November 2011

Who has the right to decide how you're known on the Internet -- you, or the online service you're using? That simmering question, which erupted with the launch of the new Google+ social network this summer, rolled into a boil this week with two high-profile developments.

First, Facebook decided to enforce its "real names only" policy against internationally known author Salman Rushdie, changing his page -- without his consent -- to the name on his passport, Ahmed. Next, the Justice Department told Congress that it needs the ability to prosecute people who provide false information to websites with the intent to harm others, stirring fears across cyberspace that people might be busted for lying about their weight and age on Match DOT com. The two unrelated events brought into full public view the "nymwars," the online debate known by its Twitter hashtag. The debate focuses on the notion that people online should have the freedom to choose how they want to identify themselves. Identity rights experts say the government is asking for too much power. The nymwars debate is even more important, they say, because Facebook, Google and Twitter are trying to become people's identity passports to the Internet, allowing people to use credentials from those services to sign on to hundreds of thousands of other sites and services. Twitter does allow people to use a pseudonym.

Last June, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, issued a challenge to the audience at a cable industry conference in Chicago. “You’ve connected two-thirds of Americans to broadband, and I applaud you for that,” he said, “Now, let’s work together to connect the last third.” Later that night Chairman Genachowski had dinner with cable executives and, according to the FCC, asked them for help. They obliged.

On Nov. 9, the FCC announced “Connect to Compete,” a program designed to bring lower-income Americans online. In 2010, 31 percent of Americans lived in areas where broadband was available but chose not to pay for it. Of these, slightly more than a third cited cost of service and devices as the main reason. Now households with at least one child in the federal free school lunch program can buy broadband Internet access for $10 a month and relatively new, fast, refurbished computers for $150. (To qualify for free lunches, a family of four must have income below $29,055.) The commission estimates the program could reach between 15 million and 25 million Americans—and won’t cost taxpayers anything.

“We talked to every service provider under the sun,” says Josh Gottheimer, Genachowski’s senior counselor. “The cable industry decided to step up.” Given the reflexive intransigence the FCC often encounters with the companies it regulates, this was no mean feat. Fourteen cable providers, including Comcast, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable, will provide Internet access at well below market rates. There is a catch: That access is also well below market speeds. Typical introductory packages begin at 15 megabytes per second. The FCC has been reluctant to pin itself down to a definition of “broadband,” but in documents generally puts it at 4 mbps. For the discounted $10 rate, the cable companies offer 1 mbps, too slow for reliable video streaming or Internet telephone service, both of which compete with other cable industry products. “It’s not good for downloading movies, I give you that,” says Gottheimer, “but that’s not the ultimate goal of this program.” The FCC says it hopes people will use the Internet access to apply for jobs, do schoolwork, and use government Web sites. The speed is “not ideal,” he says but the program is “certainly a very important step and it’s going to help a lot of people.” The contracts will also waive installation, activation, and modem rental fees, which have been a significant barrier to entry for lower-income groups. The cable companies have committed to the offer through 2014.

The Department of Homeland Security had a message for House lawmakers: Give airwaves to public safety.

A DHS official testifying at a House hearing lobbied for the administration's stance on a public safety network for emergency responders, which has yet to win congressional approval. "The administration is fully committed to working with Congress to ensure the passage of legislation that meets the critical national need of establishing a public safety broadband network," Chris Essid, director of the emergency communications office at DHS, told a House Homeland Security subpanel. The push from DHS comes as spectrum legislation remains held up over this dispute. Legislation could still potentially move through the commerce committees or through the super committee if lawmakers manage to break through the D Block divide. That could be tough. Congressional Research Service telecom specialist Linda Moore, testifying at the hearing, pointed out the network dispute is rooted in disagreements on the role of government. "Bills that have been introduced in the 112th Congress show a great deal of cohesion about the need for a nationwide network and what type of support it should provide to public safety agencies, but little agreement about the roles that different federal agencies would play in the deployment and operation of the network," she said in written remarks.

The self-regulatory group Network Advertising Initiative has tapped Federal Trade Commission official Marc Groman to serve as executive director.

Groman replaces Charles Curran, who has held the position since April of 2009. Groman will start with the NAI in mid-December and will be based in Washington. Since launching 10 years ago, the NAI has operated a site for consumers who want to opt out of behavioral targeting by NAI members. But in the last year, the Digital Advertising Alliance -- a larger self-regulatory group that includes the major ad trade associations as well as the NAI -- started operating an opt-out page. The DAA has also drafted new self-regulatory principles and launched an enforcement program that has drawn praise from the FTC. Rob Gratchner, chairman of the NAI's Board, says Groman will help the organization develop a strategy for moving forward. Among other potential changes, Gratchner says the NAI under Groman's leadership could extend itself to privacy advocates to a greater extent than in the past.