Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Headlines Daily Digest
How Bad Maps are Ruining American Broadband
Don't Miss:
The future of 5G mobile data could hinge on a battle over utility pole fees
Broadband/Internet
Wireless
Security/Privacy
Platforms
Ownership
Elections
Journalism
More Online
Broadband/Internet
US customers pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world, and broadband availability is sketchy at best for millions of Americans. But instead of tackling that problem head on, the Federal Communications Commission is increasingly looking the other way, relying on Internet service provider (ISP) data that paints an inaccurately rosy picture of Americans’ internet access. And as long as regulators are relying on a false picture of US broadband access, actually solving the problem may be impossible.
In policy conversations, ISP lobbyists lean heavily on the FCC’s flawed data to falsely suggest that American broadband is dirt cheap and ultra competitive, despite real-world evidence to the contrary. ISPs also use this false reality to imply meaningful consumer protections aren’t necessary because the market is healthy (as we saw during the fight over net neutrality). “By painting a far rosier picture of the digital divide than is warranted, policymakers have a far less sense of urgency about fixing the problem,” notes Gigi Sohn, a Benton Foundation senior fellow and former counselor to previous FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “And of course, if you don’t know the breadth of a problem, policymakers can’t be very strategic or targeted in fixing it.” Fixing the data collection methodology at the heart of the problem shouldn’t be complicated, Sohn said, but ISPs have routinely lobbied against nearly every effort to do so. “I would require the Internet access providers to, at a minimum, do a block-by-block mapping, and preferably, every home or building, along with prices, which would then be reported on the Form 477,” Sohn said when asked how she’d go about fixing the problem. “It’s just a lack of political will to ask the companies to do more,” Sohn said.
Could home broadband access help ease the burden of the "bandwidth tax" (the phenomenon of not being able to focus on long-term goals because so much cognitive effort is spent simply figuring out how to make ends meet in the short run) by giving low-income people a tool to better manage time and information? A new survey of recent Comcast Internet Essentials (IE) subscribers suggests that it might. In particular, the survey shows that a high-speed internet subscription at home helps low-income people to better manage time and money. When heads of households were asked how having IE service affected their communication with school and their kids, said the survey finds that:
- 83% report having IE service has helped them or someone in their household “a lot” (73%) or “somewhat” (10%) in doing school work.
- 81% said this statement describes them “very well” (68%) or “somewhat well” (13%): “The internet helps me be more responsive to things going on in my child’s school”.
- 63% said that they or someone in the household went online for schoolwork in the prior week.
Whether the time saving benefits of home broadband access leads to meaningful improvement in people’s lives is an open question – and one we plan to examine in the future.
Just over 100 Connect America Fund II auction winners are getting set to deploy broadband service to unserved rural areas for which they won funding. Today we take a deeper dive into the auction results and consider the long-term impact that the CAF II winners may have on the communities that they’re moving into.
The CAF II auction awarded funding for areas where the incumbent local phone company is one of the nation’s larger price cap companies and where the cost to deploy broadband was estimated to be especially high or where the incumbent turned down funding at the level offered by the Federal Communications Commission. Funding went to the company that offered to provide service at the lowest level of CAF support. The price cap carriers won’t have much of a business left in markets for which another company won CAF funding — and when the FCC planned the auction, it said the incumbent carriers in that situation could petition to withdraw from a market. None of them have done that yet, but it is likely that they will do so eventually. Who will be the new carriers of last resort? Anywhere there was a winning bid, residents should be better off – at least in the short term – because of their improved speeds. And residents in areas won by a rate of return (ROR) carrier or rural electric company may be especially happy because they will be getting the highest speeds, and in many cases will also get local support that they might not have had previously.
