September 2013

[Commentary] While some have portrayed the likely outcome of the DC Circuit Court’s oral argument on Verizon’s challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet order as a victory for anti-network neutrality forces and a loss for its supporters, the reality is much more complicated. There are some pretty clear takeaways, some good, some bad and some just plain ugly.

• The good: if you are someone who thinks the FCC should be able to protect consumers and promote competition with regard to broadband, there seemed to be little appetite from the judges to question seriously the FCC’s power (or “authority”) to regulate broadband Internet access under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If the oral argument is any indication, then one of our biggest fears will likely not be realized – that the FCC would be rendered completely irrelevant.
• The Bad: It would be bad for both the Internet and its users if the FCC were to win the war over authority but lose the battle over network neutrality. What good is having authority over broadband access if you cannot use it to keep the Internet an open network where the biggest companies and the smallest start-ups have an equal opportunity to succeed?
• The ugly: What is most ugly is that the FCC is responsible for the position in which it now finds itself. Had the FCC bit the bullet and treated broadband Internet access providers as “telecommunications services” subject to common carrier obligations when it adopted the rules in 2010, the common carriage/non-common carriage distinction would be irrelevant.

For years, the build-out process for 700 MHz wireless networks has been slowed because of interoperability concerns. The Federal Communications Commission has made noises about possible regulatory resolutions, but so far those noises have not turned into agency action. So now a couple of the private players have announced their own solution.

FCC Acting Chairwoman Clyburn has loudly proclaimed that that “solution will resolve the lack of interoperability in the lower 700 MHz band in the most efficient manner”. But heads up – as the Chairwoman correctly notes, this is a “voluntary industry solution.” AT&T and DISH both have made certain commitments subject to certain conditions. AT&T’s letter is the more interesting of the two as it contains very positive developments for 700 MHz interoperability if fully realized. DISH offers to implement voluntary power reductions to make the whole deal work. But as a condition to making good on its interoperability “commitments,” AT&T is insisting that the FCC adopt an order by December 31, 2013 requiring that all E block licensees transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater than one megahertz are restricted to an ERP of 1,000 to 2,000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 meters above average terrain. And if the Commission doesn’t adopt such an order by December 31, or if it does adopt such an order but the order is subject to appellate review, then AT&T “reserves the right to declare these commitments null and void”.

As coastal regions prepare for the late summer heart of hurricane season, a vast network of wireless facilities and resources stand ready to deliver strong, fast and reliable coverage in emergencies. Some of the most powerful components in this arsenal are what industry insiders call super-switches. But what makes a super-switch “super”? A super-switch is a mobile telephone switching office (MTSO) that typically handles tens of millions of wireless connections each day – from calls and texts to emails and Internet connections – from an array of customers’ cellphones, tablets, computers and other devices. Connections using technology such as Verizon’s 4G LTE network are consistently fast and reliable thanks to the advanced network on which they connect. A super-switch is designed to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, with low, wide dimensions, hardened shell and double-reinforced exterior walls that are effective against strong winds and blowing debris.

[Chuck Hamby is public relations manager for Verizon Wireless in Florida]

Years ago, back when computer users were dialing up the Internet, civilian government scientists already were expressing concerns about the National Security Agency's role in developing global communication standards, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press. The records mirror new disclosures, based on classified files 24 years later that the NSA sought to deliberately weaken Internet encryption in its effort to gather and analyze digital intelligence. But even if the NSA's campaign to loosen the world's digital locks has a long pedigree, experts say the fact that encryption has moved out of embassy cypher rooms and into the mainstream means there's much more at stake.

Cryptographers say that the weaknesses left by the NSA might one day be used by America's rivals in Moscow or Beijing — or even savvy cybercriminals, if the loopholes aren't being used already. "What one person can discover, another person can discover. In the end, somebody will figure it out," said Ben Laurie, a core developer behind OpenSSL, a protocol that helps protect a big chunk of the world's Internet users from fraudulent websites, credit-card scams and identity theft. "If you deliberately weaken stuff, it will come back to bite you." The tactics exposed in the newly revealed classified documents — deliberately weakening or installing hidden "back doors" in widely-used encryption protocols — have distressed academics and practitioners alike.