November 2015

Institute for Public Representation's Communications & Technology Clinic, Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology and the Benton Foundation
Thursday, November 19, 2015
8:30 AM to 10:45 AM (EST)
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/consumer-privacy-in-the-digital-age-are-two...

Keynote Speaker: FTC Commissioner Julie Brill

Moderator: Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Benton Senior Counselor

Panelists:

  • Lisa Hone, Associate Bureau Chief, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau
  • Joan Marsh, VP - Federal Regulatory, AT&T
  • Laura Moy, Senior Policy Counsel, New America's Open Technology Institute


How Google’s AMP project speeds up the Web -- by sandblasting HTML

There's a story going around today that the Web is too slow, especially over mobile networks. It's a pretty good story -- and it's a perpetual story. The Web, while certainly improved from the days of 14.4k modems, has never been as fast as we want it to be, which is to say that the Web has never been instantaneous. Curiously, rather than a focus on possible cures, like increasing network speeds, finding ways to decrease network latency, or even speeding up Web browsers, the latest version of the "Web is too slow" story pins the blame on the Web itself. And, perhaps more pointedly, this blame falls directly on the people who make it.

Native mobile applications, on the other hand, are getting faster. Mobile devices get more powerful with every release cycle, and native apps take better advantage of that power. So as the story goes, apps get faster, the Web gets slower. This is allegedly why Facebook must invent Facebook Instant Articles, why Apple News must be built, and why Google must now create Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP). Google is late to the game, but AMP has the same goal as Facebook's and Apple's efforts -- making the Web feel like a native application on mobile devices. (It's worth noting that all three solutions focus exclusively on mobile content.)

Use Technology to Disrupt Poverty

[Commentary] “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” That catchphrase came to mind recently when the United Nations announced ­­that world leaders have committed to 17 global goals to achieve three important objectives: ending extreme poverty, fighting inequality and injustice and fixing climate change. Since the announcement of the Global Goals for Sustainable Development, leaders from the public and private sectors (including government officials, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, academicians and business CEOs) have set out an ambitious course of action to solve the world’s toughest problems, ranging from health care to hunger to clean water. Regrettably, Silicon Valley and America’s leading technology companies are not yet full participants in this effort.

So much more can be accomplished once American technology companies truly engage. Yes, a few tech companies such as Facebook and Google, are active and engaged, but far too few. Technology will not provide silver bullets for the world’s problems. But technology can shorten timelines, reduce costs and improve outcomes for almost all of the Global Goals.

[Larry Irving is a co-founder of the Mobile Alliance for Global Good, a non-profit focused on the use of mobile technologies for societal gain. He served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton-Gore Administration and was a principal architect of its Internet and technology policies]

Public Knowledge Urges Congress to Continue Critical Spectrum Reforms

Public Knowledge sent a letter to the leadership of the Senate and House Commerce Committees, urging them to continue work on opening more spectrum for commercial use. In particular, Public Knowledge urges Congress to address the critical need to expand “unlicensed” spectrum for faster, more powerful next generation Wi-Fi and to accommodate the growing “Internet of Things” (IoT) -- devices such as Fitbit and Nest that use unlicensed spectrum to connect to other devices and the Internet. The letter notes that unlicensed spectrum already contributes $220 billion a year to the economy, and “according to Cisco, by 2020, the IoT will connect 50 billion devices, with an economic impact estimated at $19 trillion.” The letter proposes two ways to make more unlicensed spectrum available, while leaving abundant spectrum for the federal government to use or auction to wireless companies.

  1. Create new underlays. Open up all spectrum currently assigned to the federal government to unlicensed use on a non-interfering basis, a traditional mode of unlicensed access called an “underlay.” This would free up enormous amounts of spectrum for the American people at no cost to the federal government.
  2. The Wi-Fi dividend. Take a portion of the revenue from future spectrum license auctions and use that to clear additional federal spectrum for unlicensed use. This would ensure that when we privatize the “public airwaves,” we also create a “spectrum commons” for innovation and affordable wireless access.

The War on Infrastructure Investment?

[Commentary] This has been an interesting couple of weeks in the area of private fiber infrastructure investment policies in the United States. It started with news that the Federal Communications Commission is sending out “SWAT” teams of FCC employees to preach the use of Universal Service Fund (USF) and E-Rate dollars to build government-owned and operated broadband infrastructure in rural and non-rural areas.

Everyone seems to agree that our country needs more broadband infrastructure investment. It’s high time the FCC got serious about policies that incent that kind of investment. Instead, sadly, they seem more intent on rewarding those who don’t invest and penalizing those who do. This may be a dandy way to enhance the power of an agency, but it’s ill-advised when one considers the best interests of consumers and our nation’s economic wellbeing.

World's biggest tech companies get failing grade on data-privacy rights

The world’s top tech companies are failing when it comes to privacy and freedom of expression, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of their user agreement policies. Tech firms including US giants Facebook, Google and Microsoft, Europe’s top mobile companies Vodafone and Orange, China’s Tencent, and South Korea’s Daum Kakao (which makes the 140 million-user-strong KakaoTalk) were among the public companies surveyed in an ongoing project called Ranking Digital Rights. All of the firms failed to offer their users basic disclosures about privacy and censorship, according to the survey, which was conducted by the New America Foundation thinktank. One didn’t even provide user agreements in the proper language. “There are no ‘winners’,” said the group in its executive summary. “Even companies in the lead are falling short.”

T-Mobile wants to turn your house into a cell tower. Here’s why you should think twice.

[Commentary] T-Mobile has begun giving out miniature cell towers to customers in an attempt to create little hotspots of LTE where the carrier's network is weak or nonexistent. So should you get one? In some individual circumstances, maybe, but for the vast majority of consumers, you might be better off using plain, old, boring Wi-Fi. Here's why.

T-Mobile's CellSpot doesn't provide an Internet connection all by itself. It has to be plugged into an existing wired broadband connection, the kind of service you might buy from Comcast or Verizon. That requirement ultimately makes the CellSpot impractical for many consumers. Think about your current home Internet provider. Chances are, the company included a Wi-Fi router with your installation, and if it didn't, you likely went out and bought your own. Not only does the CellSpot effectively duplicate an Internet access technology already present in many people's homes -- it comes with other drawbacks. The CellSpot's data speeds are only as fast as your fixed broadband connection, so it's not as though you can plug the device into a 10 Mbps service and suddenly be surfing at 60 Mbps. What's more, using the CellSpot drains your T-Mobile data plan, whereas surfing on Wi-Fi is completely free (except in places where wired Internet providers have implemented data caps themselves).