Benton 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. Find Headlines online at https://www.benton.org/headlines
NTIA Looks to Stakeholders to Help Shape its International Agenda
In a notice of inquiry, we are asking all interested stakeholders – businesses, civil society groups, the technical community, academics, and the general public – to provide us with comments and recommendations. The input we receive will inform NTIA's international Internet policy priorities going forward. Four broad topic areas and some key questions we think are especially important:
- The Free Flow of Information and Jurisdiction. Governments around the world are blocking access to websites, curtailing online freedoms and imposing restrictions on the free movement of data. These restrictions threaten to undermine the economic, social and educational benefits of the Internet. How should the U.S. government push back on these practices? And how can we engage with partners more effectively?
- Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance. NTIA has been a strong advocate for the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance and policy development. What more can NTIA do to promote this approach? Within ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, NTIA has been working on issues related to preserving access to WHOIS domain name registry services in light of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Are there any other activities related to the domain name system that NTIA should pursue? How can NTIA raise national awareness about our longstanding engagement in the Internet Governance Forum?
- Privacy and Security. Cybersecurity risks pose a threat to security and can hinder economic growth and innovation. This global problem cannot be solved in isolation, and will require international coordination. We want to know more about how threats to privacy and security – and governments’ responses to those threats – are impacting international commerce.
- Emerging Technologies and Trends. NTIA’s policy efforts related to new and emerging technologies is possible only because of dedicated engagement from American industry. We want risk-taking American entrepreneurs to have access to global markets for their digital products and services. We expect that in the coming years, our focus will increasingly be on artificial intelligence, automated workforces, blockchain technologies and more. We want to know how we should participate in international discussions of these issues.
Comments are due July 2, 2018.
If we want better broadband, more research needs to come first
[Commentary] Maps that accurately illustrate broadband coverage are needed to help direct both public and private sector efforts to areas without sufficient access. The Federal Communications Commission's national broadband map uses information from providers to depict coverage and includes a caveat that coverage may be overestimated because of underlying data limitations. Other options for collecting and confirming the extent and location of coverage — such as crowdsourcing, collaborating with the private sector to enhance data reporting, and state verification — could be useful in providing more accurate maps with current, validated data in a cost-effective way. Identifying policy solutions that could be replicated in other states or scaled to the federal level could help clarify paths for leaders in a challenging and often contentious policy area. Various funding and financing mechanisms could help pay for these efforts, including public-private partnerships, infrastructure banks, matching grants, and loan guarantees. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to expanding broadband access, any effort would benefit from new research — whether that’s data and analysis that help identify unserved areas, an evaluation of state activities, or information on financing and funding mechanisms. As leaders at all levels of government consider ways to close the connectivity gap, they need more information about the scope of the problem and credible, viable ideas. Additional research can help our policymakers get one step closer to ensuring that all Americans have access to reliable, high-speed internet.
[Ingrid Schroeder directs The Pew Charitable Trusts’ fiscal federalism initiatives.]
DC Must Help Close Rural Digital Divide
In a recent spending bill, Congress made $600 million available for additional broadband deployment to America’s rural areas. The US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has been tapped to administer these funds through a new pilot program. Without question, this funding is a welcome and needed addition to the growing arsenal now aimed squarely at closing the digital divide to rural Americans once and for all. Private investment, paired with dedicated federal programs, will connect millions more in the coming years. That’s why great care must be taken to maximize the RUS program’s effectiveness. The smart coordination of RUS with existing programs we know already work, such as the Universal Service Fund, can best help providers extend and sustain broadband into our most rural communities. If this coordination doesn’t happen, projects selected by RUS could risk hollowing out the “Main Streets” of small communities, leaving another program, such as USF, to pick up the surrounding portions at much greater costs. New RUS funding should instead focus on areas not already reached, or not likely to be reached through programs such as the Federal Communications Commission’s High Cost and Remote Areas Funds, intended to bring service to many of the hardest-to-reach portions of the United States.
States defy FCC repeal of net neutrality
States are pushing their own net neutrality laws and rules in defiance of the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal, heightening the possibility that supporters will be waging another legal battle over the popular Obama-era regulations. Washington and Oregon have already passed their own laws to fill the void left by the FCC’s repeal, and California appears to be close behind after the state Senate passed a net neutrality bill on May 30. A total of 29 states have proposed their own open internet legislation, according to Gigi Sohn, a fellow at Georgetown Law who’s been tracking the initiatives. And five Democratic governors have gone with another tactic: issuing executive orders that prohibit the state from doing business with any broadband company that violates the principles of net neutrality.
