The Federal Communications Commission has reversed course on whether to let SpaceX and other satellite providers apply for rural-broadband funding as low-latency providers. But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said companies like SpaceX will have to prove they can offer low latencies, as the FCC does not plan to "fund untested technologies."  Chairman Pai's original proposal classified SpaceX and all other satellite operators as high-latency providers for purposes of the funding distribution, saying the companies haven't proven they can deliver latencies below the FCC standard of 100ms. Chairman Pai's plan to shut satellite companies out of the low-latency category would have put them at a disadvantage in a reverse auction that will distribute $16 billion from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). But SpaceX is launching low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites in altitudes ranging from 540km to 570km, a fraction of the 35,000km used with geostationary satellites, providing much lower latency than traditional satellite service. SpaceX told the FCC that its Starlink service will easily clear the 100ms cutoff, and FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly urged Pai to let LEO companies apply in the low-latency tier. The FCC voted to approve the updated auction rules June 9.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the National Lifeline Association (NaLA). NaLA requests that the Federal Communications Commission revoke the state of Texas’s National Lifeline Accountability Database opt-out certification approval and other relief. On June 3, NaLA wrote: "For years, the [Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT)], through its Low-Income Discount Administrator (LIDA), has functionally failed to meet the commitments it made to the FCC in its NLAD Opt-Out Certification. The PUCT’s failure to provide an equivalent of the NLAD snapshot report as well as its failures to provide identity or address verification functionality on par with the NLAD have produced dire consequences for the Lifeline-eligible population of Texas and the [eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs)] that provide the vast majority of Lifeline service to them. Combined with enforcement and audit actions taken by the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) that rely on improper assumptions and assertions about the PUCT’s processes, the current situation has quickly escalated into a combustible turning point that threatens both Texas ETCs and the Lifeline-eligible low-income consumers who desperately need their assistance to stay connected during the COVID-19 public health crisis and the economic and unemployment disaster it spawned." NaLA asks for the following relief:

1. revoke approval of the PUCT’s NLAD Opt-Out Certification immediately;
2. terminate enforcement and audit activity based on the false conclusion that the LIDA EOM Report is the equivalent of the NLAD Snapshot Report; and
3. establish a process for ETCs to submit underpayment recovery claims based on the number of Texas Lifeline subscribers served as of the first day of the following month.

[WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 96-45. Comment Date: July 10, 2020 Reply Comment Date: July 27, 2020]

As the country confronts its long, deeply rooted history of racism, we must all acknowledge our own role in racist systems and make changes to ensure we are part of the solution, rather than the problem. With over 2.6 billion users, Facebook has a clear responsibility to reckon with its role in these systems or risk continuing to facilitate oppression that imperils Black lives. Despite repeated calls to action from inside and outside the company, Facebook has long struggled with this responsibility. It has suspended the accounts of Black users and removed their content while permitting racist content from white supremacist groups. Civil rights groups like The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Color of Change have worked tirelessly to push Facebook to reform its policies around online speech that incites real world violence, encourages voter suppression, and spreads disinformation meant to disenfranchise communities of color on the platform. Nevertheless, last week Facebook’s leadership doubled down in defense of the decision to allow posts from the President that included calls to violence and false information about primary elections. While Facebook has suggested it may revisit its policies around false and incendiary political speech, the totality of the company’s words, timing, and actions matters. We must do more to hold companies and ourselves accountable. As of today, the Open Technology Institute is declining further funding from Facebook. OTI will continue to engage with the company on a variety of policy issues, and we hope to maintain a constructive dialogue going forward as we work toward meaningful change.

This memo briefly explains how Facebook and Google have come to dominate modern communications networks, what that means for American democracy, and how to fix it.

Reducing Google and Facebook’s dominance means changing the rules and laws that enable their business model, and to bring anti-monopoly enforcement actions to reduce their scale and scope. One way to start is through structural separations: for instance, splitting out Google’s general search from mapping, Android, and YouTube. But that can’t be the end. To turn these platforms into safe, neutral networks for communication, policymakers must focus on regulating advertising practices, and in particular on the dangers inherent in targeted advertising.Ultimately, that means communications networks like Facebook and Google should lose their liability protections under Section 230 if they profit from advertising.