The birth of wireless home internet has been so frustrating to observe. While major telecommunication companies like Verizon and T-Mobile make grand proclamations about disrupting home broadband with speedy 5G wireless internet service, the reality on the ground–or, rather, in the air–is harsher. Even with low buildout costs and limitless consumer demand, building out the wireless home internet of the future is a painstakingly methodical endeavor. For proof, just look to startups like Starry and Common Networks, which for the past couple years have been building the kind of wireless home internet service that the telco giants now want to offer. Both startups are well-funded–Starry raised a $100 million Series C round in July, and Common followed with a $25 million Series B round in Aug–yet their rollouts are slow-going. Starry hopes to be in 16 markets by the end of 2018, nearly three years after launch, and Common Networks is shooting for three markets by the end of 2019. The excruciating pace could partly be attributed to wireless technology, which is still evolving and could use more spectrum to operate in, but the bigger factor is more boring: Setting up any kind of internet service in a new city–whether it involves underground cables or airwaves–is just an arduous process.
The Free State Foundation is hailing the Federal Communications Commission's planned Sept 26 vote on an item regarding local franchising authorities (LFAs) as important and appropriate pushback on localities trying to re-regulate internet access. Free State Foundation senior fellow Seth Cooper called the proposal "legally solid" and said it would "protect Internet services from regulatory overreach" by "keeping local regulators in check consistent with the Communications Act." Local franchising authorities trying to tie broadband regulations to traditional video service franchises is a flashpoint like net neutrality reclassification that the FCC move would try to head off with the vote. The FCC is proposing that a federal courts "mixed-use network ruling should be applied to prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent cable operators." A court has remanded the FCC's earlier establishing that prohibition, so the current FCC is telling the court the FCC was right the first time, as is Cooper, who says this time around, the FCC has made a persuasive case for that Congress "intended to bar LFAs from regulating information services."
Mobile carriers such as AT&T and Verizon are in a race to build brand-new data networks that can deliver ultrafast downloads and support a fresh generation of smart, Internet-connected devices. But a battle is brewing over how much the companies should pay for access to public utility poles and other rights of way, as federal regulators get ready to vote on the issue on Sept 26. The proposal by the Federal Communications Commission would establish new limits on the use fees that cities and towns can charge wireless carriers as the companies set up their new 5G data networks. And it would require local officials to make decisions more quickly on carriers' permit applications.
But the proposed requirements for local officials are drawing opposition from critics who say the FCC is hindering the autonomy of cities and towns and preventing them from performing basic oversight tasks. Restricting the fees could also undercut other local programs, they say. “We are concerned that the proposed language would significantly impede local government’s ability to serve as trustees of public property, safety, and welfare,” wrote J. Brent Fedors, county administrator for Gloucester County (VA) in a recent letter to the FCC. Fedors said the proposal, if approved, would be “severely hindering local governments' ability to fulfill our public health and safety responsibilities during the construction and modification” of the cell sites.
[For more, see Your Community's Role in the Future of 5G]
On Sept 26, the Federal Communications Commission will take its next step in ensuring that the United States wins the global race to 5G, the next generation of wireless service, to the benefit of communities across the country. It will do so by voting on the grassroots reforms championed by local and state officials. Their commonsense ideas are key to supporting the deployment of small cells, which are the building blocks of 5G. “More than several dozen mayors, local officials, and state lawmakers have called on the FCC to streamline the rules governing small cell buildout,” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr stated. “They want the FCC to build on the commonsense reforms adopted in state legislatures and town councils across the country so that every community—from big city to small town—gets a fair shot at next-generation connectivity. As they put it, FCC action will help spur investment and infrastructure buildout in their communities, while helping the US win the race to 5G. I am glad to see the support from this diverse group of state and local officials.”
5G, short for fifth generation, aims to deliver much faster wireless for mobile users and spur new innovation for internet-connected devices. Here are five things to know about the new technology.
- The industry is promising remarkable new advances.
- For Washington, 5G is a national security matter: Lawmakers and regulators clearly see 5G as vital to both the nation’s economy and national security.
- 5G deployment will take years and massive investments.
