Today's Events https://www.benton.org/events
Net Neutrality Hits a Nerve, Eliciting Intense Reactions
It usually doesn’t take much to get people on the internet worked up. To get them really worked up, make the topic internet regulation. In the week since the Federal Communications Commission released a plan to scrap existing rules for internet delivery, more than 200,000 phone calls, organized through online campaigns, have been placed to Congress in protest. An additional 500,000 comments have been left on the agency’s website. On social media sites like Twitter and Reddit, the issue has been a leading topic of discussion. In some cases, views on the sweeping change, which would repeal landmark regulations meant to ensure an open internet, have turned into personal attacks. There are also echoes of the 2016 presidential election, with accusations that not all of the reaction is coming from Americans. The federal agency is for the first time dealing with a powerful technology foe as automated software, known as bots, appears to have sent many comments to the site, according to data researchers. And at least 400,000 comments about the issue since April on the FCC site appear to have originated from an apartment in St. Petersburg, Russia, the agency said. It is unclear whether the emails did originate from there, or were made to look as if they did. But none of that has overshadowed the heated reaction to the agency’s proposal. “There doesn’t seem to be middle ground on this issue,” said John Beahn, a lawyer at Skadden Arps who specializes in regulation.
Myth vs. Fact: Chairman Pai's Restoring Internet Freedom Order
A fact sheet from Chairman Pai.
FCC Chairman Pai Remarks on Restoring Internet Freedom
Much has been said and written over the course of the last week about the plan to restore Internet freedom. But much of the discussion has brought more heat than light. I’d like to cut through the hysteria and hot air and speak with you in plain terms about the plan. First, I’ll explain what it will do. Second, I’ll discuss why I’m advancing it. And third, I’ll respond to the main criticisms that have been leveled against it. This debate needs, our culture needs, a more informed discussion about public policy. We need quality information, not hysteria, because hysteria takes us to unpleasant, if not dangerous places. We can disagree on policy. But we shouldn’t demonize, especially when all of us share the same goal of a free and open Internet.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai blasted everyone from Cher to Twitter for opposing his efforts to repeal net neutrality rules
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai thinks everyone from Cher to Twitter has it wrong when they say that his efforts to roll back the US government’s existing network neutrality rules will spell the death of the web. Instead, Chairman Pai said that tech giants could pose the greatest threat by discriminating against viewpoints on the internet. “They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest,” he said, “but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy.” “Now look: I love Twitter,” Chairman Pai began. “But let’s not kid ourselves; when it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is a part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.” “And unfortunately, Twitter is not an outlier,” Pai continued.
‘Twitter is part of the problem’: FCC chairman lambastes company as net-neutrality debate draws heat
Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, blasted Twitter for what he said was a push to “discriminate” against conservatives. He accused Twitter of hypocrisy for its criticism of the FCC's plan to repeal the Obama-era regulation. “When it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Chairman Pai said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.” Chairman Pai, a Republican, said Twitter's own practices already violate the principles of openness the company espouses, accusing it of using a “double-standard” to police its own content. He cited the company’s recent regulation of “conservative users' accounts,” apparently referring to Twitter's recent decision to suspend and de-verify some prominent white nationalists and far-right users on its service.
Commissioner O'Rielly Remarks at the Future of Internet Freedom Event
After the painful and demoralizing 2015 decision to insert government regulations into the middle of the greatest man-made invention of our time, I was never quite sure that this day would come. The Commission had no enforceable net neutrality rules prior to December 2010. That unregulated regime resulted in the creation of Google in 1998, Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005, and Twitter in 2006. There is also no concrete evidence of network or consumer harm. In 2014, I warned that eventually FCC meddling and persistent mission creep meant “that the wrath of government regulations could be coming for edge providers next.” At the time, I was criticized for sensationalizing the matter. Many policymakers and the edge community had convinced themselves there was some magical red line that would never be crossed. Yet, just this year, we have seen the previously untouchable sector of the Internet economy come under criticism and their business practices subjected to oversight and scrutiny with demands that these companies also must be saddled with net neutrality. Indeed, one Senator just recently called for edge providers to be subject to net neutrality standards, stating that “Facebook, Google and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platform.
Remarks of Commissioner Brendan Carr at "The Future of Internet Freedom" Symposium
Reversing the 2015 [Title II] decision—this massive regulatory overreach—has my full support.
