Daily Digest 1/30/2018 (Make Nice on the Internet)

The Trump administration labored to clarify on Jan 29 that it currently has no plans to build its own ultra-fast 5G wireless network, despite publication of a memo that suggested the idea was under consideration. At issue is a proposal put forth by an unnamed official at the National Security Council, a White House-based body that advises the president on critical U.S. and foreign policy matters. The document called for the U.S. government to effectively nationalize a portion of the telecom sector — a radical departure from current policy — in a bid to combat Chinese influence. As multiple White House officials confirmed, the document as published is dated. They also stressed it had merely been floated by a staff member, not a reflection of some imminent, major policy announcement — and probably might never be. For one thing, it’s the Federal Communications Commission that serves as the government’s steward of the wireless airwaves that power 5G and myriad other uses for smartphones, tablets and similar mobile devices. And the chairman of that independent agency, Ajit Pai, said Jan 29 that he vehemently opposed the idea of nationalizing 5G.

[Commentary] When the outgoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cyber experts met with the Trump FCC and National Security Council (NSC) transition teams, they expressly informed them that a FCC retreat from ongoing cybersecurity activities would have dire consequences for 5G and the future of the nation’s critical communications infrastructure. Nevertheless, the Trump administration ignored cyber concerns in the selection of the new chairman. Immediately upon taking office, the chairman rescinded the Obama FCC’s requirement that any new 5G technology must have built-in cybersecurity standards in order to operate in the United States. It was a little noticed and highly significant repeal of a historic FCC action: the Obama FCC had for the first time in history required that cybersecurity be a priority rather than an afterthought in planning for a new network. The industry opposed the idea, and the Trump FCC bowed to their wishes, cancelling an ongoing proceeding on the topic. So, now the White House awakens to the consequences of the FCC’s actions: worsening vulnerabilities to cyber threats in the next-generation wireless network. The responsibility for the cybersecurity of the network must be a priority, rather than an afterthought. When the Obama FCC left office, the United States led the world in 5G. Whether a nationalized network would allow the U.S. to recover its leadership is doubtful. [Tom Wheeler served as the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013-2017.]

House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) appeared at the State of the Net conference for a wide-ranging discussion with former Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Robert McDowell on broadband infrastructure, Net Neutrality, 5G, and more. Chairman Walden said, “A government that can’t protect the data of its own employees, I struggle with the notion it’s going to run a complete architecture and network that will be hack-free. Nor do I think it’s in the best interest of the kind of culture and economy that we have here, that believes in capital investment from the private sector. We’re not Venezuela. We don’t need to have the government run everything as the only choice. We need to make sure these networks are safe and secure. We know there are bad actors out there and in different countries trying to infiltrate our networks, you’ve got to have partnership here for the security of the networks. Government taking it over, controlling it, is clearly not the way to go.” They also discussed the state-of-play surrounding Net Neutrality. Chairman Walden noted, “We ought to be able to come to find common ground to prevent the bad behaviors that all of us can agree upon – throttling, blocking. We’re going to have a hearing on paid prioritization because that gets into how the internet works today. You have, in effect, paid prioritization, CDNs. You have a situation where traffic is prioritized today. 911 calls should be prioritized over watching some crazy cat video on YouTube.”

[Commentary] Last week, Forbes contributor Rosyln Layton was fed up with what she saw as a lack of journalistic stridency in reports by FierceCable, DSL Reports, as well as numerous tech media publications, on a study (PDF) published by Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society concluding that municipal broadband was generally a better deal for consumers. Layton went on to accuse FierceCable of “blindly” accepting the Berkman study. Layton is an American academic, living in Denmark, serving as a visiting fellow at the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. The Washington Post once declared the AEI as the Beltway’s “dominant conservative think tank.” In 2014, the American Enterprise Institute was accused of working with Comcast to “astroturf” the net neutrality issue. At the time, fellows at the Institute were accused of printing and posting op-eds all throughout the media in support of killing net neutrality. “In fairness, I have little to no knowledge of AEI’s funders other than what is printed in our annual report,” Layton told me. “The primary donors are individuals whom I have never met. I am a contractor to AEI, and as I understand, my stipend comes from the general fund.” It's all a reminder to us that when covering politically charged issues like this, we have to follow the money and stay vigilant. 

[Commentary] Network neutrality advocates have found some new allies in their efforts to combat the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Restoring Internet Freedom Order: state governments. But ultimately, these initiatives are likely to be more symbolic than substantial. While the Communications Act gives states a significant role in telecommunications regulation, both the statute and broader constitutional doctrines limit the ability of a single state (or even a group of states) to dictate national policy. Moreover, even if states had this power, it’s unclear they would want to do so, as current efforts may interfere with other important state broadband initiatives. [Daniel Lyons is an associate professor at Boston College Law School]

[Commentary] Many officials, from California’s US senators to state public safety representatives, believe that the system for sending emergency alerts to phones needs to be improved. I agree. That’s why, on Jan 30, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on making the wireless emergency alert system more effective. The main [problem of the wireless emergency alter system] is the inability of public safety officials to target wireless alerts with greater accuracy — to get information only to those people who need it. When people get messages even though they aren’t in any danger, they can become skeptical about the system, with some opting out of receiving alerts altogether. And in certain cases, the public is missing potentially lifesaving alerts because emergency officials are reluctant to use this tool too broadly. On Jan 30, the FCC will vote on requiring wireless carriers to deliver alerts that more precisely match the affected area. Specifically, carriers would not be allowed to overshoot the geographic area targeted by public safety officials by more than one-tenth of a mile. [FCC Chairman Ajit Pai]

Since President Donald Trump took office a year ago, the political press has endured a sustained assault from a chief executive who has called journalists “the enemy of the American people.” Yet the news media has also driven decisions inside the West Wing to a degree perhaps unmatched since the scandal-ridden days of Richard Nixon. And White House aides and reporters alike say that political reality is being refracted by the media in an unprecedented way. Some reporters, in unguarded moments, say that they fear for journalists’ safety. Margaret Talev, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, was moved to tears in an interview as she recounted the death threats that now routinely land in her colleagues’ emails. Other journalists — ironic, cynical or simply enterprising, depending on your point of view — have embraced the moment as the wildest ride of their lives, and a lucrative one, too: the number of Washington reporters with cable television contracts, some with salaries verging on six figures, has surged.