Brian Fung

4 crazy things that happened as the FCC voted to undo its net neutrality rules

Just take a survey of the past 48 hours:

  1. The Federal Communications Commission got an anonymous bomb threat
  2. Hackers threatened FCC staff: In an email claiming to be from the hacking group Anonymous, hackers said they had obtained the personal information of many FCC staff, including all of the commissioners.
  3. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made a video for the Daily Caller
  4. Late night roasted Pai

This poll gave Americans a detailed case for and against the FCC’s net neutrality plan.

On the eve of a pivotal vote that would deregulate the broadband industry, a fresh survey from the University of Maryland shows that large majorities of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — oppose the government's plan to repeal its network neutrality rules for Internet providers.

AT&T’s courtroom conundrum: How to avoid paying an extra $500 million to Time Warner

On March 19, AT&T and the Justice Department are expected to head to court to decide the future of Time Warner in what could be a historic legal showdown over a massive $85 billion merger. The timing of the trial could put AT&T in an uncomfortable position as it seeks to buy up one of the world's most valuable media and entertainment conglomerates, known for popular TV channels such as CNN and hit film franchises like the “Harry Potter” series.

The FCC’s net neutrality plan may have even bigger ramifications in light of this obscure court case

The plan by the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate its network neutrality rules next week is expected to hand a major victory to Internet service providers. But any day now, a federal court is expected to weigh in on a case that could dramatically expand the scope of that deregulation — potentially giving the industry an even bigger win and leaving the government less prepared to handle net neutrality complaints in the future, consumer groups say. The case involves AT&T and one of the nation's top consumer protection agencies, the Federal Trade Commission.

How two decisions in Washington could turn AT&T into a uniquely powerful company

The future of AT&T could be shaped by two big decisions in Washington, with the Justice Department suing the company to block its $85 billion purchase of Time Warner and the Federal Communications Commission announcing a plan to roll back net neutrality rules, handing a big win to Internet providers. Some analysts said the combined actions could deliver a double-victory for AT&T. If it wins its antitrust case against the DOJ, AT&T could buy Time Warner without offering any concessions to the government.

Facebook and Google’s enormous profits may buoy Wall Street. But it’s a different story in Washington.

The tech industry’s ongoing strong financial performance reflects a soaring economic outlook. But it is increasingly at odds with worsening political winds in Washington as policymakers worry that Silicon Valley has become too dominant, too invasive and too out-of-control. “There is a looming coalition of conservatives skeptical of liberal West Coast companies, and progressives who worry about bigness in any form,” said Darrell West, director of the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation.

What to know about the FCC’s upcoming plan to undo its net neutrality rules

In earlier drafts of the network neutrality proposal, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has asked whether the agency should be involved in regulating Internet providers at all. “We … propose to relinquish any authority over Internet traffic exchange,” read the FCC's initial proposal, which was released in May. In other remarks, the Republican Pai has argued that the regulations discourage Internet providers from investing in upgrades to their infrastructure and that the rules are an example of government overreach.

The arguments behind DOJ’s looming lawsuit with AT&T

As the Justice Department prepares for a legal showdown with AT&T over its $85 billion bid for Time Warner, analysts are debating whether the acquisition has potential harms for consumers and business competition that could sink the deal in court. One central concern at Justice is that AT&T could seek to deny other providers of TV and Internet, such as Comcast and Verizon, access to Time Warner's programming, and that it could prevent the rise of new technologies aimed at delivering content to consumers. Time Warner owns a substantial library of content. Under AT&T's control, th

How Verizon and Comcast are working to ensure states don’t pass their own net neutrality bills

Comcast and Verizon have both asked the Federal Communications Commission to make clear that the FCC's new policy on network neutrality — which could be put to a vote as early as Dec — will preempt state and local regulations that might read differently. The request marks the industry's latest step to weaken federal rules that regulate broadband companies like legacy telephone companies. The broadband industry fears that even if the FCC succeeds in deregulating, states could take steps “countermanding” the federal agency's decision, according to the Verizon white paper.

