Daily Digest 2/16/2018 (To and Through Anchors)

The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition released a new cost study and broadband strategy focused on rural broadband deployment. The cost study estimates that it will cost less than $20 billion to connect all unserved schools, libraries, health providers, community colleges, and other anchor institutions (outside of Alaska) to fiber. Building off of these findings, SHLB proposes to solve the rural broadband gap by leveraging the high-capacity broadband deployed to anchor institutions and extending service to surrounding business and residential consumers using a blend of wired and wireless technologies. CTC Technology & Energy concluded that the total cost of connecting all unserved anchors in the continental US and Hawaii to fiber would be between $13 billion and $19 billion, if connected in a coordinated and timely manner. The model recognizes that different geographic regions require different infrastructure approaches. The report further concludes that connecting anchors would bring 95% of the U.S. population within the zip code of an anchor institution’s broadband.

Rep. Mike Coffman’s position that using a Congressional Review Act resolution to restore Obama-era network neutrality rules is a “non-starter” because it defers to agency rulemaking is not sitting well with net neutrality advocates. Rep Coffman (R-CO), who opposed the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the rules in December, has said he plans to introduce legislation that would create a new classification for broadband, and prohibit internet service providers from blocking or throttling web traffic, or negotiating paid prioritization deals with websites. But net neutrality supporters see the CRA resolution as vital. "If Rep. Coffman is sincere in defending protections for his constituents and small businesses in his district, he must sign on to support the Congressional Review Act resolution to ensure that protections remain while Congress deliberates on any potential legislation,” Fight for the Future Campaign Director Evan Greer said. A Coffman aide said the legislation is expected to be introduced by the end of this month or the first week of March.

[Commentary]  President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate federal funding for public television rests on the erroneous assumption that public television can rely exclusively on private support. Without the federal investment, this universal service would be impossible.  The federal investment in public broadcasting represents one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget (about $1.35 per American per year). Surveys conducted by Linda Divall and Peter Hart have found that 76 percent of voters want this funding maintained or increased, and 83 percent of voters (including 70 percent who voted for President Trump) would tell their elected representatives to find other places to save money. Federal funding remains the foundation for this remarkable record of public service, and we hope our representatives in Congress will continue to support the work their constituents value so highly. [Patrick Butler is president and CEO of America’s Public Television Stations, and was a founder of the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press, now operating as the Pew Research Center.]

The aftermath of the 2016 election has been dominated by two questions. How did Donald Trump win? And did the Democratic Party tilt too much toward Hillary Clinton, choking Bernie Sanders’s candidacy and condemning America to a Trump presidency? Lurking in these questions is a very modern vision of electoral politics. Today, we see elections, and even party primaries, as open platforms; to imagine anything else is unnatural. But primary elections didn’t exist in American politics until the beginning of the 20th century, and they did not decide presidential nominees until the 1970s. Today, the reigning ideology is that the people are wise, and elites are dangerously self-interested, and so our systems are built, at least superficially, to empower the people and foil the elites. This is the ideology of open platforms, and it is pervasive. It is why Mark Zuckerberg does not want to be seen deciding between true and false news, why the idea that Democratic Party elites favored Hillary Clinton rankles so deeply, why Republican delegates meekly assented to Donald Trump’s nomination. It is why we are so trusting of markets, of consumers, of crowds. If Mark Zuckerberg censors what we see on Facebook, it’s a scandal. If Facebook users make ugly choices in what to like and share, there is no one to blame; in fact, who are you to even call those choices ugly?

Today let’s celebrate the history of Hayleyville (AL)—and the present of 9-1-1 by bestowing honors on some dynamic individuals and organizations: Tamika Greer, Roger Marshall, Cheryl Kagan and the 9-1-1 programs from Monmouth County (NJ); Orange County (FL); and the District of Columbia. They deserve our righteous praise and deepest gratitude.  But I believe we celebrate 9-1-1 best by securing its future. I think that means three things: First, let’s talk about our 9-1-1 operators: In the Standard Occupational Classification, the Office of Management and Budget classifies them as clerical workers. That’s not right. They are first responders—protective service professionals. Second, let’s talk about definitions. We need a collective vision for next generation 9-1-1.  For next generation 9-1-1 to live up to its promise, we need seamless interoperability—and a common definition. Third, let’s talk about funding. We know that we will not realize the potential of next generation 9-1-1 without coming up with new systems to support emergency communications. 

[Commentary] Four years ago, the Obama Administration rolled out the Cybersecurity Framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It has proven to be an essential and indispensable roadmap for companies to review their cybersecurity risk and preparedness. Recently, NIST updated the document to reflect supply chain risk and additional security insights. The anniversary of the NIST Framework should be a time to celebrate the federal government’s preparation for the cyber threats to the critical infrastructure of our communications networks. The Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and intelligence community have all stepped up. Unfortunately, the agency responsible for the commercial networks that connect us, the Federal Communications Commission, is AWOL on cyber. It is a policy gap so great that the National Security Council recently found it important to propose their own solutions for the security of next generation wireless networks. The Trump FCC has taken a laissez faire approach to its cyber responsibility. The Chairman has previously described the FCC’s cyber role as “relatively circumscribed” and spoke in opposition to “uniform rules that would apply to an entire industry.” In testimony before the Senate, Republican Commissioner Michael O’Reilly described the FCC’s cyber authority as “extremely limited.” This is not what the law provides, however.  [Tom Wheeler served as the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013-2017]

New Street Research managing partner Jonathan Chaplin said the cable business is going to look vastly different in the next five years. “Today the wireless and cable industries have completely separate networks. In five years, those networks will be as one. The industries are going to converge as well,” he said. Chaplin calls the coming wireless battle a Clash of the Titans, pitting large cable operators like Comcast and Charter against wireless behemoths like AT&T and Verizon Communications. Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) agreements help make the economics of wireless better for cable operators, Chaplin said. He estimated that with their current MVNOs, Comcast and Charter can offer wireless service at the same cost as the No. 3 operator in the country, T-Mobile. As more and more voice traffic moves over IP and WiFi, those costs drop to the level of the No. 1 and No. 2 providers, Verizon and AT&T. Lower costs mean a greater opportunity to offer disruptive pricing. And the advent of 5G will further lower those costs, as well as reducing dependence on MVNOs. Chaplin estimated the wireless business is about twice the size of the cable business and that in the ensuing battle for customers, cable will win, gaining nearly $30 billion in wireless revenue, mostly at the expense of existing carriers. Those carriers will likely gain about $5 billion in broadband revenue, which will be offset by the wireless declines.

An executive at a top technology trade association will be joining the White House as a tech adviser to President Donald Trump. Abigail Slater, the general counsel for the Internet Association (IA), which represents tech giants like Google and Facebook, will replace Grace Koh as a special assistant to the president with the National Economic Council.  At IA, Slater had been at the forefront of the tech industry’s legal and regulatory battles. Had she stayed on, Slater would have been involved in the sector’s court fight against the administration’s repeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules. In her new role, she’ll advise the president on technology, telecommunications and cybersecurity issues. The White House said Koh would be leaving the job in early March.