The Government Accountability Office was asked to review the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines the extent to which: (1) FCC's approach to collecting broadband data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the data.

The FCC collects data on broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands. FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based on its broadband data. Overstatements of access limit FCC’s and tribal stakeholders’ abilities to target broadband funding to such areas. 

GAO is making three recommendations to FCC, to which the agency agreed:

1. The Chairman of the FCC should develop and implement methods--such as a targeted data collection--for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands.
2. The Chairman of the FCC should develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process.
3. The Chairman of the FCC should obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC's 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC needs to clarify the agency's tribal engagement statement.

[The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed in Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC v. Lange (in the context of Minnesota’s attempt to regulate interconnected VoIP service) that state efforts to regulate information services are preempted by federal law.]

A patchwork quilt of 50 state laws harms investment and innovation in advanced communications services. That’s why federal law for decades has recognized that states may not regulate information services. The Eighth Circuit’s decision is important for reaffirming that well-established principle: ‘[A]ny state regulation of an information service conflicts with the federal policy of nonregulation’ and is therefore preempted. That is wholly consistent with the approach the FCC has taken under Democratic and Republican Administrations over the last two decades, including in last year’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

"We saw the true danger of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality repeal when Verizon was caught throttling California firefighters," said digital rights group Fight for the Future. Let’s unpack that statement. 

What’s clear is that because the firefighters’ service plan permitted the kind of speed restrictions that were allowed under the old rules, Verizon did not directly violate net neutrality’s no-throttling rule. But there’s another rule that could have ensnared Verizon: The "general conduct" rule. This prohibited companies like Verizon and Comcast from "unreasonably interfering" with customers’ Internet access. It also created an avenue for customers to file complaints to the FCC. But the repeal of net neutrality choked off this avenue. Harold Feld, the senior vice president at Public Knowledge, said the key point comes down to whether or not there’s a process for aggrieved consumers to get a fair hearing. "It’s not just about whether Verizon behaved appropriately or not," he said. "It’s about having clear rules and procedures in place so that when an emergency like this happens, people know what to do and can resolve the problem quickly." "The removal of the 'cop on the beat' may have contributed to Verizon acting in ways that even it now admits was dumb," said former FCC staffer Blair Levin. "If there is no one watching, people act differently than if they think someone is watching."

Our ruling: Under net neutrality, the firefighters could have filed a complaint against Verizon to the FCC, which at the very least would have launched an investigation, experts said. Repeal of the rules removed that avenue, thereby sidelining the FCC from serving as a "cop on the beat." However, the firefighters’ service plan permitted the kind of speed restrictions that were allowed under the old rules. So the company did not violate net neutrality’s no-throttling rule. The claim is partially accurate but leaves out important context. We rate this Half True.

The early waves of mobile communications were largely driven by American and European companies. As the next era of 5G approaches, promising to again transform the way people use the internet, a battle is on to determine whether the US or China will dominate.

Equipment makers and telecom operators in both countries are rushing to test and roll out the next generation of wireless networks, which will be as much as 100 times faster than the current 4G standard. Governments are involved as well—with China making the bigger push. The new networks are expected to enable the steering of driverless cars and doctors to perform complex surgeries remotely. They could power connected appliances in the so-called Internet of Things, and virtual and augmented reality. Towers would beam high-speed internet to devices, reducing reliance on cables and Wi-Fi.

On September 5, 2018, lawmakers on Capitol Hill hosted two hearings with the heads of Facebook and Twitter. In the morning, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the hearing on Foreign Influence Operations’ Use of Social Media Platforms. Later that day, just Dorsey appeared before the House Commerce Committee at the hearing, Twitter: Transparency and Accountability.  The hearings provided the opportunity for lawmakers to air their grievances about online platforms, and to get some answers as to whether Facebook and Twitter are doing enough to ensure the platforms provide a safe and trusted information environment ahead of the 2018 elections. But behind it all lurked the threat of regulation.

Washington officials once dazzled by the swashbuckling entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley are now openly questioning the freedom they’ve bestowed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Emboldened by a president who’s openly contemptuous of the companies -- despite his own reliance on Twitter -- and intelligence reports linking popular online sites to election interference, lawmakers from both parties grilled top tech executives this week about whether, and how, Washington should rein them in. 

Gigi Sohn, a Benton Foundation senior fellow and distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy in Washington, said there’s a partisan divide on what changes are needed. Democrats want protection from foreign actors, privacy protections and increased competition, while Republicans are focused on “so-called bias against conservative voices,” she said. “The mood has definitely shifted -- both parties have made it clear that they are going to be watching tech closely on a variety of issues, and the threat of regulation is more real than ever,” Sohn said.

