Internet/Broadband

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai issued the following statement on introduction of the Gigabit Opportunity (GO) Act (HR 2870) by Rep Doug Collins (R-GA) originally co-sponsored by Rep Jason Smith (R-MO). The companion bill in the Senate was introduced by Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).

Pai said, “I'm thrilled to see the effort to establish Gigabit Opportunity Zones continue to gain steam in the House of Representatives, thanks to Congressman Collins' leadership in introducing the GO Act. This legislation, which complements legislation introduced last month by Senator Shelley Moore Capito, would create targeted tax incentives and streamline regulations in order to remove some of the barriers that hold back high-speed Internet access in too many communities I'm thankful for Congressman Collins’ leadership on this issue. Having just traveled across five Midwestern and Northern Plains states, I can tell you that much of rural America is on the wrong side of the digital divide. Many urban areas are, too. Encouraging investment in economically disadvantaged communities can close that divide and benefit all Americans."

New to the Federal Communications Commission’s list of items on circulation an un-docketed item on protecting the privacy of customers of broadband and other telecommunications services; implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and telecommunications carriers' use of CPNI and other customer information.

Verizon officially closed its $4.5 billion agreement to purchase Yahoo. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer announced her resignation in a message to employees. “It’s an emotional time for all of us,” Mayer wrote in a blog post. “Given the inherent changes to my role, I’ll be leaving the company. However, I want all of you to know that I’m brimming with nostalgia, gratitude, and optimism.”

“Yahoo’s imprint and impact on the valley will long outlive its own history,” said Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino. “For so many years, (its) creative culture and the individual leaders left an indelible mark on the valley.”

Yahoo’s drawn-out, painful demise seemed as much about the laws of nature as the laws of business, as it struggled in vain to keep its strength while a wily predator gobbled up its sustenance. Once that upstart Google came onto the internet scene with a better algorithm for searching, Yahoo’s kicking and flailing at a digital advertising market that had left it behind provided drama that time after time captivated Silicon Valley. It made for an epic tale that showcased the power of rapidly changing technology to both create and destroy.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently in the midst of efforts to streamline infrastructure siting requirements for telecommunications companies, having recently undertaken a review of how state and local processes affect the speed and cost of deployments. But FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn hinted the FCC’s plan to step in on the state and local levels and apply one cohesive framework for siting could be hampered by its separate attempts to roll back Title II regulation.

Speaking at the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference in Atlanta, Commissioner Clyburn said a reversal of Title II would do more than erase the foundation for net neutrality. It would also undermine the basis for universal service programs and streamlining pole attachment regulations. Without Title II, Commissioner Clyburn noted, broadband providers who do not also provide a cable or legacy voice service will not be able to take advantage of the rights granted to them under section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934. “There is a lot of talk in Washington right now about preempting states and localities in the context of both tower siting and rights-of-way,” Commissioner Clyburn observed. “But they propose to rely on section 253 of the Act to do so. That provision can only be used if the provider is offering a telecommunications service. I am not sure how a 5G deployment with a LTE and VoLTE fallback will qualify as telecommunications service within the meaning of the Act if the majority’s attempt at reclassification goes through.” Commissioner Clyburn indicated she disagreed with the blanket preemption of localities in the management of their rights-of-way, noting that this approach “ignores that some of the most interesting ideas in infrastructure deployment have come out of the states and municipalities.”

Several organizations representing or serving rural telco and electric/utility providers have launched a campaign aimed at facilitating rural broadband deployment partnerships between telecommunications, municipals and electrics/utilities in unserved or underserved communities. The campaign, dubbed Partners in Broadband, comes from NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association and several key rural broadband supplier organizations, including National Information Solutions Cooperative, NRTC and National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance.

[Commentary] Among the range of complex foreign policy issues yet to be addressed by the Trump administration is a serious concern for global internet freedom.

