Daily Digest 4/26/2018 (Net Neutrality Vote in May)

Network neutrality is dead. The rules governing today’s internet, known as the 2015 Open Internet Order, will be lifted any day now. It will mark the first time the US has gone without some form of net neutrality since the 1990s. What happens to net neutrality now? Despite the Federal Communications Commission giving internet providers free reign, immediate changes aren’t likely. ISPs are still pledging to uphold net neutrality principles, states the US Telecom trade association, even if their precise definition keeps changing. “What we will see,” said Chris Riley, the director of public policy at Mozilla, “is a slow build up of restrictions and fees.” He predicts ISPs will strike deals with providers such as Netflix to pay for faster speeds, potentially raising prices for customers, and slower service may become the norm for companies that refuse to pay. New startups relying on zippy connections, but unable to pay ISPs for fast access, may never even start on such an uneven playing field. After that, it’s anyone’s guess.

Catherine Moyer, CEO of the nonprofit Pioneer Communications in Ulysses (KS) said network neutrality hadn’t thwarted her company’s infrastructure spending. Rather, she said the broadband investment drop in 2015 was likely due to uncertainty about internet infrastructure subsidies. Moyer said now that net neutrality rules have gone away, there’s a chance to bargain with Netflix and other companies looking to spare their customers the purgatory of buffering. More than half of Pioneer’s traffic is now streaming video. Netflix alone accounts for 42 percent. That’s clogging Pioneer’s network. As a co-op, Moyer says, Pioneer would invest any extra money into infrastructure. That would bolster Pai’s argument that deregulation could build a better internet.

[Commentary] Until recently, the Federal Communications Commission dutifully provided statistics, perhaps framed in ways to support a policy objective. But until now, not one statistical report included a partisan jab. Despite lots of blabber about empiricism and humility, someone thought it fair and balanced to couple regularly-reported statistics with an unsupported assertion that the 2015 Open Internet Order singularly caused a decline in the pace of increased subscribership and network performance during the last two bummer Obama years.  In a statistical report, mandated by law, the FCC deliberately fails to consider other factors that may explain a slowing in broadband deployment and adoption, such as a maturing marketplace, the affordability of broadband service, particularly for rural and low-income individuals, and carrier investment emphasis in content having recently concluded a major rollout of next generation 4G wireless broadband networking capacity. In a bizarre attempt at having its cake and eating it too, the FCC attempts to show how broadband deployment suffered under Chairman Wheeler, but, of course, Chairman Pai has quickly righted wrongs so that the FCC can conclude that broadband deployment now satisfies the so-called Section 706 congressional mandate to determine whether every American has adequate broadband access. In a remarkably failed triple bank shot, the 2018 Broadband Report notes how rural broadband deployment has gravely slowed down, even as elsewhere it reports that rural penetration has reached 98%.  Might serving the last few unserved rural areas in American trigger the highest cost per household passed?  Might reaching the last 2-3% become infeasible, or at least result in slower progress?  Apparently there’s no reason other than the network neutrality burdens.

A wave of new telecom infrastructure is en route, and in a city where famously spotty cellular and internet service has long bedeviled 21st century businesses, residents and tourists alike, there’s optimism Santa Fe (NM) will soon turn the great connectivity corner. A raft of telecommunication franchise agreements are coming down the city’s legislative pike; the resulting network expansions in the city’s public rights of way could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition — and thus lower costs, according to city fiscal analyses.  Around the signal, however, there will be noise, as the outspoken cadre of local residents who say cellular radiation poses a grave health risk are likely to protest the proposed agreements when they appear before the City Council in early May. “If they pass this, we will lose control of our streets and sidewalks,” said Arthur Firstenberg, the outspoken local advocate against electromagnetic radiation. “To us, this is a mortal threat. It will injure people. It will kill people. We will have no more honeybees. We will have no more birds.”

The City of San Jose (CA) announced it has reached a tentative $5 million agreement with AT&T to deploy small cell technology on city-owned light poles. The non exclusive, 15-year agreement provides funding to help bolster the city's first responder communications network in addition to paying $1,500 per year for each of the projected 750 light poles to be used. The agreement still needs to be approved by the City Council at its May 1 meeting. Small cell technology involves antennas and associated equipment to be attached to existing poles, which are commonly 30 feet tall, as opposed to building or adding equipment to much taller cell towers, which have been criticized for being eyesores to residents who live near them. Existing cell towers can range from 70 to 300 feet in height. AT&T says small cell technology is part of its plans to initiate 5G high-speed connectivity.

Comcast formally unveiled a $30.7 billion takeover bid for Sky, putting the American cable giant squarely in a takeover battle with Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox for control over the British satellite broadcaster.  The terms of the long-awaited proposal were good enough to prompt Sky to withdraw its recommendation for Fox’s $16 billion bid for the 61 percent of Sky that it does not already own. Comcast’s move seizes upon Fox’s troubles in getting government approval for its bid, which was announced in late 2016. British regulators have questioned whether buying Sky, which operates the 24-hour news channel Sky News, would give Mr. Murdoch too much control over the country’s news media, given his ownership of newspapers like The Times of London and The Sun. It also changes the calculus for Fox and its ally Walt Disney, which has already announced a $52.4 billion bid for most of Fox’s businesses. Both have already offered concessions to allay regulators’ concerns, including an offer to sell Sky News to Disney. But now they may be forced to pay up to win Sky, which has customers in Austria, Britain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, and holds broadcast rights to the English Premier League and other professional sports competitions.

[Commentary] Our current privacy framework no longer works. While the hearings this month offered little in terms of solutions, they did put a spotlight on a problem that’s been glaringly obvious for years: Consumers have little control over their data online. We need a privacy framework that gives consumers control over their own data. Companies across the board must be required to get express consent from their users prior to sharing their data. At the outset, consumers should be asked to respond to a simple statement that they do or do not want their personal data shared.  And this choice should appear before those ridiculous terms of service agreements that few people read and almost none could understand even if they did read them.  Companies should also provide clear notice about what data they are collecting and how it will be used. Congress should look to elements of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation that include strong opt-in requirements as a guiding principle.  For years, companies have failed to adequately protect our personal data, and our weak privacy laws have paved the way for this to happen. It’s high time to put consumer privacy ahead of corporate greed.

[Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the FCC from May 2001 to December 2011 and is a special adviser for Common Cause. He also contributes original writing to the Benton Foundation.]

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie told House Democrats that former Trump campaign strategist Steve Bannon used the firm's research to discourage Democrats from voting in the 2016 election. Democrats from the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked Wylie whether Bannon had specifically talked about voter disenfranchisement or disengagement. "Yes," Wylie responded, according to the transcript released by the Democrats. "If by that term you mean discouraging particular types of voters who are more prone to voting for Democratic or liberal candidates, if that’s what you mean by that term, then yes."

Facebook replaced its head of policy in the United States, Erin Egan, as the social network scrambles to respond to intense scrutiny from federal regulators and lawmakers. Egan, who is also Facebook’s chief privacy officer, was responsible for lobbying and government relations as head of policy for the last two years. She will be replaced by Kevin Martin on an interim basis. Martin has been Facebook’s vice president of mobile and global access policy and is a former Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Egan will remain chief privacy officer and focus on privacy policies across the globe. 

The Senate Commerce Committee has unanimously approved the nomination of Rebecca Slaughter to the Federal Trade Commission, and Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) said he hoped the full Senate could approve the new full FTC slate as early as the week of April 30. The other four nominees, Joseph Simons (chairman), Noah Joshua Phillips, Christine Wilson, and Rohit Chopra were already reported favorably by the committee Feb. 28.