- A regulatory fight is brewing: On Sept 26, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on a proposed rule that would limit how much cities and local communities could charge companies for installing the many small cells needed for 5G deployment. The proposal is kicking off what might be the first major regulatory battle in the 5G rollout.
- There are 5G skeptics: Municipal groups like the US Conference of Mayors, which threatened to sue over the rule, are worried federal officials are trying to prevent them from overseeing 5G deployments in their own communities. There are also concerns about whether 5G technology will be fully deployed in poorer communities. “I would say the consequence of this and other mindless deregulation is that it's just going to perpetuate the digital divide and make it even worse,” said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at Public Knowledge.
Fight #1: The race to get 5G networks up and running, a three-way game among US, China, and South Korea. While the US may be technically first with 5G in a few places, China is spending significantly more and will likely be first with 5G en masse.
Fight #2: The competition over whose technology will power the networks. US security concerns about Chinese equipment have loomed large, and Huawei is one of the major suppliers. As it has in the past, the US won't allow Huawei to supply gear to major US telecom firms, favoring European players Ericsson and Nokia (as well as Korea's Samsung). "I don't want the United States to win just so we can wave the flag saying we're number one," said Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. Past winners of network races have "reaped a disproportionate amount of the benefits for their citizens."
Google’s top privacy staffer will defend the company’s business model at an upcoming Senate hearing, while backing the broad idea of new privacy rules. Google will face tough questions at the Sept 26 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on privacy, where chief privacy officer Keith Enright will appear alongside representatives from other tech companies as well as internet service providers. Enright said he plans to stand by the company’s ad-supported business model. “We don’t hide from that but we also recognize that that creates some additional considerations and responsibilities on our part,” he said, later emphasizing the "benefits that users and the internet generally have realized" from free, ad-supported services like Google's. But he will also point to what the company thinks would make for good privacy rules. “We actually support comprehensive baseline data protection regulations, and we want to be engaged in that conversation,” he said. He pushed back on the idea that opt-in consent to data collection should be required by law, and indicated he broadly supported the idea of federal regulations taking precedence over state rules.
Apple will pledge its support for federal privacy regulations during a Sept 26 Senate Commerce Committee hearing. Expect Apple’s Bud Tribble to underscore the difference between the hardware maker, which doesn’t need to make money from user data, with companies like Google, which have built their business model on it. Tribble, a longtime Apple employee who leads the company’s privacy engineering work, will "convey Apple’s support for comprehensive federal privacy legislation that reflects Apple’s long-held view that privacy is a fundamental human right" during the hearing. "We want your device to know everything about you; we don’t feel that we should," he’ll say. "These concepts have guided our design process for years because privacy is a core value at Apple, not an obligation or an aftermarket add-on."
White House distances itself from reports that President Trump could target Facebook, Google and Twitter with a new executive order
The White House sought to distance itself from reports that President Donald Trump is considering an executive order that would subject tech giants like Facebook, Google and Twitter to federal investigations into alleged political bias. For weeks, top tech companies have been on edge, fearing that the Trump administration could seek to regulate the industry in response to the president’s tweets attacking social media sites for silencing conservatives online. Their worst suspicions seemed to come true on Sept 21, with the emergence of a draft executive order that called for nearly every federal agency to study how companies like Facebook police their platforms and refer instances of “bias” to the Justice Department for further study. But three White House aides soon insisted they didn’t write the draft order, didn’t know where it came from and generally found it to be unworkable policy. One senior White House official confirmed the document had been floating around the White House but had not gone through the formal process, which is controlled by the staff secretary. Lindsay Walters, deputy White House press secretary, said, “Although the White House is concerned about the conduct of online platforms and their impact on society, this document is not the result of an official White House policymaking process."