We know from our own experience that the Title I regulatory approach works. And we now know from our own experience that Title II does not. As the proposed order explains, Title II has imposed significant costs. We’ve seen broadband deployment projects that could have brought new services to consumers put on hold. We’ve seen investment in broadband networks decline. And we’ve seen providers delay the introduction of innovative new offerings. Reversing this failed experiment with heavy-handed regulation will put a tried and true framework back in place and will power the deployment, investment, and innovation that will benefit American consumers for decades to come. I look forward to casting my vote on December 14th in favor of Internet freedom.
New Net Neutrality Comments Re-Flood Docket
The Federal Communications Commission's Restoring Internet Freedom order has reinvigorated the FCC network neutrality docket, with tens thousands of new comments warning against the planned Dec. 14 vote on the order posted in the last day alone. The docket already had over 22 million comments, and now is pushing toward 23 million, with over a half million in the last month, many of those since the order was circulated.
Fair but Unequal
[Commentary] What the rollback of net neutrality rules actually mean for the US Internet ecosystem over the next several years? 1. Blatant Discrimination Against Particular Services Is Not That Likely; 2. Blatant Favoritism Of Particular Services Is Quite Likely; and 3. Different Tiers Of Services Based On Ability To Pay Is Overwhelmingly Likely. The result will not be blatant discrimination and censorship of the Internet (which most Americans will not tolerate). Nope. We’re headed instead for blatant inequality of access based on the ability to pay (which most Americans totally accept). [Joel Espelien is a Senior Advisor for TDG and serves as an advisor and Board Member to the video ecosystem and technology companies]
Comcast throttling BitTorrent was no big deal, FCC says
The most obvious reason that network neutrality violations have been rare since Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent is that the Federal Communications Commission has enforced net neutrality rules since 2010 (aside from a year-long interlude without rules caused by a Verizon lawsuit). But to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, this just proves that the rules aren't necessary. "Because of the paucity of concrete evidence of harms to the openness of the Internet, the [2015 net neutrality] Order and its proponents have heavily relied on purely speculative threats," Pai's proposal says. "We do not believe hypothetical harms, unsupported by empirical data, economic theory, or even recent anecdotes, provide a basis for public-utility regulation of ISPs."
Chairman Pai sees expanded role for FTC, Critics say FTC can’t react quickly, has limited role
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to gut Obama-era net neutrality rules calls for handing off the job of policing broadband service to an agency with different powers and a different mandate. Giving the Federal Trade Commission oversight for the web can make sense from Pai’s perspective: It’s a consumer-protection agency that already has taken action against high-speed internet providers. But, there’s a key difference: The FCC sets rules designed to prevent bad behavior, while the FTC acts after wrongdoing has occurred. That distinction has become a flash point in the debate over Pai’s proposal, which would change the way the government regulates the internet with far-reaching implications for a host of industries.
The 5 most ridiculous things the FCC says in its new net neutrality propaganda
A new “fact sheet” sent out by the Federal Communications Commission asks: what if facts are flexible things that we can bend to our preferred reality? It lists a series of “myths” about the commission’s proposal, followed by “facts” that supposedly debunk them — except the facts are often wrong, or directly confirm the myth that they’re trying to debunk. Here are some of the most flagrant examples.
What FCC chair Ajit Pai gets wrong about net neutrality
[Commentary] Ending network neutrality — leaving broadband providers to chase profits without public obligations — would be a disastrous reversal of communications policy that dates to the founding of the country and ensures the equal access to information that democracy needs to function. Especially in this era of steep inequality, corporate control and rising authoritarianism, the open Internet is a foundational necessity to hold the powerful to account.
Study: Cable and broadcast news networks largely ignore planned net neutrality repeal
More than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments were Likely Faked
I used natural language processing techniques to analyze network neutrality comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission from April-October 2017, and the results were disturbing. NY Attorney General Schneiderman estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans’ identities were stolen and used in spam campaigns that support repealing net neutrality. My research found at least 1.3 million fake pro-repeal comments, with suspicions about many more. In fact, the sum of fake pro-repeal comments in the proceeding may number in the millions. In this post, I will point out one particularly egregious spambot submission, make the case that there are likely many more pro-repeal spambots yet to be confirmed, and estimate the public position on net neutrality in the “organic” public submissions. Key findings:
How a bot made 1 million comments against net neutrality look genuine
“Gathering and analyzing comments from the public is an important part of the Federal Communications Commission’s rulemaking process,” the American agency says on its website. But analyzing those comments increasingly means reading the thoughts of spambots. Automated comments are now part of political reality: During 2016’s US presidential race, a large proportion of tweets supporting both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton came from automated accounts. These bots send messages en masse, originating from one source and usually conveying a particular ideology. Some are easy to spot. But others can be well-written and pass under the radar, making top-down campaigns look like they have more supporters on the ground. Some pretty crude comment campaigns responded: One statement, that the Obama administration’s neutrality rules are “smothering innovation,” appears verbatim over 800,000 times in the FCC’s comment database.