The growing restrictions on internet freedom around the world are easy to document; less so any visible American strategy that would reverse the ominous trends at hand. Let’s review the dimensions of the problem in brief. The latest data from the respected nonprofit organization, Freedom House, provides a contextual understanding, based on tracking global internet freedom in 65 countries, comprising 88 percent of internet users worldwide. According to its most recent annual report in this area, Freedom on the Net 2016, two-thirds of the world’s internet users live under government censorship. Internet freedom around the world declined in 2016 for the sixth consecutive year.

There has been radio silence to date about this issue from the White House and the Department of State. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should provide both symbolism and substance for a new U.S. global internet freedom agenda in a high-profile address that echoes the words of his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, in a January 2010 speech at the Newseum–“This is a very important speech on a very important subject.” This phrase alone would send a strong diplomatic signal to the international community that the United States still considers internet freedom to be a critical area of foreign policy engagement. Equally important, it would mark the start of an updated internet freedom agenda based on success metrics and aimed at reversing the all-too-apparent downward spiral of repression.

These days, it’s uncommon to see a Republican arguing in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s open internet rules, more commonly known as net neutrality, a set of regulations passed during the Obama administration that are now on the chopping block in the new Republican-controlled FCC. Chip Pickering, CEO of the telecommunications trade group Incompas and a former GOP congressman from Mississippi, who still considers himself a fiscal conservative, sees net neutrality as the “last great battle” in competition policy. “I think the open internet has been the most successful expansion of free-market capitalism in world history,” he said. You would be hard pressed to find a sitting Republican who shares his view on the FCC rules. In the past 10 years, his party has become all but united in its opposition to what it sees as Obama-era regulatory overreach. “He’s maintained those principles,” said Gigi Sohn, who was an adviser to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the architect of the current net neutrality rules. “He hasn’t sold out like many of his colleagues.”

Rep Doug Collins (R-GA) has introduced a bill that would provide a tax incentive to companies to build out rural broadband, providing a House version of a Senate bill, with both backing up a proposal long-advocated by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. The Gigabit Opportunity (GO) Act would allow companies to defer capital gains taxes when they converted those gains into "long-time" investments into designated Gigabit Opportunity Zones. That means expensing investments on rural broadband buildouts on the "front end." The goal is to boost competition and speed investment, something Chairman Pai has said is an FCC priority for rural areas. Rep Collins said his bill would "dovetail" with the FCC's proposal to streamline broadband regulations, both wired and wireless. The bill is actually dovetailing with another dovetail, as it is a companion to one introduced in the Senate in May by Sen Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).

A Q&A with Mark Lloyd, professor of communications at USC’s Annenberg School and former associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission from 2009-2012.

In the interview, Lloyd discusses media consolidation, saying, "The big challenge is that we have an FCC that is not really even looking at the impact of media consolidation on what it means to local communities, on what it means to whether or not folks in those local communities actually get the service that they need. So one of the things that I wrote about before, which is sort of obscure and sort of hard to figure out, is that there is this rule that local radio stations actually have to be in the local radio stations that they operate; it’s called the main control room....what’s happening now is not only that these rules are sort of vague and not really particularly well enforced; it’s that we have an administration that has sent signals to the broadcasters, to the telecommunications companies that provide Internet service, that these rules will not be enforced. They’ve been sent a very clear signal: you can do what it is that you want to do if you have a license to operate, if you are a broad band provider, you can do whatever you want, we’re not going to enforce net neutrality, whether it’s determined to be legal or not legal. This FCC is not going to enforce it."

[Commentary] Network neutrality rules are needed to protect individuals against cable companies and other giant internet service providers that want to put their own profits ahead of the public interest in a free and open internet where anybody can communicate and compete on an equal playing field. They want network neutrality protections removed so they can tilt the rules of the game in their own favor, and in favor of other giant internet companies that have the deep pockets to pay them for special treatment online.

Network neutrality protections are good not only for consumers, but they’re also vital to ensure competition and innovation in all the tens of thousands of competitive marketplaces that depend on an even playing field—such as travel services. They are also vital to ensure that everyone can communicate without interference by those who run the communications network.

[Jay Stanley is senior policy analyst for the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.]