Internet/Broadband

The FBI will not investigate a cyberattack that crashed the Federal Communications Commission’s website during an influx of comments on an agency plan to reverse network neutrality.

Agency chief Ajit Pai said the FBI declined to investigate the FCC cyberattack that followed a “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” segment in May, when Oliver called on viewers to submit comments opposing Pai’s plan to scale back net neutrality rules. “In speaking with the FBI, the conclusion was reached that, given the facts currently known, the attack did not appear to rise to the level of a major incident that would trigger further FBI involvement,” Pai wrote to a pair of Senate Democrats, who were skeptical of the attack. “The FCC and FBI agreed to have further discussions if additional events or the discovery of additional evidence warrant consultation.”

A battle is brewing at the Federal Communications Commission between cable and telecom industry groups and state attorneys general over broadband speed investigations. Citing state complaints alleging false advertising of internet speeds, USTelecom and NCTA have asked the FCC for a ruling confirming internet service proviers are following federal transparency rules by posting online their average performance during times of peak usage, as evaluated by the Measuring Broadband America program. But a bipartisan group of 35 attorneys general told the agency the petition “represents nothing more than the industry’s effort to shield itself from state law enforcement.”

One of the AGs involved, New York’s Eric Schneiderman, accused Charter in February of misleading customers by advertising internet speeds the company hasn’t delivered. The industry groups say the Charter complaint relies on unofficial speed measurement tools. The deadline for reply comments to the FCC is July 3.

A regional power company in Tennessee has emerged as Consumer Reports’ top-rated TV provider, edging out Google Fiber by one point. The company, identified as EPB Fiber in the August issue of Consumer Reports, is the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (TN), owned by that city. In terms of the homes to which it provides TV, EPB Fiber is tiny compared to cable TV giants such as Comcast, which has an estimated 30 million subscriber households. The power company serves 170,000 homes and businesses in its 600-square mile service area. In the August Consumer Reports, EPB's Internet service was ranked fourth, behind Google Fiber (No. 1), Consolidated Fiber (No. 2) and Armstrong Cable (No. 3).

[Commentary] What is the role of cities in assuring that their residents have the affordable bandwidth necessary to thrive in the 21st century information economy? Municipal governments—more than other jurisdictions—will directly affect the cost of deploying fiber, the foundation for the abundant bandwidth that will serve next generation networks like 5G Mobile and the Internet of Things. Yet with a huge range of choices on how to influence their local broadband market, governments can struggle to understand how best to proceed. Into that breach arrives a new report entitled “Municipal Fiber in the United States: An Empirical Assessment of Financial Performance” by Christopher S. Yoo and Timothy Pfenninger of the University of Pennsylvania. Its stated purpose is to help municipalities by filling an “information gap by conducting a systematic analysis of every municipal fiber project in the United States.” Critically, the report concludes that the projects are money losers. I’m certain the report will provide sound bites for opponents of such projects. Unfortunately, for municipal leaders seeking a map for the path forward, it is both largely irrelevant and misleading. It’s a shame that the authors narrowly focused their gaze on Excel spreadsheets while ignoring how markets and communities are responding to the need for more abundant bandwidth. The report’s core message—which can be summarized as ‘let them eat DSL’—is one that does not deserve serious attention from cities.

The Federal Communications Commission released an Order taking a necessary procedural step so that the Code of Federal Regulations contains an accurate reflection of the FCC’s current privacy rules.

Specifically, the FCC’s pre-2016 Privacy Order rules that applied to wireless and wireline telephone carriers have been reinstated following the recent resolution of disapproval of the FCC’s 2016 privacy regulations under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The resolution of disapproval of the FCC’s privacy regulations, signed by President Trump on April 3, 2017, declared that the 2016 Privacy Order “shall have no force or effect” and “shall be treated as though [it] had never taken effect.” In addition, the June 29, 2017 Order also dismisses as moot 11 petitions for reconsideration of the Commission’s 2016 Privacy Order.

Although there has been great progress extending broadband’s reach to more and more Americans, there remain too many households and communities that are not enjoying the benefits of broadband. Research shows, for example, that families earning under $25,000 a year are about half as likely to have the Internet at home as families that are the most well-off. The Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program brings the many benefits of reliable, robust Internet access to low-income households. That means better access to job listings and workforce training, to education and healthcare, and allows people to fully engage in today’s society. In 2016, the FCC outlined plans for a Lifeline National Eligibility Verifier that would relieve from carriers the responsibility of checking on households’ Lifeline eligibility. We urge the FCC to move swiftly to implement those plans and ensure the program’s financial health.

The Lifeline program gives affordable access to broadband and telephone services in rural and urban areas alike. It provides a lifeline for working families to employment opportunities, elderly people to health care, veterans to critical services, children to education and everyone to 911. Low-income households across the country should not be punished for recently discovered discrepancies that do not reflect the behavior of the vast majority of program participants. The following are statements from advocates in support of the Lifeline program

Ever since Congress repealed the Federal Communication Commission’s broadband privacy rules, consumers have expressed outrage over their lack of privacy protections when accessing broadband networks. In response to the public outcry, members of Congress have introduced legislation to enhance consumers’ online privacy protections.

Thus far, Sens Ed Markey (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Reps Jerry McNerney (D-CA), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have all introduced online privacy legislation. Each bill has strong components that provide various levels of online privacy protections for consumers. However, the three bills all have limitations that must be addressed to provide Americans all the privacy protections they deserve. Fortunately, the bills at least open the door to a discussion on what true comprehensive online privacy legislation should look like and what protections consumers expect when it comes to their online privacy.

Rep Katherine Clark (D-MA) has proposed legislation to specifically outlaw internet harassment-based crimes like swatting and devote $24 million a year to stopping them. The Online Safety Modernization Act of 2017 collects several of Clark’s earlier bills, with sponsorship from Rep Susan Brooks (R-IN) and Patrick Meehan (R-PA).

It imposes penalties on several relatively new forms of abuse that may be only indirectly covered under other laws, while funding research and investigation into internet safety issues. The bill includes six sections, all addressing “cybercrimes against individuals” — as opposed to attacks on businesses or government infrastructure, which are a higher priority in most cybercrime policy. Three of the sections outline punishments for “sextorting” sexual imagery from people through blackmail, falsely reporting an emergency to provoke a swat team response, and “doxxing” people by disclosing personal information to cause harm.

Charter Communications has filed a complaint against Verizon, saying the company violated New York state's public service law and regulations by denying access to utility poles. Charter is required to extend its network in New York state to 145,000 homes and businesses by May 2020 under a condition imposed on its purchase of Time Warner Cable, and it was supposed to complete the first 36,250 locations by May of this year. Charter last week was fined by New York regulators for failing to complete the first wave of construction on time, but it largely blamed its failure on Verizon in a complaint filed on Saturday with the New York Public Service Commission. "In the face of Verizon’s intransigence, Charter has been unable to satisfy the milestones in the Buildout Condition," Charter said. Charter is the second-largest cable company in the US after Comcast.