There’s a big math problem with the FCC chairman’s main argument for repealing net neutrality
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai says the FCC needs to ditch its network neutrality rules because they’re hindering investment. But there’s no evidence to prove Pai’s argument. In fact, the data that Pai points to doesn’t show anything close to a marked decrease in broadband investment. Instead, it shows that while broadband investment has risen and fallen a little bit over the years, it has been mostly flat since 2013. Pai’s FCC has ignored much of the data that contradicts his rationale behind repealing net neutrality, said Derek Turner, the author of the Free Press report on broadband investment. The FCC “came into this with a preconceived notion, latched on to data that supported that notion, and ignored every single piece of conflicting evidence,” Turner wrote. There are many ways to measure broadband investment. It’s easy to pick numbers that can bolster either side of the argument about net neutrality. But even when you look at the data most favorable to Pai’s position, it doesn’t prove net-neutrality regulations have resulted in significantly lower broadband investment from telecom companies. At worst, investment has been flat since 2013. At best, it’s increased. It’s a leap in logic on Pai’s part to use two years of cherry-picked data to make the case that broadband is getting worse for Americans because of the net-neutrality rules. But it’s that leap in logic that’s likely to result in the repeal of those rules.
Sen Harris Seeks Sign-ups for Pai Net Neutrlaity Proposal Pushback
Sen Kamala Harris (D-CA) is nearing her goal of 175,000 signatures on a petition to try and stop the Federal Communications Commission from rolling back Title II and eliminating most bright-line net neutrality rules."As I said in my letter to the FCC just a few months ago: This proposal is a grave threat to the idea that the internet should be free and accessible for all. It’s a danger to our economy and free speech rights and we must defeat it," she said.
Sen Mark Warner (D-VA) released the following statement on the Federal Communications Commission's plan to repeal net neutrality rules: "The FCC Chairman has decided to move forward to repeal net neutrality rules without any plan in place to uphold longstanding open internet principles supported by both Democratic and Republican Administrations. I am deeply concerned that the FCC’s current plan would amount to a green light for potential anti-competitive practices by certain internet service providers, with the Chairman signaling the Commission’s unwillingness to protect consumers and small businesses from potential abuse."
Comcast denies plans to offer internet 'fast lanes'
Comcast said it has no plans to offer fast lanes on the internet after the Federal Communications Commission eliminates Obama-era regulation, which banned the practice. The nation's biggest cable operator responded to a report from the website Ars Technica, which stated Comcast might be considering offering a service that would charge companies like Netflix and Google to deliver their services more quickly to consumers. In a statement, Comcast denied the claim. "Comcast hasn't entered into any paid prioritization agreements. Period," spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said. "And we have no plans to do so."
This Week in Comcast: With Net Neutrality on the way out, what’s next?
Comcast continues to repeat it’s mantra that it will never block, throttle or discriminate against lawful content. But slight adjustments in its wording over the years indicates the Philadelphia-based company could change its position. Internet service providers have a monopoly or duopoly in many parts of the country, leaving consumers with little-to-no choice if they disagree with ISPs disclosed policies. There’s also a chance some questionable activity won’t be disclosed at all, since they don’t have to report “reasonable network management.” Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T have all classified throttling as such, like Verizon slowing speeds for customers who pay less in order to better control traffic on the network.
Time to release the internet from the free market – and make it a basic right
[Commentary] The Republican majority at the Federal Communications Commission will soon repeal net neutrality. What does this mean in practice? In a sentence: slower and more expensive internet service. To democratize the internet, we need to do more than force private ISPs to abide by certain rules. We need to turn those ISPs into publicly owned utilities. We need to take internet service off the market, and transform it from a consumer good into a social right. Access to the internet is a necessity. It is a basic precondition for full participation in our social, political, and economic life. But so long as the internet’s infrastructure remains private, the corporations that control it will always prioritize piling up profits for investors over serving our needs as users and citizens. Net neutrality addresses one negative consequence of private ownership, but there are many others.
