September 2013

[Commentary] Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have taken on an important mission. These policymakers are trying to make more public airwaves available for mobile broadband while simultaneously preserving some free, over-the-air broadcast television signals. It’s a big task, made all the more complicated by the number of public interest considerations the FCC has to balance, and by the fact that the agency can’t compel broadcasters to give up their licenses.

All it can do, under the statute that Congress passed, is create incentives for TV stations to surrender those licenses voluntarily. In return for pitching in, TV stations that participate will receive a portion of the money that companies like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile pay in an auction for the right to use that spectrum. There’s the first issue the FCC faces, if this “reverse” auction works and incentivizes TV stations to give up some inventory: Will multiple mobile carriers be able to bid for this spectrum, which is the lifeblood of any wireless service? Or will it be gobbled up by the two dominant players, AT&T and Verizon? The FCC is on course to consider the right questions in this proceeding. It’s far from completing that course, and has any number of decisions to make along the way. The suggestion that competitive considerations are off track is a self-serving statement made by the big carriers in the best position today. Of course they see no need for more competition or faster innovation. But the FCC, the Department of Justice and the rest of us know better.

[Matt Wood is Policy Director at Free Press]

Gov Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed into law a bill changing the way websites deal with Internet users under the age of 18. A second bill still sitting on the Governor's desk, which he is likely to sign soon, would require websites to tell all Internet users if and how they can opt out of online tracking.

The new law introduces an “eraser button” to protect minors surfing online by requiring sites to take down information posted by a minor upon request. It also restricts what kind of products can be advertised to Internet users under the age of 18 on websites and apps directed at minors. Supporters said the new law would allow young Internet users to get rid of embarrassing information on social media websites that could haunt them for years. The initial bills faced heavy criticism from members of the Internet industry. According to technology lawyers who worked on the bills when first introduced, the two pieces of legislation were not technology neutral and would have harmed the online advertising ecosystem. Gov. Brown has until Oct. 13 to act on the Do Not Track bill. If he doesn’t act by then, the bill becomes law automatically.

More than a million students arrived on Chicago-area campuses, giving university technology departments good reason to be on edge. Students are bringing with them more wireless Internet-dependent devices, many with bandwidth-gobbling applications including video streaming and online gaming. The average number of devices per student has doubled in recent years to four, which means university technology managers have to be several steps ahead of wireless demands. Particularly challenging are spots where students tend to gather — libraries, student centers and residence halls. Older buildings don't help, either, as they are less likely to have upgraded technology.

Question: I need a broadband Internet connection — no phone, no TV, just data — for my new home in Naples (FL). What are my options? Answer: Realistically, this reader only has one option. And that's the case for many Americans. Few can choose between two services offering uncapped bandwidth faster than maybe 5 Mbps; almost none can indulge in offerings like the 1-billion-bits-per-second, $70-ish connections available from Google Fiber in Kansas City, Sonic.net in the Bay Area and the municipally owned power utility in Chattanooga (TN).

This lack of competition explains the debate over "net neutrality" regulations that ban Internet providers from blocking or slowing access to some sites — and which Verizon is suing the Federal Communications Commission to have overturned. If you don't appreciate your ISP rearranging the Internet in those ways, firing it and switching to another is not always so easily done … as our reader probably now realizes.