June 2016

Network Neutrality: Now What?

[Commentary] The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules. So what does that mean, and what will happen now? There is no shortage of analyses of what the two-judge majority and the partial dissenter said, so there is little value in discussing that in detail yet again. However, much less has been written about what will happen now and some of that has not been very thoughtful. This was a sweeping vindication of the FCC and, unless modified on appeal, the decision gives the FCC a great deal of latitude to regulate broadband Internet service.

White House warns Congress not to kill net neutrality and cable box rules

The White House has urged Republican lawmakers to give up efforts to strip the Federal Communications Commission of regulatory powers and tens of millions of dollars in budget funding. President Obama's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the House of Representatives' budget bill for fiscal 2017 because of these and other provisions.

The Republican budget proposal "includes highly problematic ideological provisions," like ones that "prevent the Federal Communications Commission from promoting a free and open Internet and encouraging competition in the set-top box market, impacting millions of broadband and cable customers," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy. The budget plan includes sections delaying or preventing implementation of the FCC's net neutrality rules, which were just upheld by an appeals court despite a lawsuit filed by broadband providers. With the case possibly heading to the Supreme Court, a budget rider would prevent enforcement of net neutrality rules until broadband providers have exhausted all appeals. The budget plan would also prevent the FCC from stopping unjust and unreasonable pricing and data cap practices, regardless of the lawsuit's outcome.

Hearing Recap: Customer Service and Billing Practices in the Cable and Satellite Television Industry

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held the hearing "Customer Service and Billing Practices in the Cable and Satellite Television Industry" to review billing and customer service practices in the cable and satellite television industry. The hearing reviewed the Joint Staff report, "Some Cable and Satellite Companies Do Not Refund Customer Overcharges" and the Minority Staff Report "Inside the Box: Customer Service and Billing Practices in the Cable and Satellite Industry". Witnesses included Tom Karinshak, Senior Vice President, Customer Service at Comcast; John Keib, Former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Residential Services at Time Warner Cable; Kathleen "Kip" Mayo Executive Vice President, Customer Operations at Charter; Rasesh Patel, Senior Vice President, Product Management at AT&T Entertainment Group (DirecTV); and Kathleen Schneider, Senior Vice President, Operations at Dish Network.

Ranking Member Claire McCaskill (D-MO) slammed cable operators for customer service at the opening of the hearing. Ranking Member McCaskill's report outlined the issues addressed and problems discovered related to a year-long investigation and based on information supplied by pay-TV companies. "All of the companies in this investigation have increased their prices since 2011, with the cost of some packages increasing by as much as 33%," said the report, "while all of the providers notified customers of upcoming price increases, this notification was not always effective."

Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations Joint Staff Report: Some Cable and Satellite Companies Do Not Refund Customer Overcharges

As part of its investigation of cable and satellite television companies, the Subcommittee reviewed how five companies—Charter Communications, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV, and Dish (also known as “multichannel video programming distributors” or “MVPDs”)—identify and correct overcharges caused by company billing errors. The Subcommittee reviewed how the MVPDs investigate and remedy these billing errors, with particular focus on their efforts to make overcharged customers whole. We found that the MVPDs vary greatly with respect to how they handle billing overcharges.

First, throughout the time period examined by the Subcommittee, Time Warner Cable and Charter made no effort to trace equipment overcharges to their origin unless customers specifically asked them to and did not provide notice or refunds to customers.
Second, other MVPDs have invested effort and resources to prevent overcharges and provide refunds or credits to customers who have overpaid. Comcast and DirecTV provide automatic refunds or credits to overcharged customers, while Dish’s billing system is designed to prevent these types of overcharges from occurring in the first place.
Third, based on data provided by Time Warner Cable and Charter, the Subcommittee estimated how much Time Warner Cable and Charter have overbilled customers nationwide.

Inside the Box: Customer Service and Billing Practices in the Cable and Satellite Industry

This report focuses on customer service and billing practices at three of the largest cable and the only two satellite television providers in operation when the Subcommittee’s investigation began in 2015: Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Charter, DirecTV, and Dish.

