Internet/Broadband

The American Library Association says the Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Tom Wheeler got the reading of the law right when it imposed strong network neutrality rules under Title II (common carrier) authority.

It said 120,000 libraries and their customers would be seriously disadvantaged by getting rid of the rules banning blocking traffic and degrading (the FCC's terminology is actually "throttling") traffic, and says paid prioritization is inherently unfair, especially for libraries without the money to pay for such prioritization. But the ALA breaks with some Title II fans in arguing for capacity-based pricing and excluding private networks from net neutrality rules. On capacity-based pricing of broadband service, it says ISPs "may receive greater compensation for greater capacity chosen by the consumer or content, application, and service provider." And on private networks, it says: "[T]he Commission should decline to apply the Open Internet rules to premises operators, such as coffee shops and bookstores, and private end-user networks, such as those of libraries and universities."

The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) Board of Directors announced the recipients of NATOA’s 2017 Community Broadband Awards. Since 2007, NATOA has been recognizing exceptional leaders and innovative programs that champion community interests in broadband deployment and adoption in local communities nationwide. Recipients will receive their awards at NATOA’s 37th Annual Conference, to be held in Seattle (WA) from September 11 – 14 at the Grand Hyatt Seattle.

The 2017 Community Broadband Award recipients are:
Community Broadband Hero of the Year: Danna MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Minnesota Office of Broadband Development
Community Broadband Project of the Year: Longmont Power & Communications, Longmont, CO
Community Broadband Strategic Plan of the Year: Seattle, WA “Strategic Plan for Facilitating Equitable Access to Wireless Broadband”
Community Broadband Digital Equity Project of the Year: Seattle, WA “Technology Matching Fund”
Community Broadband Innovative Partnership of the Year: Garrett County, MD & Declaration Networks Group, Inc.

Personality quizzes have some sort of perennial appeal. Facebook newsfeeds are filled with BuzzFeed quizzes and other oddball questionnaires that tell you which city you should actually live in, which ousted Arab Spring ruler you are, and which Hogwarts house you belong in. But these new online quizzes have a dark edge that their analog predecessors didn’t.

In the wake of the US election, a secretive data firm hired by Donald Trump’s campaign boasted that it has been using quizzes for years to gather personal information about millions of voters. Its goal: the creation of digital profiles that can predict—and possibly exploit—Americans’ values, anxieties, and political leanings. Whether this firm, Cambridge Analytica, has actually used predictive profiles to influence people isn’t certain; reports suggest it hasn’t, at least not directly. But the company’s methods nonetheless expose the growing scale of personality analysis online—and the dangers that come with it. On the internet, anything you do is like taking a personality quiz: Everywhere you click reveals something about you. And you’re not the only one who sees the results.

If the Federal Communications Commission does dismantle Title II network neutrality rules, what happens next? Consumer advocates and other proponents could launch a legal challenge, tying the issue up in court for years -- perhaps until after the current administration. Or companies could push Congress to pass its own law and take the power out of the commission.

But here's where things get tricky. Court cases can drag on and legislation is certain to involve compromises. Denelle Dixon, chief business and legal officer for Mozilla, says the fight to keep the internet free and open is too important to not push forward. But she admits it may not turn out exactly as she would like. "Legislation by its nature is complicated and never plays out the way you expect," she said. "One side doesn't always win...In a perfect world, we'd like to see the rules that exist today remain. But the reality is that we have an FCC chairman who is set on dismantling them and at some point we need to engage with legislators."

On July 17, a group opposed to the rules said its analysis had uncovered 1.3 million likely fake pro-net neutrality comments from addresses in France, Russia and Germany "almost exclusively" from the e-mail domains Pornhub.com and Hurra.de "The gaming of the comment submission process continues and in fact appears to have reached epidemic proportions," Peter Flaherty, president of the nonprofit conservative watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center, said in a statement. "At this point, the deception appears to be so massive that the comment process has been rendered unmanageable and meaningless."

[Commentary] There are differences between what tech giants (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix) of the internet and their smaller counterparts are saying. More importantly, there’s a difference in how the most powerful internet companies are incentivized to act. It’s a fine line, but an important distinction for those who want the existing net-neutrality rules to stay. The protests from big tech companies themselves were more subdued than past demonstrations, and few of the major companies involved explicitly demanded the legally enforceable, Title II-based net-neutrality rules stay in place today. And that leaves the major tech firms a small but significant bit of wiggle room.

Tech giants' relatively meager actions on July 12 serve as a reminder: Net neutrality is about the small, not the big. If the (still mostly hypothetical) fears of Title II advocates come true, and ISPs are able to set tolls for access to better quality, the companies with better funding will more easily be able to pay them.

[Commentary] Americans’ information independence is under attack, whether it’s the repeal of network neutrality or the repeal of broadband privacy protections. The Federal Communications Commission needs to listen and serve the American people, not special interests. I am committed to protecting both your privacy and the internet as we know it. A free and open internet is essential to our democracy, economy and modern way of life.

[Commentary] I support network neutrality and the rules as the Obama Federal Communications Commission Democratic majority promulgated. But I recognize that there may be benefits to consumers, particularly low-income consumers and the public interest that might warrant exemptions to strict network neutrality rules. We would all be better off if Congress could agree on what those rules and exceptions should look like, but repealing Title II protections will not help us get there.

Much like you have seen the FCC privacy rules replaced with nothing, having polarized the parties, and made deliberation toward compromise more difficult, the repeal of Title II rules will do the same thing....Repealing network neutrality protections without replacing them with something that has bipartisan support at the same time will poison the environment for potential philosophical resolution and compromise to the detriment of network operators, internet innovators and consumers alike.

[Daniel Sepulveda served as ambassador, deputy assistant secretary, and coordinator for communications and information policy at the State Department from 2013 through Jan. 20, 2017]

Banning all paid prioritization will not result in an internet that drives innovation and consumer welfare, an internet that has never treated content neutrally anyway. That was one of the main points from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which filed comments on the deadline for initial comments in the Federal Communications Commission's open Internet proposal.

ITIF said that it agreed that the FCC needed to be a cop on the paid prioritization beat but on a case-by-case basis. "[T]he Internet has never been 'neutral,'” ITIF told the FCC. "[D]iscrimination can be pro-innovation and pro-consumer or anti-innovation and anti-consumer." ISPs have similarly signaled that while they pledge not to block or throttle traffic, paid prioritization can be a service differentiator and a pro-consumer business model. ITIF agrees. "Broad dictates like 'all prioritization should be banned' or 'all prioritization should be allowed' are not helpful to achieving the kind of Internet that will be central to driving innovation and consumer welfare in the decades ahead."

The people’s verdict is in. A slew of recent polls make clear that most Americans, nearly 80%, support keeping the network neutrality rules that are the foundation of an open internet. These are the rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015, under the leadership of then-chairman Tom Wheeler, that keep the big Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon from determining your internet experience, because they’d rather do that themselves than let you do it. Net neutrality rules prohibit blocking or throttling content. And they keep ISPs from favoring their affiliates, corporate friends, and those who can afford sky-high broadband prices with fast lanes on the net, while the rest of us are told to travel in the slow lane.