Verge, The

When Congress voted in March to block Federal Communications Commission privacy rules and let internet service providers sell users’ personal data, it was a coup for the telecommunication industry. Now, the nonprofit, pro-privacy group Fight for the Future is publicizing just how much the industry paid in an attempt to sway those votes.

The group unveiled four billboards, targeting House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and John Rutherford (R-FL), as well as Sens Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Dean Heller (R-NV). All four billboards, which were paid for through donations, were placed in the lawmakers’ districts. “Congress voting to gut Internet privacy was one of the most blatant displays of corruption in recent history,” Fight for the Future co-founder Tiffiniy Cheng said in a statement on the project. The billboards accuse the lawmakers of betraying their constituents, and encourage passersby to call their offices.

T-Mobile has made an enormous investment in wireless spectrum in a very expensive bid to put its LTE network on par with Verizon’s and AT&T’s. The carrier is spending almost $8 billion to acquire more than 1,500 wireless licenses that span across the United States. The licenses are for spectrum in the 600MHz range, which in terms of spectrum, is some seriously high-quality stuff. It’s at a relatively low frequency, which means it’s good at traveling long distances and penetrating walls — attributes that make for a strong network. This move is all about catching up to Verizon and AT&T. Both of those carriers made big investments in spectrum in the 700MHz range — which has similar properties — years ago, and they’ve been able to use it to build strong, nationwide LTE networks.

Dish Network, which already sits atop a pile of mid-range spectrum and has announced its intentions to build an NB-IoT network, was the second-biggest bidder, committing $6.2 billion. Comcast, which recently outlined plans to deploy its own wireless service, will spend $1.7 billion.

[Commentary] After Congress repealed the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules two weeks ago, new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai promised the American people that he would ensure that the personal information they give to their Internet service providers would continue to be protected. Chairman Pai said that he planned to work with the Federal Trade Commission to “restore the FTC’s authority to police internet service providers’ privacy practices.” But this plan will not only fail to provide effective broadband privacy protections, it will come at the cost of eliminating the FCC’s net neutrality rules that prohibit ISPs like Comcast and AT&T from picking winners and losers on the internet. And there’s a real chance the FTC actually won’t be able to regulate ISPs at all.

[Gigi Sohn served as Counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from November 2013 to December 2016.]

[Commentary] [J]ust conceptually, the idea that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai will get Comcast and AT&T and Verizon and every tiny little regional Internet service provider to put strong open internet provisions in their terms of service agreements is pure nonsense.

First, terms of service agreements change all the time. And people freak out about them, and nothing happens. Do you think the iTunes Terms and Conditions are there to protect you? Facebook’s? Verizon’s? Come on. So what’s to stop Comcast from making this deal today, and then changing its terms a year from now? (It’s certainly not the presence of meaningful access competition in the marketplace!) How will the FTC track every single ISP’s terms of service language, the differences between them, and enforce any sort of consistent, reasonable policy?

Second, let’s say Chairman Pai manages to thread the needle and gets every ISP in the country to agree on the exact same open internet language in their terms of service, and further secures a commitment that the language will remain in their terms in perpetuity. Isn’t that functionally identical to... a law? Shouldn’t we just have... a law? And don’t we already have that law? What specifically is Pai trying to accomplish if he agrees that open internet principles are important?

On March 23rd, Reps Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and John Conyers (D-MI) introduced a controversial bipartisan bill with over 100 years of history behind it, though you wouldn’t know it from its boring name. It’s called the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017 — the key part is that it makes the Register of Copyright a political position appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. That’s in contrast to the current state of affairs, which has been in existence since the creation of the Copyright Office in 1897.

This seemingly small change could have a big impact on a variety of different issues concerning how the internet functions. The simple version is that the music and movie industries have always had an uneasy relationship with the internet, and they worry that the Library of Congress might appoint a Register of Copyrights who thinks expanding copyright protections might not be the best thing for the public or individual creators. And one of the best ways to prevent that from happening is to have much more control over who will be in charge of the Copyright Office. The new bill gives the copyright industry the means to do that by lobbying the president and Congress directly. The long version is a fascinating glimpse at the collision of politics, the internet, and history.

Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon published statements responding to the backlash they’ve been receiving since Congress voted to revoke a strong set of internet privacy rules that would have prevented internet providers from using or sharing their customers’ web browsing history without permission. The companies take different approaches when responding, but the takeaway from all three is that they think customers should stop worrying.

• Comcast takes a friendlier approach and actually makes some basic commitments to customers. “We do not sell our broadband customers’ individual web browsing history,” writes Gerard Lewis, Comcast’s chief privacy officer. “We did not do it before the FCC’s rules were adopted, and we have no plans to do so.”
• Verizon’s approach is similar. The company’s chief privacy officer, Karen Zacharia, offers a fairly clear statement: “Verizon does not sell the personal web browsing history of our customers,” she writes. “We don’t do it and that’s the bottom line.”
• AT&T’s response has the same message at its core, but the tone couldn’t be more different: it’s standoffish and argumentative, with AT&T’s public policy chief, Bob Quinn, trying to explain why nothing has changed and the FCC was wrong in the first place.

Congress shot down the Federal Communications Commission’s internet privacy rules this week, and in doing so, created a world of confusion over what Americans should expect when it comes to online privacy. With the protections gone, no one’s quite sure what to expect — some suspect their browsing habits are going up for sale, while others see no changes coming whatsoever. That uncertainty and confusion is justified: the rules Congress shot down were meant to clarify an existing set of already vague and confusing policies. On some level, it’s being left up to internet service providers, or ISPs, to decide what the rules do and don’t allow them to do. And while none of them are very clear about their intentions, there’s plenty we can suss out based on what we already know. So to cut through the haze, we pulled together everything you need to know about the current state of online privacy rules.

The House of Representatives joined the Senate in a joint resolution to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s recent privacy rules, leaving only President Donald Trump’s signature before the rules are officially revoked. But while the immediate impact of the joint resolution may be hard to see, it paves the way for a much larger shift in FCC enforcement and, ultimately, the structure of the web itself.

For decades, one of the basic principles of the internet has been that it’s the same no matter where you’re logging on. Now, carriers are getting the chance to tie your online activities closer to your real identity, drawing on the name and address you gave when you signed up for service. Under Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC seems to have little interest in holding them back. That could have a profound impact on the nature of the web — and after today’s joint resolution, there may be no going back.

[Commentary] On a party-line vote, the Senate voted to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s 2016 broadband privacy rules giving consumers the power to choose how their Internet service providers use and share their personal data. Now the House of Representatives will vote, and if the House also votes to repeal the rules, the bill will go to President Trump, who is expected to sign it.

The consequences of repeal are simple: ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Charter will be free to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission — and no one will be able to protect you. The Federal Trade Commission has no legal authority to oversee ISP practices, and the bill under consideration ensures that the FCC cannot adopt “substantially similar” rules. So unless the bill fails in the House, the nation’s strongest privacy protections will not only be eliminated, they cannot be revived by the FCC. Color of Change, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Free Press have simple ways for you to tell your Representative what you think of the FCC’s rules and Congress’ efforts to eliminate them.

[Sohn served as counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from November 2013 to December 2016]

Facebook's mobile app has added Town Hall to help you find your local government representatives on local, federal, and state levels. The feature fits in with CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s manifesto published in Feb, where he called for a focus on using Facebook to build a more civically engaged community.

With Town Hall, you can enter your address to locate the government officials that represent your district. Facebook says it won’t share your address, though it doesn’t specify whether this information is saved. Town Hall does manage to identify officials down to your local council member. Once your results are populated, you can use the list to follow the representatives’ Facebook pages or contact them by calling, emailing, or messaging. The effort here is nice for those who want to use Facebook as a social venue for encouraging civic engagement. But relying solely on what data these officials have provided on Facebook prevents it from being genuinely helpful.