In one particularly revealing line of questioning during the Sept 5 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen Kamala Harris (D-CA) asked Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg how Facebook makes money and whether the company’s hate-speech policies are truly aimed to protect vulnerable communities that are often the subject of prejudice and animus. Her point was that there’s a real question as to whether Facebook, a company whose first responsibility is to its shareholders, is adequately poised to address false news, hate speech, or any other harmful—and highly engaging—content that users generate. Through her questioning, Sen Harris was suggesting that if Facebook was indeed dedicated to making its community safer for all users and weeding out hate speech, it probably would’ve examined its definition of hate speech before it was called out by journalists. And Sandberg didn’t offer much of an explanation for the oversight. Sandberg admitted Facebook was wrong in the past, admitted Facebook makes money from increased engagement, and said Facebook has changed its policies—but she couldn’t address the real problem Sen Harris was scratching at. That problem is that Facebook has every incentive to allow hate speech against historically targeted groups if it means more engagement and little incentive to remove it without outside pressure or regulation. Which might lead critics to a question Sen Harris didn’t ask but was probably thinking: Would the company do better if failing to protect its users’ civil rights was against the law? 

The week of Sept 10, the Federal Trade Commission launches a months-long series of hearings on antitrust and competition policy that could change how the government treats some tech companies in the digital age. It will be the latest spotlight on the hot-button issue of the disparate regulatory treatment of social media sites and Internet service providers. Edge providers argue they don't need new innovation-suppressing regulations, but that ISPs, who they argue lack effective competition, need more oversight now that the Federal Communications Commission has deeded authority over ISP net neutrality to the FTC. ISPs say that if they are to continue to be subject to a broadband regulatory regime, the FTC should "harmonize" its enforcement by applying regs to the edge providers who they say are large, dominant players (Google, Facebook) currently excluded from the regulatory picture. The first hearing will be Sept. 13-14 at The Georgetown University Law Center and is scheduled to deal with 1) "the current landscape of competition and consumer protection law and policy; 2) whether the U.S. economy has become more concentrated and less competitive; 3) the regulation of consumer data; 4) antitrust law and the consumer welfare standard; and 5) the analysis of vertical mergers."

Amazon has more revenue than Facebook, Google and Twitter put together, but it has largely escaped sustained examination. That is beginning to change, and one significant reason is Lina Khan. In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, Khan published “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” in the Yale Law Journal. Her argument went against a consensus in antitrust circles that dates back to the 1970s — the moment when regulation was redefined to focus on consumer welfare, which is to say price. Since Amazon is renowned for its cut-rate deals, it would seem safe from federal intervention. Khan disagreed. Over 93 heavily footnoted pages, she presented the case that the company should not get a pass on anticompetitive behavior just because it makes customers happy. Once-robust monopoly laws have been marginalized, Khan wrote, and consequently Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy. Amazon has so much data on so many customers, it is so willing to forgo profits, it is so aggressive and has so many advantages from its shipping and warehouse infrastructure that it exerts an influence much broader than its market share. It resembles the all-powerful railroads of the Progressive Era, Khan wrote: “The thousands of retailers and independent businesses that must ride Amazon’s rails to reach market are increasingly dependent on their biggest competitor.”

Corporate lawsuits are rarely riveting, but Tribune Media's $1 billion complaint against Sinclair Broadcasting is full of juicy details about an affair gone bad. Tribune Media pulled the plug in Aug in the proposed merger of the TV station operators after regulators signaled they would likely oppose it. The same day, Tribune filed a lawsuit in Delaware's state chancery court, blaming Sinclair for the failed deal. "Sinclair fought, threatened, insulted, and misled regulators in a misguided and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to retain control over stations that it was obligated to sell," Tribune Media alleges in the lawsuit.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Benton Foundation senior counselor and a law professor at Georgetown University's Institute for Public Representation who opposed the merger along with other activists against enlarging Sinclair, says he thinks Tribune may have the upper hand in the litigation because Sinclair "was the party that would not accept Department of Justice divestiture requests and stands accused of misrepresenting facts to the Federal Communications Commission." Nonetheless, Schwartzman says he expects Sinclair to continue its "track record as a hard-line and truculent litigant."

House Republicans withdrew from negotiations with Democrats over a pact that would have effectively barred both parties from using hacked or stolen material on the campaign trail in the fall of 2018. Leaders of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, and their counterparts at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had labored for much of the summer over rules that would have governed the way the congressionally run committees and their candidates treated material like the thousands of pages of damaging Democratic documents stolen and leaked by Russian hackers in 2016. Instead, the two parties were left exchanging shots just two months before Election Day; Republicans claimed that Democrats had negotiated in bad faith and violated an agreement not to speak about the negotiations publicly, and Democrats said that Republicans were merely searching for an excuse to pull out. It only fed the complaint by Democrats that Republican lawmakers have resisted bridging partisan divisions in the two years since Russia began its brazen attack on the American political system.

President Donald Trump called for the Justice Department to investigate the anonymous author of an op-ed depicting a “resistance” inside the government and said he is considering taking legal action against the New York Times for publishing it. The column, published online Sept 5, was written by someone the Times identified only as a senior official in the Trump administration. “We’re going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, what he’s talking about, also where he is right now,” President Trump told reporters. If the anonymous author has a high-level security clearance, the president added, “and he goes into a high-level meeting concerning China or Russia or North Korea or something, I don’t want him in those meetings.” President Trump said that there is a national security imperative to root out the anonymous author, whom he called “a sick person.” He said Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who he has long criticized publicly in especially harsh terms — should use the investigative powers of the Justice Department to determine who authored the column. “I would say Jeff should be investigating who the author of that piece was because I really believe it’s national security,” President Trump said.