December 2014

Obama’s Internet plan plays favorites, and Netflix is one of the darlings

[Commentary] President Barack Obama recently announced his plan to regulate the Internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. This law nurtured America’s telephone monopoly for 50 years.

Under the president’s plan, Internet service would be treated like a public utility, subject to rate regulation and state utilities commission oversight. The plan President Obama proposes to prevent Internet service providers (ISP) from playing favorites with content ironically reveals him to be playing favorites with content providers such as Netflix. Indeed, Obama’s plan includes a goodie that Netflix has been lobbying for: Federal Communications Commission oversight of Internet transit and interconnection, an efficient market that has never been regulated since the advent of the Internet. To create the impression that it is being oppressed by ISPs, Netflix employs a tactic that it might have borrowed from its popular show Orange Is the New Black. In that series’ second season, prison guards were given “shot quotas” -- they had to record five inmate infractions per week. Both guards and inmates know that the writing of shots is not an accurate reflection of inmate behavior, but quotas give the appearance that the prison system is doing its job.

Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband

[Commentary] Self-styled consumer advocates are pressuring federal regulators to “reclassify” access to the Internet as a public utility. If they get their way, US consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for both residential fixed and wireless broadband services. How deep?

We have calculated that the average annual increase in state and local fees levied on US wireline and wireless broadband subscribers will be $67 and $72, respectively. And the annual increase in federal fees per household will be roughly $17. When you add it all up, reclassification could add a whopping $17 billion in new user fees on top of the planned $1.5 billion extra to fund the E-Rate program. The higher fees would come on top of the adverse impact on consumers of less investment and slower innovation that would result from reclassification.

BITAG report on Interconnection and Traffic Exchange on the Internet

The Internet is a complex “network of networks” where individual networks are linked together to form a global network. In order for end users connected to one network to access data and services connected to another network, these networks must “interconnect” with each other, either by directly connecting with each other or by indirectly connecting through intermediate networks. Internet network interconnection, often referred to as “peering” or “transit,” is an increasingly important topic as the Internet ecosystem continues to evolve. The term “interconnection” refers to the various means by which network providers attach to and move traffic between one another, and is a collection of business practices and technical mechanisms that allow individually managed networks to connect together for this purpose. There is no central authority that manages Internet interconnection – the overall system arises because of the many bilateral and multilateral decisions that various actors make to interconnect. Interconnection in the United States has evolved significantly since the early days of the Internet. Peering connections, where two networks interconnect without the use of intermediate networks, are increasingly the primary interconnection paths between networks, supplanting the model of hierarchical interconnection via a small group of long-distance network providers. In most cases, two parties seeking to interconnect are able to come to terms. In some cases after an agreement is reached, however, traffic volumes or other factors may change, which in rare cases have led to “de-peering” events. More commonly, such changes lead to a renegotiation of the manner or type of interconnection agreement between the two parties. Although peering disputes over traffic imbalances, and other reasons, are not new, peering disputes in the U.S. have been increasingly publicized in recent years.

With this report, BITAG’s Technical Working Group (TWG) aims to provide a technical reference on the subject of Internet interconnection, and presents a detailed review on how networks connect, the development and changes in connection models, motivations for connection, how networks manage traffic between each other and some of the challenges that arise as networks evolve.

GOP's tech hurdle: They don't always get it

Republican presidential prospects like Sens Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have tapped the tech industry’s fat wallets and mined its big-data expertise -- but these 2016 hopefuls couldn’t be further from Silicon Valley when it comes to policy. A series of major divides -- from the fate of net neutrality to the future of surveillance reform -- still splits this trio of prominent pols from Internet giants in the country’s tech heartland, which helped catapult President Barack Obama to well-funded victories in 2008 and 2012.

Majority Of 'Fox News Sunday' Guests Discussing Ferguson Are White

White guests greatly outnumbered all other guests on Fox News Sunday's November 30 segments on civil rights protests in Ferguson (MO) and the resignation of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. CBS' Sunday morning political talk show had a small majority of white guests during similar segments, while ABC's and NBC's shows were more ethnically diverse. On Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, an all-white panel discussed the developments in Ferguson and how the United States can best combat racial discrimination. The show also hosted a separate discussion with two lawyers in the case, one of whom is white, and held solo interviews on the topic. In total, Fox News Sunday hosted six white people to discuss Ferguson, and only two people of color, or 25 percent.

Online education run amok?

Massive open online courses, first envisioned as a way to democratize higher education, have made their way into high schools, but Washington is powerless to stop the flood of personal data about teenage students from flowing to private companies, thanks to loopholes in federal privacy laws. Universities and private companies this fall unveiled a slew of free, open-access online courses to high school students, marketing them as a way for kids to supplement their Advanced Placement coursework or earn a certificate of completion for a college-level class. But when middle and high school students participate in classes with names like “Mars: The Next Frontier” or “The Road to Selective College Admissions,” they may be unwittingly transmitting into private hands a torrent of data about their academic strengths and weaknesses, their learning styles and thought processes -- even the way they approach challenges. They may also be handing over birth dates, addresses and even driver’s license information. Their IP addresses, attendance and participation in public forums are all logged as well by the providers of the courses, commonly called MOOCs.

Big Districts Pressure Publishers on Digital-Content Delivery

A handful of large school districts are aggressively pushing big publishers and other providers of digital content to overhaul the way they deliver instructional materials, a movement that experts say could upend long-established purchasing patterns and help educators more easily access materials from multiple vendors.

FCC Takes Steps to Modernize and Improve Efficiency of Filing

In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission takes steps to modernize and improve the efficiency for three common types of proceedings by implementing improved filing procedures.

Specifically, this Order requires electronic filing for: (a) applications for authorization of domestic transfers of control under section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act); (b) applications for authorization to discontinue, reduce, or impair a service under section 214(a) of the Act; and (c) notices of network changes under section 251(c)(5) of the Act. The FCC expects these new filing procedures to be more convenient and efficient for applicants, provide better transparency and information to the public, and save FCC staff resources.

Cable Operators To FCC: DBS Needs Per-Sub Regulatory Fee

The American Cable Association and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association continued their pitch to have the Federal Communications Commission require DBS providers to pay what ACA says is its fair share of regulatory fees.

A quick, jargon-free explainer to the Supreme Court case that will decide the limits of free speech online

[Commentary] Essentially, the Supreme Court is nailing down the exact line that separates a true online threat (which is not protected under the First Amendment) from disturbing, but non-threatening, online expression (which is).

Just as importantly, the Court is deciding who gets to decide when online posts are threatening, to begin with: the person who made the post, or a jury of his peers? In other, broader terms, the Court’s considering what you can or cannot say online, and who gets to do the judging. Needless to say, that matters but to anyone with an Internet connection and a keyboard. Which, I’d imagine, includes you. The fundamental decision at the heart of this case: Does it matter what you mean when you post something online? Or does it only matter how people read it? To the non-law-geeks among us, all this probably seems procedural. But its implications are pretty significant. This is basically a question of holding the bar for online threats up here (*hand at eye-level*) or dropping it considerably lower (*waist-level, let’s say*). Even without the whole “intent” standard, our legal definition for “true threats” is very narrow, and our protections for free speech incredibly strong. But as this case and others like it at lower courts have shown, those definitions and standards have had to evolve with changes to technology and the culture. This may be the first time the Court has ruled on free speech and social media. It will not, in all likelihood, be the last.