Will Reversal of FCC’s ‘Net Neutrality’ Policy Help or Hurt Schools?
Backers of a new plan to upend “net neutrality” policies tout the proposal as a free market approach to internet oversight—one that will encourage an abundance of web content delivery, innovation, and investment, with no more government regulation than is necessary. But some school officials and education organizations are deeply skeptical that the plan will protect educators’ access to online sources, or nurture innovation by K-12 entrepreneurs. In K-12 circles, two of the biggest worries about Pai’s proposal boil down to the following:
- Without FCC protections, school districts that rely on free, reliable access to online content will see their ability to tap into those resources slowed down, while other content from deep-pocketed sources gets pushed to fast lanes
- Startup education companies bringing new ideas to schools will lose out to better-resourced rival providers of content, diminishing hopes for innovation.
CoSN: Aggressive Net Neutrality Plan Raises Troubling Questions for Schools
CoSN, and the school technology leaders we serve, are concerned about the potential, unexpected consequences of Chairman Ajit Pai’s aggressive net neutrality plan. The FCC should carefully consider the proposal’s implications for teaching and learning before leaping into these murky waters. For example, will school districts be stuck with the bill for higher transport costs levied on digital content providers? Simply relying on carriers to disclose information about pricing and practices would be a flimsy guardrail for powerful Internet service providers (ISPs), especially for smaller, rural and high-cost districts that lack competition and meaningful market power. We are also concerned how the tiered pricing and fast lanes – potentially structured to benefit incumbent companies – would disadvantage new entrants into the education technology market. How will the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission protect startups from ISPs that prefer better-resourced incumbents? Finally, if this policy change aims to stimulate network investment, what guarantee will the FCC provide to ensure ISPs target underserved communities – especially rural, poorly connected school districts? Before rolling net neutrality back, the FCC should take a very cautious look at its impact on schools, students and families nationwide.
FCC’s Plan to Repeal Net Neutrality Will Silence Black Voices
[Commentary] From #BlackGirlsCode and #BlackMenSmile to #BlackLivesMatter and #BlackTwitter, the black internet is part of the 21st-century movement for dignity, rights and freedom—and it’s under attack. Since the Trump administration seems hell-bent on silencing black voices in the United States, it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman and former Verizon executive Ajit Pai circulated a draft order to repeal net neutrality just two days before Thanksgiving. If Ajit Pai has his way and the rules he just proposed pass, we may lose the internet as a resource to build black political power, economic independence and social influence. We can’t let that happen. The open internet uplifts the voices of people of color and racial-justice advocates, activists and dissenters of all stripes, as well as independent content creators, journalists and entrepreneurs. That’s why these constituencies have joined together, alongside millions of individual internet users, to demand that the FCC leave the 2015 rules in place. It’s clear—the right to speak and to be heard, and the ability to seek opportunity, stay connected and protest injustice, are core civil rights. In a digital age, protecting these core civil rights and the black internet means enforcing, not repealing, Title II net neutrality. [Malkia Cyril is the founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice]
FCC Plan to Roll Back Net Neutrality Worries Small Businesses
David Callicott needs to be online to run his small company, GoodLight Natural Candles in San Francisco. A proposal on Tuesday by the Federal Communications Commission would undo so-called net neutrality rules that barred high-speed internet service providers from adjusting website delivery speeds and charging customers extra for access. Without those regulations, GoodLight and other smaller businesses fear they may not have a level digital playing field to compete against deep-pocketed industry giants that could pay to get an edge online.“For such an analog product, we’re heavily reliant on the digital world and the internet for our day-to-day operations,” said Mr. Callicott, who helped found the company nearly eight years ago and now works with three other full-time employees. “The internet, the speed of it, our entire business revolves around that.”
FCC accelerating tech monopolies
Rollback of the FCC’s Lifeline program can hurt households that need broadband the most
On Nov 16, the Federal Communications Commission released a ‘re-think’ of the Lifeline program. The FCC decision focuses squarely on prior criticisms, and plans to scale back the $2.25 billion annual program in three important ways. First, it proposes to only support facilities-based providers, and might prevent resellers (telecommunication providers who provide service, but don’t own and operate their network) from offering subsidized subscription plans. That limit will especially impact those on Tribal Lands, who can no longer get enhanced lifeline support of an extra $25 every month through resellers. Second, the decision may introduce a national spending cap and third, it might disallow national approvals of qualified Lifeline providers.
