Daily Digest 3/5/2018 (RAY BAUM’S Act Agreement)

Digital equity refers to whether people can access and effectively use the technology necessary to participate in modern society. Another phrase, “digital inclusion,” denotes efforts to remedy deficits in digital equity. Simply put, digital equity is what cities and states want, and digital inclusion is the work they and their partners are doing to create it. Advocates for digital equity, as well as many public servants within governmental tech and innovation departments, stress that this issue has grown into one that is vital for the success of our communities, and it will become even more important as technology continues to advance and services continue to migrate online. Overcoming major obstacles — such as having to travel to a public library to use it or lacking the skills to find resources and forms — positively impacts communities, leading to kids doing better in school, senior citizens having an easier time receiving health care, and adults being able to get and keep better jobs, said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit group that advocates for digital equity.

[Commentary] The Lifeline program is one of the Federal Communications Commission’s most important, most noble ventures. It is also one of the most problematic, suffering repeated criticism from the Government Accountability Office and others for waste, fraud, and abuse. In an effort to reform the program, the FCC has suggested limiting Lifeline participation to facilities-based telecommunications providers. But far from improving Lifeline, this proposal is likely to undermine the program and harm the vulnerable populations that the program seeks to serve. First, the reseller ban restricts choice and ignores the preferences of Lifeline consumers. More fundamentally, the reseller ban ignores the role that wireless substitution plays in low-income communities. I have long argued that Lifeline is a flawed program in need of fundamental reform. But these reforms should enhance the purchasing power of eligible households. A true market-based subsidy would allow these households, as much as possible, to participate like any other family in the marketplace for telecommunications services. The reseller ban instead limits Lifeline recipients’ options and relegates many to wired solutions when most Americans — including many low-income families — prefer the advantages of mobile connectivity. There are better ways to promote buildout and limit abuse without limiting the options of families that have few choices to begin with. [Daniel Lyons is also an associate professor at Boston College Law School]

[Commentary] Will consumers see a sharp drop in Internet speeds because of the repeal of net neutrality rules? We can’t help but feel that we’ve spilled a lot of pixels here analyzing something that simply hasn’t happened. Senate Democrats, industry leaders and net neutrality activists say the FCC’s move to toss out the Obama-era rules will bog down and end the Internet as we know it. The biggest broadband providers forcefully reject this claim, saying they have no plans to block or throttle content or offer paid prioritization. That could change in time. As the D.C. Circuit said, broadband companies could make more money from paid prioritization, and it’s “common sense” to think they might try it. These providers have the ability and the incentive to slow down or speed up Internet traffic, and they’ve engaged in these practices in the past. For now, though, there’s scant evidence that Internet users should brace for a slowdown. Yet the Democrats’ tweet conveys the false impression that a slowdown is imminent unless net neutrality rules are restored. This transmission error merits Three Pinocchios, but we will monitor the situation and update our ruling depending on whether the fears were overstated or came true.

Many local officials, engineers and wireless consultants contend that changes Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai advocates to limit local regulation of small-cell permitting, design, fees and other charges used to access cities’ public rights of way won’t do anything to close the digital divide. What they will do, these critics charge, is increase profits for the wireless industry, which wants to cash in on a 5G market that is estimated to grow to $250 billion in annual service revenue in seven years. At the center for the debate: rules the FCC is considering that would reduce the time cities and counties have to review applications for small cells. The FCC is also giving thought to limiting local requirements on designs and capping how much localities can charge wireless carriers for use of public property, all discussed in two FCC dockets approved last year. Wireless companies argue local governments take too long to approve the cells and charge too much to use rights of way. 

The Kremlin’s political warfare against democratic countries has evolved from overt to covert influence activities. But while Russia has pioneered the toolkit of asymmetric measures for the 21st century, including cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, these tools are already yesterday’s game. Technological advances in artificial intelligence (AI), automation, and machine learning, combined with the growing availability of big data, have set the stage for a new era of sophisticated, inexpensive, and highly impactful political warfare. In the very near term, it will become more difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between real and falsified audio, video, or online personalities. Malicious actors will use these technologies to target Western societies more rapidly and efficiently. As authoritarian states such as Russia and China invest resources in new technologies, the global competition for the next great leap in political warfare will intensify. As the battle for the future shifts to the digital domain, policymakers will face increasingly complex threats against democracies. The window to mount an effective “whole-of- society” response to emerging asymmetric threats is quickly narrowing. This paper outlines the current state of play in political warfare, identifies emerging threats, and proposes potential policy responses. It argues for greater information sharing mechanisms between trans-Atlantic governments and the private sector, greater information security and transparency, and greater investments in research and development on AI and computational propaganda. As authoritarian regimes seek to undermine democratic institutions, Western societies must harness their current— though fleeting—competitive advantage in technology to prepare for the next great leap forward in political warfare. Western governments should also develop a deterrence strategy against political warfare with clearly defined consequences for specific offensive actions, while ensuring they retain their democracies’ core values of openness and freedom of expression.

Within its digital borders, China has long censored what its people read and say online. Now, it is increasingly going beyond its own online realms to police what people and companies are saying about it all over the world. For years, China has exerted digital control with a system of internet filters known as the Great Firewall, which allows authorities to limit what people see online. To broaden its censorship efforts, Beijing is venturing outside the Great Firewall and paying more attention to what its citizens are saying on non-Chinese apps and services. As part of that shift, Beijing has at times pressured foreign companies like Google and Facebook, which are both blocked in China, to take down certain content. At other times, it has bypassed foreign companies entirely and instead directly pushed users of global social media to encourage self-censorship. This effort is accelerating as President Xi Jinping consolidates his power.