Cloud? Mall? Why internet metaphors matter in net neutrality debate
Absent intervention by Congress or the courts, the Federal Communication Commission’s net neutrality regulations, which prevent internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from establishing tiered pricing and levels of access to the internet, will expire on June 11. But the rules, which are supported by big majorities of Americans in both parties, aren’t going down without a fight. Framing arguments on both sides of the debate are different metaphors about what the internet really is. Is the internet a grocery store, for instance, or more like a utility? “Metaphors play a fundamental role in our basic understanding and in the way we reason about various important topics in our lives,” says University of Oregon philosopher Mark Johnson. And “the metaphors that operate most powerfully,” says Annette Markham, a professor of information studies at Aarhus University, “are those that operate without our awareness.”
California’s net neutrality bill could set a national standard
If the California network neutrality bill passes through Assembly, the state’s size and influence on the market might make it the new broadband standard nationwide. The bill, SB 822, is one of the most comprehensive measures any state has put forward in the six months following the FCC’s vote to roll back the original Obama-era regulations. If it passes, it would be the third state to enact net neutrality rules and the first to prohibit some zero-rating programs. Marc Martins, a telecommunications lawyer for Perkins Coie, said that if it passes, the bill could help incentivize other states to draft similar legislation. “California is a massive market,” Martins said. “You start to approach a critical mass where broadband providers can’t ignore net neutrality as a policy matter. They’re not going to stay out of the California market or Washington or any other state that adopts these rules.”
What To Expect As Net Neutrality Fades Into The Distance
[Commentary] At the moment, 36 states and Washington (DC) have introduced efforts to keep network neutrality. These efforts range from introducing legislation to filing lawsuits. At the moment, it’s too early to tell if these suits will be successful and if states will be allowed to implement their own rules for broadband. Now, let’s say these suits were to fail, and the repeal of net neutrality continued to move forward as planned. What impact would this have on consumers? For companies like Verizon and Comcast, there’s a benefit to be had: the ability to prioritize their own content over that of their competitors. By using a neat tactic called zero-rating, where the use of certain services doesn’t count towards your data cap, broadband providers can redirect traffic that might have otherwise gone to, say, Netflix. On the face of it, the ability to stream unlimited content for no additional fee might sound like a benefit for consumers, but it does come with certain costs: for one thing, there’s no incentive for the carrier to provide a high-quality streaming experience, and there’s also no guarantee that those services will remain zero-rated in the long term. One thing’s for sure: Neither Internet service providers nor their opponents are going to go down without a fight.
[Alan Levy is the co-founder & CEO of Skywire Networks, one of the largest Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers in New York City.]
Pressure is building among some Democratic Lawmakers for another antitrust probe of Google
Rep Keith Ellison (D-MN) is calling on the US government to investigate Google, the latest sign that some Democratic lawmakers are ready to challenge the tech industry after befriending it in the past. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, Rep Ellison urged the watchdog agency to take a closer look at Google and its parent company, Alphabet, given that European regulators recently found that the search giant harmed its rivals and fined it $2.7 billion. “The FTC should determine whether Alphabet has engaged in similar conduct in the United States and whether such conduct violates the FTC Act,” he wrote. “We’re seeing breaks in the ranks,” said Barry Lynn, the director of the Open Markets Institute, which has advocated for antitrust scrutiny of major tech companies. “The Democratic Party is going to end up within the next two-to-three years doing something about big tech because the rank and file is going to force them.”
Microsoft to Acquire GitHub For $7.5 Billion in Stock
Microsoft will acquire the software-code repository GitHub for $7.5 billion in stock, a move that could help the software giant convince more developers to create applications for its cloud-computing business. The deal puts GitHub, a popular service where developers share and collaborate on code, into the hands of a tech giant that is among the leaders in so-called cloud computing, where customers rent digital resources and applications on demand. Three years ago, GitHub raised $250 million from several venture capital firms, a move that valued the company at $2 billion at the time. Its investors include Sequoia Capital, Institutional Venture Partners and Andreessen Horowitz, among others.