FCC proposal suggests rural broadband expansion is in the works
The Federal Communication Commission released a proposed update to the Rural Health Care Program last week, in an effort to satisfy the rapidly expanding need for broadband telehealth programs. As part of the draft, the FCC would waive the $400 million annual cap for a one-time basis. The agency is also seeking comment on whether that waiver should be permanent. The FCC would also instruct the Universal Service Administrative Company to carry over any unused program funds for the fiscal year. The cap was exceeded in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. As noted in the proposal, the FCC’s healthcare program has seen significant growth in demand in recent years -- especially in its Telecom Program, which has doubled in size from 2011 to 2016.
AT&T, Time Warner extend deadline to finalize merger
AT&T and Time Warner are extending the termination date of their merger to April 22, 2018 now that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing to block their deal. Despite the DOJ’s move to stop the merger, both companies are hopeful they’ll still be able to complete the $85 billion deal if they beat the agency’s lawsuit. “AT&T intends to vigorously contest the DOJ’s allegations and is confident that the Court will reject the DOJ’s challenge to the merger,” the company wrote in its SEC filing.
AT&T/TW Accuse DOJ of Selective Enforcement
AT&T/DirecTV and Time Warner have told a federal court and, by extension, the Justice Department and Trump Administration, that the feds' case against their proposed merger is "improper selective enforcement of the antitrust laws." That came in its official response to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit following DOJ's suit to block the deal, which was filed in that court. They said the merger is "a procompetitive, pro-consumer response to an intensely competitive and rapidly changing video marketplace," and that the government doesn't have a legitimate case against it. "The fact that Google, one of the most sophisticated and well-funded companies in the world, launched its video platform without any Time Warner channels confirms not only that the television ecosystem is awash in content, but that Time Warner’s networks are not, in any antitrust sense of the word, essential to attracting and retaining subscribers," they told the court.
AT&T, Time Warner Herald ‘Golden Age’ of TV in Defense of Merger
AT&T and Time Warner said an explosion of online programming has spawned a “golden age for television—and for consumers,” in its first court filing countering government claims that their planned merger would stymie competition and hurt customers. AT&T, in a formal written answer to the lawsuit, said the video marketplace is changing quickly and is “intensely competitive,” and that nothing about the Time Warner deal would harm that. AT&T said online rivals like Netflix and Amazon were spending billions of dollars on developing and streaming video content, and that leading tech companies like Apple, Google and Facebook were doing the same. The companies said there was nothing anticompetitive about combining Time Warner’s content—like HBO and the Turner networks—with AT&T’s distribution of video through its satellite, broadband and wireless networks.
AT&T-Funded Advocate: Politicizing the Department of Justice will hurt all U.S. businesses — not just AT&T and Time Warner (Vox)
AT&T pledged that CNN and TBS channels won’t go dark on any pay-TV services if it’s allowed to buy Time Warner (Vox)
With the Koch brothers’ interest in Time Inc come more questions about billionaire-influenced media (Nieman Lab)
Commissioner Carr Remarks at Wireless Workforce Development Workshop
Ensuring that we have the skilled workforce in place to deploy, maintain, and upgrade our nation’s communications infrastructure is one of the keys to ensuring that all Americans have access to advanced broadband networks. Importantly, the shift to 5G will require an enormous investment in both wired and wireless infrastructure. In fact, this transition could result in $275 billion in network investment, three million new jobs, and half a trillion dollars added to the GDP.
How Far Will Sean Hannity Go?
Among Sean Hannity’s critics, his relationship with President Donald Trump is frequently depicted as nakedly and sycophantically transactional — one career entertainer grabbing onto the coattails of another and hanging on for dear life. But people close to the president and Hannity say this caricature vastly oversimplifies the complicated and evolving alliance between the two men and misunderstands the degree to which Trump, as candidate and president, has come to Hannity’s positions, rather than the other way around.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) -- we welcome your comments.
(c)Benton Foundation 2017. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Benton experts make knowledge and analysis accessible to include more people in communications policymaking.
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org