1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2016

May 2016

FCC Seeks Comment on Accessibility of Communications Technologies for 2016 Biennial Report

By this Public Notice and consistent with the requirements of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission hereby seeks comment from the public to inform the preparation of the biennial report required by the CVAA, to be submitted to Congress by October 8, 2016.

Public comment will assist the Commission in assessing the level of compliance with congressional mandates that telecommunications and advanced communications services (ACS) and equipment used with these services be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, the effect of related recordkeeping and enforcement requirements, and the extent to which accessibility barriers still exist with respect to new communications technologies. The Bureau will seek public comment on its tentative findings on these matters before the Commission submits the biennial report to Congress.

Facebook Responds to Senate Commerce Committee

Our Trending Topics feature is a recent innovation designed to connect people to topics that people are talking about on Facebook. This is in addition to (and separate from) an individual’s News Feed, which is the central way that most people discover information and connect with others on Facebook. Suppressing political content or preventing people from seeing what matters most to them is directly contrary to Facebook’s mission and our business objectives. When anonymous allegations of political bias recently surfaced in relation to Facebook’s Trending Topics feature, we immediately launched an investigation to determine if anyone violated the integrity of the feature or acted in ways that are inconsistent with Facebook’s policies and mission.

We spoke with current reviewers and their supervisors, as well as a cross-section of former reviewers; spoke with our contractor; reviewed our guidelines, training, and practices; examined the effectiveness of operational oversight designed to identify and correct mistakes and abuse; and analyzed data on the implementation of our guidelines by reviewers. Our investigation has revealed no evidence of systematic political bias in the selection or prominence of stories included in the Trending Topics feature.

Chairman Thune Statement on Facebook Response to Questions About “Trending Topics” Bias Allegations

Private companies are fully entitled to espouse their own views, so I appreciate Facebook’s efforts to address allegations of bias raised in the media and my concern about a lack of transparency in its methodology for determining trending topics. Facebook has been forthcoming about with how it determines trending topics, and steps it will take to minimize the risk of bias from individual human judgment. The seriousness with which Facebook has treated these allegations and its desire to serve as an open platform for all viewpoints is evident and encouraging and I look forward to the company’s actions meeting its public rhetoric. Facebook’s description of the methodology it uses for determining the trending content it highlights for users is far different from and more detailed than what it offered prior to our questions. We now know the system relied on human judgment, and not just an automated process, more than previously acknowledged. Facebook has recognized the limitations of efforts to keep information systems fully free from potential bias, which lends credibility to its findings. While the committee remains open to new information on this matter, transparency – not regulation – remains the goal, so I thank the company for its efforts to acknowledge relevant facts and its recognition of a continuing need to transparently address relevant user questions.”

Facebook Inc.’s general counsel Colin Stretch wrote that the company’s two-week internal investigation “revealed no evidence of systematic political bias,” and outlined changes to protect the feature from potential misuse as part of a neutral platform going forward. The response, requested by Chairman Thune, did note that company guidance, prior to July 2015, may have in some instances led to the exclusion of popular topics because it “prevented or delayed acceptance of topics that were not covered by major news organizations,” and that the company could not “fully exclude the possibility that, over the years of the feature’s existence, a specific reviewer took isolated actions with an improper motive.”

Facebook’s Trending Topics Are None of the Senate’s Business

[Commentary] Chairman Thune’s letter demanding details about Facebook’s editorial process claims to be based on the Senate Commerce Committee’s “oversight authority.” But oversight of what, exactly? The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” If Congress can make no law abridging these freedoms, how exactly can it claim to have oversight over them? As much as we may care about Facebook’s alleged manipulation of news feeds, we should be concerned about this federal intrusion into an independent organization’s editorial process even more.

Congress doesn’t have to explain itself, but three possible explanations might justify its demands: Facebook doesn’t qualify for First Amendment protection; the inquiry doesn’t involve First Amendment–protected activity; or Facebook’s editorial process is an appropriate subject for Congress to probe. None of these remotely hold water. Facebook would do well to remind Chairman Thune of his own words when he argued against the proposed revival of the Fairness Doctrine nearly a decade ago: “I know the hair stands up on the back of my neck when I hear government officials offering to regulate the news media and talk radio to ensure fairness.” By declining to participate in this improper inquiry, Facebook will be honoring its heritage and protecting its destiny.

