January 2015

Leading Senate Democrats Join Together To Support Consumers, Open Internet For All

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ron Wyden (R-OR), Al Franken (D-MN), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) issued a joint comment in response to proposed legislation released by Republican members of Congress.

“Senator Thune and the Republicans are right to acknowledge what nearly 4 million Americans have said in their comments to the [Federal Communications Commission] in support of net neutrality rules -- that open Internet rules are critical to free speech and innovation. We appreciate that the Republican bill also recognizes that net neutrality principles should apply regardless of the technology used to connect to the Internet.

"We stand ready and willing to work with our Republican colleagues, but unfortunately, the bill as currently drafted would dramatically undermine the FCC’s vital role in protecting consumers and small businesses online by limiting its enforcement and rulemaking authorities in this critically important area. Further, the Republican bill would severely curtail the FCC’s ability to promote the deployment of broadband service. The FCC has the necessary authority to enact the open Internet rules that millions of Americans have called for and that Republicans finally support. The Commission should act without delay.”

Sen Markey: Net Neutrality Bill Is Wolf In Sheep's Clothing

Sen Ed Markey (D-MA) provided early warning of the difficulty Republicans will have in getting Democrats to sign on to their proposed network neutrality bill.

Beyond not reclassifying Internet access under Title II, Sen Markey said the proposed bill would be a "giveaway" to big broadband companies that would hurt consumers and not do much to protect an open Internet besides. “Democrats and Republicans both agree on the need for net neutrality protections, but this Republican proposal should be called the Big Broadband Baron Act. It is a legislative wolf in sheep’s clothing, offering select few safeguards while undermining basic consumer, privacy and accessibility protections. It would harm low-income, disabled, senior and rural consumers, and undermine competition in the telecommunications marketplace." He added, “Rather than pursuing this damaging legislative proposal, the FCC should use the clear authority granted them by Congress to vote on strong net neutrality rules in February and reclassify broadband under Title II. The future of the Internet as we know it depends on it.”

Public Knowledge Expresses Strong Concerns About Sen. Thune’s Net Neutrality Discussion Draft

After Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) circulated a draft bill that would limit the Federal Communications Commission’s authority over net neutrality, Harold Feld, Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge said, “We appreciate the effort by Senator Thune and his colleagues to engage on these issues by releasing this discussion draft. While this represents a good faith step forward, it also takes several very real steps back from the Commission’s 2010 rules – and certainly does not provide the kind of robust protection consumers need for what the President has rightly called ‘the critical service of the 21st century.’”

More specifically, the discussion draft’s shortcomings include:

Allows discrimination in violation of the principles of the Open Internet.
Does not effectively block ‘fast lanes.’
Consumers lose protections while special interests gain new ones.
This draft would prevent the FCC from providing more clarity about what behavior runs afoul of the stated Internet openness principles.
This draft would undo nearly five years of work on universal service reform based on Section 706 authority, seriously disrupting efforts to provide broadband to rural areas.
It would eliminate the FCC’s authority to preempt limits on community broadband.
It could have serious unintended impacts on voice-over-IP services, placing the stability of the 9-1-1 system at risk and interfering with the FCC’s efforts to resolve rural call completion.
It could also limit the FCC’s authority to promote access by the disabled to communications services, protect consumer privacy, promote broadband deployment by ensuring that new competitors have access to utility poles and rights of way.

Title II Foes To FCC: Give Congress a Chance

Opponents of Title II regulations were applauding the draft network neutrality legislation circulating on at the US Capitol, with some suggesting the Federal Communications Commission should stand down and let Congress provide clear marching orders on protecting an Open Internet.

Sprint Says President Obama Net Neutrality Plan Wouldn't Curb Investments

Sprint will keep investing in its networks even if the Federal Communications Commission adopts stricter network neutrality rules as long as they are applied with a "light touch."

Sprint's position appears to contrast with other cable and phone companies who have staunchly rejected the possibility that the FCC regulate Internet service providers more strictly under Title II, which would treat them more like public utilities. Sprint wrote, "So long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products, Sprint will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime.” In this surprise move, it appears Sprint now endorses net neutrality.

Public Knowledge Applauds Sprint for Supporting Net Neutrality, Rebutting Title II Scare Tactics

Sprint has shown enormous courage by daring to say openly in Washington what every other major carrier has admitted on Wall Street.

Simply put, Title II promotes competition, does not stifle innovation, and won't discourage investment. We hope other carriers will finally stop carrying on this charade. Anyone can claim to be an ‘uncarrier’ or an ‘innovator.’ But by siding with the Open Internet and Title II, Sprint has actually walked the walk, not just talked the talk.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on Netflix's Conduct with Respect to Open Video Standards

I asked Netflix to respond to the allegation that it had rolled out its new encryption protocols by first targeting those Internet service providers that had installed open caching appliances. The company assured me that this was not true and agreed to submit information after our meeting that would disprove this charge. One month later, that commitment remains unfulfilled. When my office reached out to Netflix for the information (in particular, which ISPs were targeted on which dates), the company refused to turn it over. I am disappointed and perplexed by this decision. If Netflix did not target those ISPs using open caching, why would it withhold information that would disprove this allegation? I hope that the company will reconsider its position and supply the facts that would resolve this matter once and for all.

To be clear, I do not favor additional FCC regulation in this area. However, if a company asks the FCC to impose public utility-style regulation on every broadband provider in the country in the name of preserving the open Internet but then selectively targets open video standards to secure a competitive advantage over its rivals, it should be called to account.

Fact Sheet: US-United Kingdom Cybersecurity Cooperation

During their bilateral meetings in Washington, DC, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to further strengthen and deepen the already extensive cybersecurity cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Both leaders agreed to bolster efforts to enhance the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure in both countries, strengthen threat information sharing and intelligence cooperation on cyber issues, and support new educational exchanges between US and British cybersecurity scholars and researchers. Both governments have agreed to bolster our efforts to increase threat information sharing and conduct joint cybersecurity and network defense exercises to enhance our combined ability to respond to malicious cyber activity. The UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and Security Service (MI5) are working with their US partners -- the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- to further strengthen US-UK collaboration on cybersecurity by establishing a joint cyber cell, with an operating presence in each country. The cell, which will allow staff from each agency to be co-located, will focus on specific cyber defense topics and enable cyber threat information and data to be shared at pace and at greater scale.

Additionally, the governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to provide funding to support a new Fulbright Cyber Security Award.

Facebook Offers Artificial Intelligence Tech to Open Source Group

Facebook said that it was donating for public use several powerful tools for computers, including the means to go through huge amounts of data, looking for common elements of information. The products, used in a so-called neural network of machines, can speed pattern recognition by up to 23.5 times, Facebook said. The tools will be donated to Torch, an open source software project that is focused on a kind of data analysis known as deep learning.

The myth of Amazon's e-book monopoly, in two screenshots

[Commentary] Amazon actually has a huge problem in the e-book market -- people find books through platforms that Apple and Google control.

I assume that's why Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was so eager to the develop a Fire Phone product. Amazon's original e-book dominance was built on a hardware device, the Kindle, that Amazon controls. But as mobile phones have gotten bigger and tablets have gotten cheaper, Android and iOS products are increasingly viable as reading devices. Kindle books work great on those platforms -- I love the Kindle app on my iPad -- but Amazon has no control over the platform and is at constant risk of getting squeezed out.

Benton

Search