland security and counterterrorism]
Privacy Groups Push FTC Action on Kid-Connected Devices
Consumer groups want the Federal Trade Commission and retailers to crack down on Interconnected toys and smartwatches to protect kids' privacy. It has been a year since the groups, which include Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, filed a complaint with the FTC about two toys, Caylaa and i-Que Intelligent Robot because they collect and analyze what children say and respond to it. They alleged there was inadequate notice of what the toys were doing or protection of the information creating "A risk of stalking and physical danger." The call for action comes as the FTC is being given more oversight of the internet following the FCC decision to eliminate most of its net neutrality rules and make the FTC the primary enforcer of internet openness.
Debate erupts within HHS about 'words to avoid' such as 'vulnerable,' 'diversity' and 'entitlement'
Health and Human Services Department officials confirmed that they had singled out a handful of words that should be avoided in the upcoming budget process, but said they had not blocked employees from using them outright. A department spokesman further said that the guidance came from within HHS, not from the Office of Management and Budget. HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd said that employees had misinterpreted the guidance. “HHS and its agencies have not banned, prohibited or forbidden employees from using certain words,” said Lloyd. “Recent media reports appear to be based on confusion that arose when employees misconstrued guidelines provided during routine discussions on the annual budget process. It was clearly stated to those involved in the discussions that the science should always drive the narrative.” Officials who have been briefed on the budget guidance, however, said the message was clear. “It was interpreted as 'you are not to use these words in the budget narrative,'" said one person who received a briefing. “The idea that it's all a misunderstanding is laughable.”
White House temporarily removes petition tool We The People
The White House is temporarily removing We The People, a petition tool, from its website after 11 months of silence, promising to respond to public concerns in 2018. The Trump administration said the platform, used extensively by critics and less frequently by allies, will be removed Dec 19 and return in late January as a new site. A White House official said all existing petitions and responses will be restored in 2018, when petitions that reach the required 100,000 signatures will begin receiving responses. The Trump administration has yet to respond to any of the 17 petitions that have reached that threshold since Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017.
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