House Commerce Ranking Member Pallone wants answers on Facebook sharing data with phone makers
House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said that Facebook “should be prepared to come before Congress" and answer questions about its data collection practices. “It’s deeply concerning that Facebook continues to withhold critical details about the information it has and shares with others. Facebook and other data collectors, including these device manufacturers, should be prepared to come before Congress so that we can get a better grasp of the entire data collection ecosystem, and how people’s personal information is being shared and used,” Ranking Member Pallone said. Elena Hernandez, a spokesperson for House Commerce Committee leadership, called the recent story "troubling" and said the committee plans to examine the issue further. "The Energy and Commerce Committee will continue to examine the issues raised here, and reiterates the call for industry leaders to come and testify before us, discuss their practices, and demonstrate their commitment to an open dialogue," she said.
Rep Cicilline: ‘Looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress’
House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Ranking Member David Cicilline (D-RI) hammered Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, following a report that the company is sharing large amounts of its users’ data with other companies. “Sure looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress about whether users have ‘complete control’ over who sees our data on Facebook," Rep Cicilline tweeted. “This needs to be investigated and the people responsible need to be held accountable,” he continued.
How Americans have viewed government surveillance and privacy since Snowden leaks
In June 2013, news organizations broke stories about federal government surveillance of phone calls and electronic communications of US and foreign citizens, based on classified documents leaked by then-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of government information-gathering and surveillance, drawn from Pew Research Center surveys since the NSA revelations:
- Americans were divided about the impact of the leaks immediately following Snowden’s disclosures, but a majority said the government should prosecute the leaker.
- Americans became somewhat more disapproving of the government surveillance program itself in the ensuing months, even after then-President Barack Obama outlined changes to NSA data collection.
- Disclosures about government surveillance prompted some Americans to change the way they use technology.
- Americans broadly found it acceptable for the government to monitor certain people, but not US citizens.
- About half of Americans (52%) expressed worry about surveillance programs in 2014 and 2015, but they had more muted concerns about surveillance of their own data.
- The vast majority of Americans (93%) said that being in control of who can get information about them is important.
- Some 49% said in 2016 that they were not confident in the federal government’s ability to protect their data.
- Roughly half of Americans (49%) said their personal data were less secure compared with five years prior.
Huawei Slams FCC Efforts to Bar It From Federal Communications Program
The Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to block the Chinese company Huawei from US telecommunications contracts and supply chains is unconstitutional, misguided, “arbitrary and capricious,” Huawei said. The Chinese telecom giant devoted more than 100 pages to savaging the FCC proposal, which would deny money from the commission’s Universal Service Fund to companies that purchase equipment or services from companies that are deemed threats to national security. That list would include Huawei and ZTE, another Chinese telecom. US intelligence officials fear the companies could be used by Chinese government hackers to spy on Americans or launch destructive cyberattacks. Huawei took two main tacks in its argument against the FCC proposal. First, the company argued that the proposal stretches beyond the bounds of FCC’s powers and violates Huawei’s constitutional right to due process. Second, the company argued that the commission doesn’t have a reasonable basis for believing that Huawei poses a national security threat to the affected phone and internet providers.
Consumer groups rally for smaller Priority Access Licenses
A group of entities calling themselves the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) [including the Benton Foundation] is urging the Federal Communications Commission to stick to its original rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) for the 3.5 GHz spectrum, arguing that larger licensed areas will undermine the goal of the small-cell innovation band. PISC, whose members include the Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge and the American Library Association, among others, reiterated in a May 30 letter the importance of retaining small license areas with short terms and competitive renewal processes. They want the FCC to stick to the rules that had the Priority Access Licenses (PALs) based on census tracts. They’re also voicing concern about reports that at least one FCC commissioner is encouraging industry stakeholders to accept the so-called “compromise” struck between national (CTIA) and regional (CCA) mobile carriers—one they say that would ultimately undermine the most robust and innovative uses of the band.
NPR: US Should Divide (C-Band) to Conquer 5G
National Public Radio is waving a caution flag as the Trump Administration pushes to open up the C-band (3.7-4.2 GHz.) for broadband, echoing comments by the National Association of Broadcasters. Its advice is to divide if it wants to conquer in the race to 5G. NPR has told the Federal Communications Comission it should reserve some C-band spectrum for wireless broadband, but should reserve the remainder for exclusive use by incumbents, like NPR's fixed satellite delivery of its programming. NPR says that the best thing to do is give incumbents and new users their own designated spectrum rather than mandate sharing of the same spectrum by both commercial wireless and fixed satellite users like NPR. Those fixed satellite users also include TV broadcast networks and cable operators. "[T]he only feasible way to share the C-band spectrum without causing harmful interference to current users is to subdivide it, and in so doing to ensure adequate protections for existing uses through guard bands and appropriate licensing requirements," NPR said.