[Rubin is a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, fellow at the Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, and special counsel at the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan]

Americans' Data Usage More Than Doubled in 2015

CTIA released its annual survey results, which found Americans used 9.6 trillion megabytes (MB) of data in 2015, three times the 3.2 trillion MB in 2013. This is the equivalent of consumers streaming 59,219 videos every minute or roughly 18 million MB. Smartphones are the number one wireless device in the US and still growing. Some findings:

  • There were more than 228 million smartphones, which was up almost 10 percent from 2014. 70 percent of the population now owns a smartphone.
  • There were more than 41 million tablets on wireless networks, up 16 percent from 2014.
  • Americans talked more than 2.8 trillion minutes on their mobile phones, up more than 17 percent from 2014.
  • Americans exchanged more than 2.1 trillion texts, videos and photo messages, or more than four million every minute.
  • To handle the increase in devices and usage, America's wireless carriers invested almost $32 billion in 2015, including adding almost 10,000 new cell sites. Since 2010, carriers have invested more than $177 billion to improve their coverage and capacity to better serve all Americans.

"Americans today have mobile-first lives. In 2014, we had a record amount of data on our 4G networks. Remarkably, the amount of traffic on mobile networks more than doubled last year and shows no signs of slowing down. I'm proud our industry invested more than $30 billion to keep up with our demand and support millions of jobs. Our record growth also highlights the continued need for a national focus on making more spectrum available to the mobile industry," said Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA.

Mobile Zero Rating: The Economics and Innovation Behind Free Data

Zero-rating programs, which allow consumers to access certain Internet content and services without it counting against their monthly data plans, have proven polarizing, being met with reactions ranging from derision to praise. The crux of the controversy is whether the practice of zero rating violates the spirit of network neutrality principles.

Strictly speaking, zero-rated data is treated differently than other data in a way that influences consumer behavior. But adhering to such a strict interpretation of net neutrality would be misguided. Zero-rating products are unlikely to harm the open Internet; instead they are a sign of healthy product differentiation that more efficiently allocates scarce resources in a competitive market, ultimately improving consumer value. The Federal Communications Commission—along with other regulators around the world—is examining zero rating, and while its case-by-case approach to overseeing these programs is sound, telecom regulators should make it clear that they believe nonexclusive zero-rating programs are in the public interest.

CTIA, AT&T propose different frameworks for 28 GHz sharing

Both CTIA and AT&T are proposing frameworks for sharing spectrum with satellite operators, but they're not the same framework. AT&T's guidelines for the 28 GHz band were developed with EchoStar, Hughes Network Systems and Alta Wireless in a way that they say will allow fixed satellite services (FSS) and Upper Microwave Flexible Use (UMFU) licensees to fairly share the 28 GHz band outside the protected "urban core" areas. CTIA says its framework for sharing in the 28 and 37-40 GHz bands will enable both terrestrial and satellite services to make intensive use of the spectrum bands in a way that fairly balances the rights of all affected stakeholders.

"In both the 28 GHz and 37-40 GHz bands, while there are international allocations for FSS, the [Federal Communications Commission] has consistently given priority to terrestrial uses of these bands," CTIA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Scott Bergmann said. "CTIA believes that this prioritization should continue, especially in the most populated areas of the United States, to ensure that 5G mobile broadband services can be deployed."

INTX 2016: Wheeler Calls 'Regulatory Assault' Charge Lobbying Tactic

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler signaled that he thought cable/broadband operators were in danger of standing in the way of progress in their pushback on proposals like set-top box unlocking and special access reforms and that those who do not want to change, or stand in the way of change, are destined to fail. He signaled those proposals could still be adjusted if the industry was willing to work on getting to yes, but just saying "no" was not the way forward. He said that it was while he was running the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) that he developed the philosophy about government he still holds today, which is that it needs to step in to insure competition, then get out of the way.

NCTA president Michael Powell, himself a former FCC chair, opened the show accusing the FCC, and by association Chairman Wheeler, of a "relentless regulatory assault" on the industry, citing the FCC's proposal to "unlock" set-tops, regulate broadband privacy and potentially regulate cable business broadband rates in markets it deems less than competitive. Chairman Wheeler essentially dismissed Powell's "assault" rhetoric as a lobbying tactic that, as a former lobbyist, he knew well.

© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.