House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) Rep Bobby Rush (D-IL) pressed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to firm up his commitment to conduct a civil rights audit of his social media platform. Their goal is for Twitter to follow a kind of web Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm to our country, our democracy, or the public." In the letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Reps Pallone and Rush said the civil rights audit was needed because of the use of Twitter to sew that division. "'[S]ome Twitter users, including foreign agents, continue to misuse the platform to promote racially divisive content and misinformation," they told him, adding: "[Widespread abuse, harassment, harmful misinformation and manipulation continue on Twitter." They said an audit would be a positive step forward, pointing out that Facebook and others have agreed to similar review. They also put in a plug for greater transparency around Twitter's rules and policies, then "swift and fair" enforcement. Both, they said would go a long way to Twitter regaining the trust of the public in its service, another way of saying Twitter currently does not have that trust.
Comcast and the Walt Disney Company have long been rivals. But Brian Roberts, who runs Comcast, has recently become the Magic Kingdom’s nemesis in chief. He waged an unrelenting fight for 21st Century Fox over the summer, forcing Disney to pay about $18 billion more than it had planned in order to secure Rupert Murdoch’s entertainment empire. Then, on Sept 22, Comcast emerged as the decisive victor in a battle with Disney for control of the British pay-television company Sky. For Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chief executive, the loss of Sky and its vast European customer base to Roberts has to sting. It was perhaps the first time during his ultrasuccessful 13-year tenure that Iger was denied such a prize, one he called “a crown jewel” when first pursuing it. But the realities of the entertainment business make the outcome more complicated. “I am happy that Disney didn’t get it,” said Michael Nathanson, an analyst at MoffettNathanson. “Comcast paid a very expensive price for this, and I think it’s hard to justify.” Comcast’s offer for the majority stake in Sky puts that total value of the company at $48 billion including assumed debt, or 15 times expected 2018 earnings. Nathanson added, “This doesn’t stop Disney.” Disney will own 39 percent of Sky through its 21st Century Fox acquisition. Iger can hold on to those shares or sell them to Comcast.
Politicians may be too timid to explore the subject of whether Russian election interference affected the outcome of the 2016 election, but a new book from, of all places, Oxford University Press promises to be incendiary. “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know,” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, dares to ask—and even attempts to answer—whether Russian meddling had a decisive impact in 2016. Jamieson offers a forensic analysis of the available evidence and concludes that Russia very likely delivered Trump’s victory. Her case is based on a growing body of knowledge about the electronic warfare waged by Russian trolls and hackers—whom she terms “discourse saboteurs”—and on five decades’ worth of academic studies about what kinds of persuasion can influence voters, and under what circumstances. Democracies around the world, she told me, have begun to realize that subverting an election doesn’t require tampering with voting machines. Extensive studies of past campaigns, Jamieson said, have demonstrated that “you can affect people, who then change their decision, and that alters the outcome.” She continued, “I’m not arguing that Russians pulled the voting levers. I’m arguing that they persuaded enough people to either vote a certain way or not vote at all.” In two hundred and twenty-four pages of extremely dry prose, with four appendixes of charts and graphs and fifty-four pages of footnotes, Jamieson makes a strong case that, in 2016, “Russian masterminds” pulled off a technological and political coup. Moreover, she concludes, the American media “inadvertently helped them achieve their goals.”
With a $20 million gift from the Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, investigative journalist Julia Angwin and her partner at ProPublica, data journalist Jeff Larson, are starting The Markup, a news site dedicated to investigating technology and its effect on society. Sue Gardner, former head of the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, will be The Markup’s executive director. Angwin and Larson said that they would hire two dozen journalists for its New York office and that stories would start going up on the website in early 2019. The group has also raised $2 million from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and $1 million collectively from the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative. The site will explore three broad investigative categories: how profiling software discriminates against the poor and other vulnerable groups; internet health and infections like bots, scams and misinformation; and the awesome power of the tech companies. The Markup will release all its stories under a creative commons license so other organizations can republish them, as ProPublica does.
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.
© 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
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org
The Benton Foundation All Rights Reserved © 2018