Chairman Pai Remarks at FCC Supplier Diversity Workshop
[Speech] Now that I’ve seen what you can do, I’m adjusting my expectations. I’m raising the bar. I going to expect the Diversity Advisory Committee to work with Federal Communications Commision staff to make more real-world connections for small businesses, including those owned by women and minorities. I’m going to expect more recommendations on policies and best practices. I’m going to expect recommendations on how to bring more diversity to Silicon Valley. And last, I expect that you will exceed my expectations, and collectively, that we will increase diversity throughout the communications industry and expand digital opportunity to more Americans.
Trump Team Pushed False Story Line About Meeting With Kremlin-Tied Lawyer, Memo Shows
For nearly a year, the denials from President Trump’s lawyers and spokeswoman were unequivocal. No, the president did not dictate a misleading statement released in his son’s name. But in a confidential, hand-delivered memo to the special counsel, Trump’s lawyers acknowledged that, yes, President Trump had dictated the statement, which attempted to deflect questions about a meeting with a Kremlin-tied lawyer at Trump Tower. Prosecutors are asking whether the statement was part of an effort by the president to obstruct a federal investigation. The misleading statement highlights a communication strategy that the White House has used repeatedly: deny facts, attack news outlets and dismiss journalism as “fake news.”
Trump’s mind-control superpowers
In our lifetime, no president has matched Donald Trump’s ability to summon the power of the pulpit, friendly media, and the tweet-by-tweet power of repetition and persuasion to move minds en masse. You see this in the silence of Republican critics; the instant shifts in GOP views of the FBI, Putin and deficits; and the quick, widespread adoption of his branding efforts around “deep state,” “Spygate” and “no collusion.” We hear so much, so often that we become numb to what Trump is doing. This allows big things (such as fundamental shifts in governing norms) to seem like small things or nothing at all. President Trump and allies are floating untested legal arguments: The president can't obstruct justice, or can unilaterally shut down probes of himself, or can even pardon himself. If you think he won't try something unprecedented — and maybe get away with it, at least with Republicans — you aren’t paying attention.
Meet Geoffrey Starks
President Donald Trump will nominate Geoffrey Starks to fill the Democratic seat on the Federal Communications Commission being vacated by Mignon Clyburn. Here’s what you need to know about Starks, an assistant chief in the FCC’s enforcement bureau: He was first brought to the FCC from the Justice Department in 2015 to tackle one of the agency’s “thorniest political issues,” said former enforcement bureau chief Travis LeBlanc. The issue: waste, fraud, and abuse in Universal Service Fund programs. “It’s complicated and he deeply believes in the program,” LeBlanc said, adding, “He believes it is designed to connect historically-vulnerable communities to communications. Every one of those dollars, he wants to make sure goes to that purpose.” LeBlanc predicted Starks would keep up a similar agenda as commissioner, focusing on giving voice to the vulnerable while holding violators accountable. While at DOJ, Starks helped prosecute a former DC neighborhood advisory commissioner accused of a hate crime for attacking a homeless man. And former Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole, for whom Starks served as senior counsel, called the FCC nominee “somebody who does their homework and looks at problems from the standpoint not of politics, but of serving the public.” Cole went on: “This is a person who can deal with the novel issues and novel concepts that are going to come up.”
Forget LinkedIn: Here’s your 10-second bio on Starks. He grew up in Kansas City, attended both Harvard and Yale Law School, and worked in private practice at Williams & Connolly. He also served as staff to the Illinois state Democrats — including a then-little-known state senator by the name of Barack Obama.
President Trump nominating conservative filmmaker Michael Pack to lead Broadcasting Board of Governors
President Donald Trump has tapped Michael Pack, the former head of conservative think tank Claremont Institute, to run the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The BBG oversees Voice of America, Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Pack currently serves as the president of Manifold Productions, Inc., a production and film company he founded. He served as the CEO of Claremont between 2015 and 2017, when he also was the Claremont Review of Books publisher. Pack sat on the National Council on the Humanities during former President George W. Bush's administration.
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 2018. 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