At the end of 2015, these companies collectively had more than 71 million subscribers. This represented about 72% of all American households that paid to receive television programming and more than 53% of all American households. Many cable and satellite customers have been frustrated by the cost and complexity of their bills. This report reviews four of the most frequent areas of complaint related to billing for new and current subscribers: (1) the initial pricing, (2) expiring promotions, (3) additional fees and changes, and (4) price increases. This report also reviews the adequacy of the cable and satellite providers’ efforts to explain their billing practices to customers.

Politicians have a powerful new tool in Periscope, and democracy is better off for it

In March of 2015, shortly after live-streaming via smartphones became a genuine phenomenon, Dan Pfeiffer declared that 2016 would be "the Meerkat election." "Whether it is Meerkat, Periscope or someone else," wrote Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Obama, "the potential for a service that makes live-streaming this easy is limitless. It could do to television what blogs did to newspapers by removing many of the financial and structural advantages of legacy media institutions." Pfeiffer was mocked at the time — "as exciting as these new live-streaming social media apps are, they are certainly not 'taking over' Washington," wrote Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of research at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Meerkat indeed faded away shortly thereafter.

But live-streaming has surged in popularity in 2016,with Facebook joining Twitter's Periscope app in a new war for Twitter's attention. That battle played out on the floor of Congress, as Democrats staged a wild sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives demanding gun-control legislation. When House Republicans adjourned the session, forcing C-SPAN to turn off their cameras, Democrats simply began broadcasting their protest on Periscope. The illicit streams captivated the nation, as a promising but still unproven technology found itself at the center of the national discussion. Whether 2016 will truly be the live-streaming election is still anyone's guess — but it's inarguable that, at the time of this writing, these apps have taken over Washington. Politicians have now seen the value in live-streaming, and they won't soon forget it.

With Wireless ISP Acquisition, Google Fiber Wireless Intentions Becoming More Clear

There has been growing speculation regarding intentions for a Google Fiber wireless service to deliver gigabit via fixed wireless in recent weeks. The acquisition of wireless Internet service provider Webpass by Google Fiber offers some clarity to that speculation.

Google Fiber is getting into the fixed wireless business, perhaps in a big way. Webpass is a San Francisco (CA) based wireless ISP with operations in several markets, including San Francisco, Oakland (CA), Emeryville (CA), Berkeley (CA), San Diego (CA), Miami (FL), Miami Beach (FL), Coral Gables (FL), Chicago (IL), and Boston (MA). With this acquisition, Google Fiber just expanded their ISP business into additional major markets, including Boston, Miami, and Chicago. Google Fiber has been searching for a way to deploy ISP services in a quicker, more economical way than overbuilding cities with fiber – a very expensive and time consuming approach. They’ve been testing fixed wireless in the 3.5 GHz wireless spectrum band in Kansas City for some time. Apparently, they like what they see. By acquiring an established wireless ISP, Google Fiber wireless service is now accelerating. Webpass claims residential services of up to a gigabit already, although their focus appears to be more on business customers and multidwelling units.

Can cops use phone left at scene of crime to call 911 to find its owner?

On June 23, a federal judge in Sacramento (CA) will evaluate a novel legal theory recently raised by the defense lawyer representing an admitted California burglar and suspected kidnapper. The lawyer, Thomas Johnson, claims that cops shouldn’t have been able to pick up his client's Samsung Galaxy left at the scene of a burglary—which they used to call 911, determine the carrier, and eventually track down the suspect. After a quick investigation of the March 2015 burglary in Dublin, California, about 35 miles east of San Francisco, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies zeroed in on a man named Matthew Muller. Over a few days, various law enforcement agencies executed a warrant at the South Lake Tahoe house where suspect Muller was believed to be staying. There, Muller was quickly arrested, and officials also found materials that matched a separate kidnapping case in Vallejo (CA) that had been reported earlier in the year.

Sheryl Sandberg, Eric Schmidt and a bunch of other tech heavyweights are endorsing Hillary Clinton

Silicon Valley does not like Donald Trump. That, more than anything, is probably why many tech industry heavyweights are today endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. Sheryl Sandberg, Eric Schmidt, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky and 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki all attached their names to an endorsement letter being circulated by Clinton’s campaign. Some of the people named (Sandberg, Schmidt) have long been involved in Democratic politics. Others (Hastings) aren’t quite cookie-cutter Democrats. But, as Hastings puts it in a quote provided by the campaign, all of them pretty much believe that “Trump would destroy much of what is great about America.”