The rogue Twitter employee who deleted Trump’s account could face hacking charges

Despite some onlookers calling him — or her — a hero, the anonymous Twitter employee who pulled the plug on President Donald Trump's Twitter account before leaving the company may want to lawyer up, according to experts on computer law. Whether or not Twitter pursues legal action against its former worker, federal officials could be motivated to prosecute — if only to deter future cases, analysts say.

AT&T wants to close its deal with Time Warner. But first, it has to go through Makan Delrahim

The biggest corporate acquisition of the year is inching closer to resolution. With President Donald Trump's top antitrust official, Makan Delrahim, getting up to speed in his new job, many analysts predict the Justice Department could rule on AT&T's purchase of Time Warner in a matter of weeks. At this point, it seems, things could go either way. The Justice Department is still talking to the companies involved, as well as outside parties, to try to understand how the deal could affect competition.

The future of net neutrality might rest on this obscure court case

There's a huge court case you need to hear about. It might not be on your radar yet because, frankly, some of it gets pretty technical. But the outcome is likely to have enormous repercussions for online privacy, net neutrality and the economy. For months, policymakers have been struggling with the implications of this case, FTC v. AT&T, in part because it overturned about a century's worth of established legal practice and also, analysts say, because it appeared to open a wide loophole that businesses might use to evade most federal oversight. On May 9, the federal appeals court responsible for the ruling announced that it has agreed to rehear the case, potentially opening the door to a different result. Here's everything you need to know.

Comcast and Charter Just Made a Deal: Here’s how it will affect you.

Maybe you've heard: Charter Communications is teaming up with Comcast. The two cable companies are working together to protect their nascent cellphone businesses from huge, national providers — such as Verizon and AT&T — by largely refraining from going after each other. Under the deal, Comcast and Charter have temporarily agreed not to take actions that could compromise each other's new offerings, such as selling mobile-phone service to consumers outside their respective cable footprints or trying to buy up existing cellphone carriers such as Sprint or T-Mobile.

Essentially, it's a deal by cable giants to shield their early investments in an industry they're just beginning to explore. But this detente, while it may seem like a small announcement, has some important implications for cellphone service, television and online media. Here's why it's such a big deal.

LightSquared/Ligado wants to build a wireless network for drones, trains and automobiles

In its bid to blow up the nation’s cellular industry a half-decade ago, a company named LightSquared proposed something no wireless carrier had done before: It vowed to build America’s first retail cellphone network using airwaves traditionally reserved for orbiting satellites. After a multiyear restructuring during which LightSquared’s owner and top investor — the embattled hedge-fund manager Philip Falcone — stepped aside, the company has re-emerged. It has a new name — Ligado — and even grander ambitions.

If it succeeds, Ligado will be well-positioned to control a massive chunk of the industrial market for connected devices, a market that Morgan Stanley thinks will be worth $110 billion a year by 2020. Ligado is promising not only to build the world’s first wireless network using ground-based airwaves that had long been considered unsuitable for cellular use, but it’s also planning to join that capability with a satellite hovering above North America.

Net neutrality may be poised for a Supreme Court showdown

A federal appeals court has said it will not rehear a landmark case looking to overturn the government’s rules on network neutrality. May 1's decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit allows its previous ruling upholding the regulations to stand — and paves the way for opponents of the rules to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“I'm super excited,” said Daniel Berninger, one of the critics who in 2015 sued the Federal Communications Commission, which wrote the rules. “When we get to the Supreme Court, we want to be saying [to a largely conservative bench] this is a severe case of government overreach.” If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, it could hear oral arguments spring 2018, said Berninger, who intends to file his appeal within 90 days.

How cellphone carriers learned to stop worrying and love unlimited data

They've raised prices. They've slowed speeds. But despite their best efforts, the country's biggest cellphone carriers have been unable to kill off the unlimited data plan. Now they're discovering something else: Unlimited data is extremely popular. And it might just be the thing that saves them in an increasingly cutthroat market for wireless services.

