Internet/Broadband

A bipartisan group of attorneys general from 35 states is urging the Federal Communications Commission to reject a petition from the cable and broadband industry asking the agency to take away state authority to investigate claims of false advertising over broadband speeds.

“The Petition represents nothing more than the industry’s effort to shield itself from state law enforcement,” the group wrote in a document to the FCC. “As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, a federal agency may pre-empt state law only when and if it’s acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. “The states’ consumer protection powers must be left intact to protect customers from providers who make false claims about broadband speed.”

A Q&A with former Federal Communications Commission member Michael Copps.

CBS CEO Les Moonves said it best: “I don’t know if Donald Trump is good for the country. but he’s damn good for CBS.” The election was just a glorified reality show and I do not think it was an aberration. Until we get that big picture straightened out and we get a civic dialogue that’s worthy of the American people and that actually advances citizens’ ability to practice the art of self-government — that informs citizens so they can cast intelligent votes and we stop making such damn-fool decisions — we’re in serious trouble. To me, that remains the problem of problems, it remains at the top of the list. Journalism continues to go south, thanks to big media and its strangulation of news, and there’s not much left in the way of community or local media. Add to that an internet that has not even started thinking seriously about how it supports journalism. You have these big companies like Google and Facebook who run the news and sell all the ads next to it, but what do they put back into journalism? It isn’t much. I don’t think right now that commercial media is going to fix itself or even that we can save it with any policy that’s likely in the near-term, so we have to start looking at other alternatives. We have to talk about public media — public media probably has to get its act together somewhat, too.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai opposing the FCC’s proposal to reclassify broadband as a service under Title I of the Communications Act. Minority Leader Pelosi also requested a public hearing in San Francisco (CA) on the FCC’s harmful plan to dismantle consumer protections on the internet.

“Consumers should be able to use the internet on the device they want, using the apps and services they want without their internet provider standing in the way. I support the current rules because they are in place to protect consumers, and I oppose your efforts to eliminate them,” she wrote. "I was...dismayed to learn you are likely to disregard the millions of public comments filed in the record. The Administrative Procedures Act prohibits the FCC from disregarding comments. You have made confusing statements that you will both give less weight to comments that are not of sufficient quality, and that you will err on the side of including suspicious comments in the agency’s deliberation, even when dozens among a particular batch of comments have sworn that their name and address were used fraudulently. I therefore ask that you clarify your policy on how the agency will consider comments in the record. Finally, if you believe that online public comments are coming from 'astroturf' sources and are of questionable integrity, then you must hear directly from the public in official hearings outside of Washington, DC. "

Today, two-thirds of the world’s internet users live in countries where content that challenges political regimes, social conventions, or national security is subject to censorship. Over time, internet censorship has expanded from restricting access to IP addresses and domain names for websites, to blocking applications and persecuting users for their online activities.

A broad-based coalition of nonprofit groups [including the Benton Foundation] filed a letter calling on the Federal Communications Commission to reject a proposal from the cellular industry, filed by CTIA on June 16, to re-open and revise the rules finalized more than a year ago for a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) that opens a large frequency band of unused Navy spectrum for small area, high-capacity broadband innovation. The coalition represents consumers, public institutions and small business users of broadband, and includes the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, Next Century Cities, Engine, the R Street Institute, the American Library Association and the National Hispanic Media Coalition. The coalition asks the FCC to instead move rapidly to complete implementation of this historic innovation in spectrum policy, which opens unused military spectrum for sharing with Priority Access Licenses that are available for small areas (census tracts) and short terms, thereby making them more useful and affordable to smaller operators and to venues for indoor use.

[Commentary] The 2015 Open Internet Order received 3.7 million comments total, and the current rulemaking has received almost 5 million to date. Counting is easy. Knowing what that count means is not...

Despite the rhetoric, few in DC have much incentive to want the issue to go away. Millions of comments to the Federal Communications Commission also represent millions of fundraising opportunities. Groups arguing all sides of the issue financially benefit from the ongoing argument. Congress, meanwhile, probably will not weigh in before the 2018 election regardless of what the Federal Communications Commission does because that would mean giving up a campaign issue likely to be lucrative to members on both sides of the aisle. Thus, in the end, I suspect that millions of comments mostly mean that even after the current rulemaking is resolved, we will be stuck with this issue at least until sometime after the 2018 election and probably longer. Setting aside politics, it still remains the case that if the issue is to take into account broader public opinion then Congress is the only institution that can resolve it and, regardless of broad interest, only legislation has a chance of leading to a stable solution. Then, we can all finally move on to something else.

[Scott Wallsten is President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute]

[Commentary] In a year in which, as black people, we face devastating issues on every hand, at what cost should we fight [the changes to the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules]? One of the groups that strongly opposes the rules change is Color of Change. Normally, I would agree 100% with Color of Change as they’ve been a reliable source of information and a black press ally in the struggle for many years. But, on this issue—largely due to this season in which other racial issues appear more pressing—I’ve stepped back to take a closer look.
While the median income for an African American household is still $35,000—only 66% of the national average of $53,000—should we be focused on net neutrality as a priority?
As African Americans are rejected for mortgages at more than twice the rate of whites, is that issue worth sacrificing to debate net neutrality rules?
How about the homicide and police misconduct rates in black communities—yet another issue related to economic disparities. Does net neutrality rank over these?

Let me be clear. I am not saying it’s not an important issue to our community. It’s just the method of advocacy by Color of Change on this issue that gave me pause. It seems the organization should provide all the technical and legal information they can to back up their position. I simply disagree in the draping of the issue in racial justice and presuming to speak for all African Americans when some of our communities have literally burned to the ground because of more critical issues that have not been funded.

[Hazel Trice Edney is editor/publisher of the Trice Edney News Wire and CEO of Trice Edney Communications.]

Broadband industry lobby groups want to stop individual states from investigating the speed claims made by Internet service providers, and they are citing the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules in their effort to hinder the state-level actions. The industry attempt to undercut state investigations comes a few months after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Charter and its Time Warner Cable (TWC) subsidiary that claims the ISP defrauded and misled New Yorkers by promising Internet speeds the company knew it could not deliver.

NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and USTelecom, lobby groups for the cable and telecom industries, in May petitioned the Federal Communications Commission for a declaratory ruling that would help ISPs defend themselves against state-level investigations. The FCC should declare that advertisements of speeds "up to" a certain level of megabits per second are consistent with federal law as long as ISPs meet their disclosure obligations under the net neutrality rules, the groups said. There should be a national standard enforced by the FCC instead of a state-by-state "patchwork of inconsistent requirements," they argue.

The cable industry’s top lobbying groups filed comments related to an April Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) intended to spur deployment of fiber wireline services. “Attachers face problems in obtaining access to poles, ducts, and conduit for two primary reasons. First, many utilities oppose mandated access to these facilities and have little, if any, incentive to provide access on a reasonable basis,” said the American Cable Association. “The second problem attachers face is that the Commission’s complaint process has proven to be of little value to attachers, especially smaller entities, in addressing all but the most serious and substantial attachment problems,” ACA added.

[Commenary] On June 19, California Assemblymember Ed Chau introduced a bill to give people in that state the broadband privacy rights that they lost in Congress. This legislation has all of the key elements that are needed to protect broadband users’ privacy.

States have long recognized the importance of protecting privacy. There’s no federal law that requires commercial websites to post their privacy policies, but California and Delaware require it. There are state laws protecting the privacy of e-book users, and on biometrics, monitoring of employees’ e-mail, data security, and much more. The California Broadband Internet Privacy Act is another example of states leading the way. Consumer Federation of America strongly endorses it.