Internet/Broadband

Cox, the third largest US cable company, started charging overage fees to customers in four more states.

Cox, which operates in 18 states with about six million residential and business customers, brought overage fees to Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Cox was already enforcing data caps and overage fees in Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio. California, Rhode Island, and Virginia technically have monthly caps but no enforcement of overage fees, according to Cox's list of data caps by location. Massachusetts and North Carolina seem to be exempt from the Cox data caps altogether. CenturyLink recently ended an experiment with data caps and is giving bill credits to customers in the state of Washington who were charged overage fees during the yearlong trial.

When residents at San Francisco’s Hunters Point East and West low-income, federally-subsidized housing complex went online, many had access to free gigabit speed internet for the first time.

This isn’t wi-fi that’s shared throughout the building, but rather each individual unit is getting its own internet connection. Hunters Point is the first housing development to get the service, where nearly 300 people live across 212 units in 27 buildings. But by the end of 2018, more than 1,000 additional units of San Francisco income-subsidized housing will receive free gigabit internet, servicing nine more developments in the Tenderloin neighborhood and four more in the Bayview area. The internet provider behind the effort is local San Francisco outfit Monkeybrains, a company that specializes in fast internet transmitted through wireless antennas. Instead of breaking up a sidewalk to lay fiber or cables, Monkeybrains beams high-speed internet through antennas installed on rooftops. For the Hunters Point buildout, technicians are stringing cable from the rooftop antennas to connect every unit.

The operators of a lead generation business have agreed to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that the company misled consumers into filling out loan applications and sold those applications – including consumers’ sensitive data – to virtually anyone willing to pay for the leads.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Blue Global Media, LLC and its CEO Christopher Kay operated dozens of websites that enticed consumers to complete loan applications that the defendants then sold as “leads” to a variety of entities without regard for how the information would be used or whether it would remain secure. The websites, which operated under such names as 100dayloans.com, 1hour-advance.com, cashmojo.com and clickloans.net, offered services to consumers seeking a variety of loans, including payday and auto loans. The company claimed it would search a network of 100 or more lenders, and connect each loan applicant to the lender that would offer them the best terms.

The FTC charged that, in reality, the defendants:

• sold very few of the loan applications to lenders;
• did not match applications based on loan rates or terms; and
• sold the loan applications to the first buyer willing to pay for them.

Access Now and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are among those signing onto an amicus brief supporting Facebook in its efforts to protect the anonymity of its users and alert them if they are under investigation. According to Access Now, the government, which is investigating Trump inauguration protests that turned violent, has requested that Facebook unmask the identities of three users under a gag order, which means the company can't tell the people in question about the warrants. "First, the non-disclosure order is both a prior restraint and a content-based restriction on speech and is therefore subject to the most demanding First Amendment scrutiny," the groups write. "Second, the underlying warrants are apparently calculated to invade the right of Facebook's users to speak and associate anonymously on a matter of public interest."

Democrats have promised to take technology issues like network neutrality and broadband privacy to the voters in the 2018 midterms. And fresh off the July 4 holiday, many of them will be doing just that at town hall events across the country. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is hosting an event with Federal Communications Commission member Mignon Clyburn on July 7 focusing on net neutrality and "rules put in place during the Obama administration protecting a free and open internet [that] have come under attack." Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) are also huddling with constituents for events that may include talk of broadband privacy and internet surveillance.

Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) says only an outpouring of public opposition to proposed federal changes can save the internet from becoming an "information aristocracy." The Sen said that a proposal by the Federal Communications Commission — now led by an appointee of President Donald Trump — will end the principle of internet service providers treating all data the same, no matter who originates it, what the content is, or how it is delivered. "We are trying to create a citizen juggernaut so that politicians cannot look the other way," Sen Wyden said at the Friday Forum of the City Club of Portland, cosponsored by the World Affairs Council of Oregon. "I am telling you that citizen pressure really matters — and we have to have it now in the fight for net neutrality. It is a federal policy that embodies the Oregon way and gives everybody a fair shake."

On the surface, the investigation was routine. Federal agents persuaded a judge to issue a warrant for a Microsoft e-mail account they suspected was used for drug trafficking. But US-based Microsoft kept the e-mails on a server in Ireland. Microsoft said that meant the e-mails were beyond the warrant’s reach. A federal appeals court agreed. Late in June, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The case is among several legal clashes that Redmond (WA)-based Microsoft and other technology companies have had with the government over questions of digital privacy and authorities’ need for information to combat crime and extremism.

Privacy law experts say the companies have been more willing to push back against the government since the leak of classified information detailing America’s surveillance programs. Another issue highlighted in the appeal is the difficulty that judges face in trying to square decades-old laws with new technological developments. In the latest case, a suspected drug trafficker used Microsoft’s email service. In 2013, federal investigators obtained a warrant under a 1986 law for the e-mails themselves as well as identifying information about the user of the e-mail account. Microsoft turned over the information, but went to court to defend its decision not to hand over the e-mails from Ireland.

[Commentary] It’s clear that most US consumers depend upon a few big players in order to access the internet. Therefore, the critical question is whether these companies have the incentive and ability to harm consumers and competition. That is, are they motivated to control what kinds of innovations come to consumers? And do they have the tools to do so? Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice have recognized in recent proceedings that the answers are yes and yes.

In 1776, Thomas Paine didn’t need the permission of any other content creator or distributor to circulate Common Sense. But without rules prohibiting blocking, throttling, and the like, broadband providers would gain the power to limit what unpopular content flows over their networks—to the detriment of consumers and democracy. One challenger to the 2015 Open Internet Order argued exactly this to the DC Circuit: that the rules violated its right to block legal but unpopular content. An Open Internet has worked for America, creating a virtuous circle of innovation, trust, adoption, and further innovation. That circle should not be broken.

[Terrell McSweeny is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Jon Sallet is the former general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Both are alumni of the antitrust division of the Department of Justice]

In its analysis of data from 2012 through 2014, the Government Accountability Office was unable to confirm the eligibility of 30 percent of Lifeline users it examined. Opponents hail this finding as proof of widespread fraud. However, the GAO didn’t determine that these individuals were ineligible; it was simply unable to verify whether providers had complied with eligibility guidelines. The GAO also conducted undercover investigations, submitting a total of 21 Lifeline applications using false information and fabricated supporting documents. Investigators were able to secure service from 12 of the 19 Lifeline providers. Notably, the GAO underscored that the tests were “for illustrative purposes to highlight any potential internal control vulnerabilities and are not generalizable.”

Although investigators were able to leverage their expertise to deceive certain Lifeline providers, the GAO itself admits this effort doesn’t prove that the program is plagued by fraud. But none of that will stop Lifeline critics — including Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai — from using the GAO report to intensify attacks on the program and malign its users. They will continue to dismiss the tremendous opportunities Lifeline has provided for millions of people — and the millions more whose lives can be improved with Lifeline’s new broadband offerings.