After years of trying to shift customers to plans with monthly data caps, companies such as AT&T and Verizon have begun heaping praise on their newest unlimited data plans as consumers have flocked to them. The plans were once common in the industry. But telecom giants stopped selling them as consumer demand for data grew. Many unlimited customers found themselves signing onto metered plans when prices rose, or abandoning their unlimited plans after running into speed limits. Eventually, the number of those on grandfathered unlimited plans dwindled to a handful. In 2015, just 1 percent of Verizon's customers were on unlimited plans.

Verizon is launching its ultrafast competitor to Google Fiber

Verizon has launched a faster version of its FiOS Internet service that can reach download speeds of up to 940 Mbps per second. By taking the leap into “gigabit” service, Verizon is becoming the latest company to compete with Comcast, Google Fiber and others at that speed tier.

The product, known as FiOS Gigabit Connection, is available now in eight US markets on the east coast, including New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia (PA), Richmond (VA), Hampton Roads (VA), Boston (MA), Providence (RI), and Washington (DC). It costs $70 a month as a stand-alone product or $80 if purchased as part of a triple-play bundle, according to the company. Those prices are comparable to that of Google Fiber.

Comcast is going to start selling wireless phone service

Comcast leapt into the cutthroat market for cellphone service by unveiling Xfinity Mobile, a move that other cable companies are expected to follow as consumers' rising Internet consumption increasingly pits providers of home and mobile broadband against each other. The company will offer its Xfinity customers two wireless options: one for unlimited data that costs from $45 to $65 per line a month, and a pay-as-you-go plan for $12 per gigabyte. The service will be available to customers starting in the second quarter, Comcast said.

The new offering is aimed at helping Comcast compete outside the home as Americans' Internet usage increasingly shifts to mobile devices. The cable company's service relies primarily on Comcast's network of 16 million public Wi-Fi hotspots for connectivity, allowing users to surf the Web, watch video and listen to streaming music on their phones without paying for cellular data. Where the company's WiFi signals are unavailable, Xfinity Mobile will connect to the traditional cellular network owned by Verizon, which Comcast is using as a result of an airwaves agreement signed several years ago.

The future of net neutrality in Trump’s America

Now that President donald Trump has signed legislation repealing landmark federal privacy protections for Internet users, many in Washington are trying to decipher what the move could mean for network neutrality.

President Trump's role in repealing the rules is likely to be small; the real center of gravity lies outside the White House. Congress could intervene on net neutrality by writing a bill that repeals and replaces the FCC policy. But a legislative deal does not appear imminent. Republicans, lacking a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, need some Democratic support for any such bill. And Democrats have declined to play ball unless the legislation preserves the FCC's ability to regulate Internet providers like legacy telephone companies, something Republicans have strongly resisted. Despite a federal court ruling upholding the FCC rules in the summer of 2016, industry advocates are still pushing to have the regulations overturned by a fresh judicial hearing. If the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agrees to rehear the net neutrality case — a decision that could be announced this spring — Internet providers will have another shot at knocking down the rules. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could make things even easier for the industry by not defending the suit, something he has already done in at least one separate case involving low-cost broadband access. If the court rules against the FCC, the regulations are as good as dead.

The inventor of the Web Tim Berners-Lee predicts ‘a massive outcry’ over online privacy

An interview with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web.

Asked, "What's your reaction to last week's vote? Is it consistent with your vision for the Web?" Berners-Lee said, "We do things on the Web that are very intimate, like look up cancers we're worried other people might have or that we're having. We have intimate conversations with people in a way that we would have only in the very close quarters of a security-locked room. Just by the things that we do on the Web — we betray completely the most intimate details of our lives and hopes and fears and weaknesses that can be exploited. Maybe the ISPs don't go in this direction; maybe they realize it would be inappropriate. If they do [go in that direction] I think there'll be a massive outcry." When asked, "Google and Facebook already collect and share our data for advertising purposes. Are Internet providers that different?" Berners-Lee replied, "Absolutely those industries are completely different. The business of supplying bits is a really important business. It's like water; it's a lower part of the infrastructure on which everything else depends. The fact that [your provider] doesn't have an attitude about what you use it for is why it's been successful. It's why the Internet has taken over the world. A social network is different — it's not got much to do with moving bits from place to place. You have a choice, and even if you're a member of one of these social networks, you don't have to do everything there."

The crucial service President Trump left out of his massive infrastructure goals, and how the FCC wants to fix it

When politicians talk about infrastructure, they typically mean the basics: Roads, bridges, ports. The electric grid. Maybe rail, if it's lucky. But Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai wants the government to expand that thinking by including a type of network that 3 out of 4 Americans use on a daily basis, but doesn't often make it on the politicians' lists: high-speed Internet.

“If Congress moves forward with a major infrastructure package, broadband should be included,” said Chairman Pai. He is proposing an ambitious program whereby the FCC could expand corporate subsidies for building networks while scaling back regulations that, he said, deter private investment. In addition, Chairman Pai is asking that Congress offer tax credits to Internet service providers and entrepreneurs who agree to set up shop in “gigabit opportunity zones” that could be as large as a county or as small as a city block.

What the World Wide Web of the 1990s can teach us about Internet policy today

At an industry conference in Barcelona, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said he plans to use key policy decisions made in the 1990s and early 2000s as a guide for his own agenda. Those early decisions include, he said, a bipartisan consensus to not require Internet providers to obey “outdated rules crafted in the 1930s for a telephone monopoly.” He also cited a Bush-era commitment to give Internet providers sole control over broadband networks that they built, rather than adopt a European-style system permitting other companies to use those same cables to sell competing Internet service.

But some consumer advocates say that Pai's historical references are misleading. Although the World Wide Web's own early history was marked by a free-for-all in which online businesses competed on mostly equal footing, it is not the case that the government played no role, said Gene Kimmelman, president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge. Policymakers at the time “were setting up an entire regulatory framework for opening [a] telephone monopoly to a broader competitive environment,” said Kimmelman, referring to a time when telephone lines — and thus Internet connections — were controlled by just a few large players. “And it required substantial government intervention.”

Google is going after cable with its own streaming service, YouTube TV

Google is taking the plunge into live television with a new streaming service that's designed to compete with Sling TV, DirecTV Now and PlayStation Vue. Google revealed YouTube TV — a $35-a-month service that allows for up to six user profiles. The plan, which like other streaming services does not require a contract or long-term commitment, comes with many of the same key channels available on other platforms, such as Comcast SportsNet, ESPN, Syfy and the Disney Channel. YouTube TV also comes with a strong array of broadcast network channels, such as ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and the CW, though Viacom appears to be absent from the lineup. Local news programming from network affiliates will also be included, according to Robert Kyncl, YouTube's chief business officer, at the event. Still, YouTube TV lacks some notable cable channels — CNN, HBO and Cartoon Network are not on the list featured in YouTube's blog post, for example.

The Internet just helped a staggering number of people engage with their government

Only rarely is the Web recognized for helping advance the cause of civic education and government transparency. But for a little over an hour on Feb 7, it did an amazing thing.

The Internet brought an enormous number of people together to hear a federal appeals court deliberate over President Trump's entry ban. We're talking about oral argument. In a federal court. Where there wasn't much to see besides a black background and the court's logo. Considering how complex the discussion quickly became, it's all the more stunning how the feed kept attracting new viewers rather than losing them as time went on. At its peak, more than 135,000 people had tuned in to the audio-only proceeding on YouTube — and that's before you count those who were watching the court's live stream from other sources, such as cable TV and Facebook. That's pretty extraordinary — and another sign that in today's digitally connected world, the best technologies make accessible what was previously inaccessible.